Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know about that. $44 billion is a lot of money even for somebody like Musk. That's about one-fourth of his net-worth. I think he cares.
Remember he already had cold feet on this deal and tried to backout even before all of this **** hit the fan.
Musk wanted out after he found out Twitter was 50% bots, which would cut advertising revenue in half when he revealed that. They were not transparent with him regarding how prolific bots were on Twitter. His original offer was assuming 5% or 10% bots.
That would be Linkedin not Twitter for professional job contacts.
Not necessarily. LinkedIn is kind of a joke, and a lot of people use twitter for professional purposes. Academia, for instance. Twitter is how people share information, find collaborators, promote their research, etc. It'll be interesting to see if that continues under the new regime.
Right, because you're better qualified than Musk to evaluate his business decisions.
I'm going by what I've read and seen. It's pretty universally agreed in business circles that he grossly overpaid, that's why he tried to wiggle out of the deal. And it's pretty universally agreed that he is going to lose advertisers, he already has lost some, due to the unfiltered content. That's why he trying to charge for the checkmark.
Who said anything about the government? I’m just saying Musk understands free speech and the old Twitter owners had no regard for it.
Free speech ONLY has to do with the government. It says that the government shall pass no laws restricting free speech, i.e. no matter what you say (with a few exceptions) you won't be arrested and jailed for it. That is what free speech is per the Constitution. It does not cover speech in private entities/businesses, they can restrict as much as they want, and it's not a violation of free speech. There is also nothing that says you won't have to pay social or financial consequences for your speech.
If you haven't been arrested and jailed for your speech, then your right to free speech was not violated, even if Twitter removed your post.
They really need to bring Civics classes back to high school.
Free speech ONLY has to do with the government. It says that the government shall pass no laws restricting free speech, i.e. no matter what you say (with a few exceptions) you won't be arrested and jailed for it. That is what free speech is per the Constitution. It does not cover speech in private entities/businesses, they can restrict as much as they want, and it's not a violation of free speech. There is also nothing that says you won't have to pay social or financial consequences for your speech.
If you haven't been arrested and jailed for your speech, then your right to free speech was not violated, even if Twitter removed your post.
They really need to bring Civics classes back to high school.
Suppression is just as bad with different rules for different sets of people.
Social media has become a communication medium.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
