29
   

Rising fascism in the US

 
 
blatham
 
  2  
Sat 17 Dec, 2022 01:45 am
Quote:
Elon Musk's Chosen Journalist For 'Twitter Files' Scolds Him For Free Speech Assault

Bari Weiss has doubts that any “unelected individual or clique should have this kind of power over the public conversation," she tweeted.
HERE
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Sat 17 Dec, 2022 03:13 am
@Lash,
Twitter has restored the accounts of prominent reporters from "New York Times" and "Washington Post". At the same time, another action shows that Musk is apparently hardly willing to reach out to his critics.

When confronted with the accusations of one of the reporters, Musk did not offer any conclusive explanation, but merely referred to a new rule that forbids the publication of private, non-public information. However, the reporters had only reported on the case of the account ElonJet, which remains blocked and already shares public information about the location of Elon Musk's private jet. In part, the reporters had linked to the account.

On Friday, Twitter again allowed several previously blocked right-wing conspiracy theorists back onto its platform.
Among them was the far-reaching Trump supporter James O'Keefe, who immediately reignited the false theory that the 2020 US election was rigged by voting machines. A well-known QAnon supporter posted a selfie with a gun on the occasion of her return.

At the same time, business journalist Linette Lopez, who has been doing investigative reporting on Tesla for several years, was blocked on Twitter on Friday. She had reported, for example, that a problem with the tyre suspension, which had been known for years, had led to accidents involving Tesla models.

As mentioned above, this is a private site where Musk can do whatever he wants. He can also block critics, of course.
Lash
 
  -1  
Sat 17 Dec, 2022 08:31 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Quote:
Elon Musk's Chosen Journalist For 'Twitter Files' Scolds Him For Free Speech Assault

Bari Weiss has doubts that any “unelected individual or clique should have this kind of power over the public conversation," she tweeted.
HERE

Bari Weiss is a Zionist who was just fine when the FBI, DNC, DHS and other shady War-promoting departments of the US government wielded unauthorized, unconstitutional powers over an unsuspecting public.

The democrat narrative swings wildly by the day, depending on who gets to be the unelected power.

Her opinion is meaningless.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -1  
Sat 17 Dec, 2022 08:36 am
@Walter Hinteler,
When you have a known corrupt entity claiming to be the sole arbiter of truth and effectively shutting out other voices, it is authoritarianism. It is a dystopia. It cannot be allowed by the people.

Add your voice to voices you disagree with—but silencing them is the beginning of the end of any semblance of freedom.
Walter Hinteler
 
  4  
Sat 17 Dec, 2022 08:51 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:
When you have a known corrupt entity claiming to be the sole arbiter of truth and effectively shutting out other voices, it is authoritarianism. It is a dystopia. It cannot be allowed by the people.
I disagree with what Musk does. But it's his private business, others may disagree, too, but as far as I know, the USA isn't a people's republic.
Lash
 
  -1  
Sat 17 Dec, 2022 09:05 am
@Walter Hinteler,
I understand that you disagree with a lot of what Musk has done. I disagree with a few things he’s done. I’m quite interested to know specifically: do you agree with him opening the emails to public scrutiny for the sake of transparency, or are you against that?
Lash
 
  -1  
Sat 17 Dec, 2022 09:19 am
Why is one criminal country out buddy and one is attacked?
Why do some people support certain countries’ apartheids but not others?
Irish MP Richard Boyd Barrett has a few more pointed questions.
https://youtu.be/mu2uI0gZD-c
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Sat 17 Dec, 2022 09:19 am
@Lash,
One screenshot published Jack Dorsey’s private personal email address.
Another shared an unredacted personal email belonging to Rep. Ro Khanna. And so on ...

I do think that such can be done during a trial or with a court order.
But since the secrecy of correspondence is a constitutional right here (article 10 of our Basic Right), my opinion is biased. (According to our criminal code [§ 202 StGB], you get "a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or a fine" for such.)

0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Sat 17 Dec, 2022 09:27 am
@Lash,
Quote:
Add your voice to voices you disagree with—but silencing them is the beginning of the end of any semblance of freedom.


As I noted just before you wrote that sentence.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FkJ1r_XUAAE1Ema?format=jpg&name=small
blatham
 
  2  
Sat 17 Dec, 2022 09:34 am
Quote:
Even body camera footage of Paul Pelosi’s assault didn’t stop the right’s conspiracy theorists

The Fox News hosts who helped promote right-wing conspiracy theories about the assault of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband Paul are undeterred by a court playing police body camera footage of the violent attack.

On the morning of October 28, a man broke into the Pelosis’ San Francisco home and accosted and ultimately assaulted Paul Pelosi with a hammer, sending him to the hospital for emergency surgery. Reporters examining the alleged assailant’s online presence quickly established that he adhered to a wide range of right-wing conspiracy theories, and according to a federal charging document he told police that he had broken into the home as part of a plan “to hold Nancy hostage” and assault her.

The prospect of a man obsessed with right-wing conspiracy theories violently attacking Pelosi’s husband was a very inconvenient narrative for the American right. Its partisans quickly seized on the minor inconsistencies and miscommunications that typically emerge in the early stages of a breaking news event and distorted other details to generate on a more palatable, albeit homophobic, narrative. In their telling, the man was Paul Pelosi’s leftist gay lover and the assault was a tryst gone bad that Democrats, journalists, and law enforcement were now covering up to protect Nancy Pelosi and help the Democrats in the midterm elections.

The Pelosi counternarrative, amplified by Twitter honcho Elon Musk, surged through the right’s information ecosystem. Within days, popular Fox hosts like Jesse Watters and Tucker Carlson were telling their millions of viewers that they were justified to doubt what they were being told about the assault from outside that bubble. In particular, they stressed that it was suspicious that camera footage from the body cams of the police officers who witnessed the assault hadn’t been released. “What is going on here, why are they hiding this?” Carlson said of the footage last week.

On Wednesday, prosecutors played the body cam footage showing the attack, as well as audio of Paul Pelosi’s 911 call, at a court hearing for the assailant.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FkBtRLjXEAA-UB2?format=jpg&name=small

But this did not settle anything for Fox. For Watters, that was insufficient, leaving more unanswered and fundamentally irrelevant questions.

Quote:
Matthew Gertz
@MattGertz
Fox's Jesse Watters on the body cam footage played at the trial of Paul Pelosi's attacker: "We still don’t know who opened the door. Was it Paul? Was it the cops? Did they not play that part of the footage in the courtroom? Why is this, such a simple detail, so hard to pin down?"


Carlson and the rest of Fox’s primetime lineup ignored the new revelations altogether.

The point of this coverage isn’t to inform viewers about what happened to Paul Pelosi. It is to give them reasons to ignore the uncomfortable truth that a right-wing extremist assaulted him, and move them toward the conspiracy theories festering in the right-wing fever swamps.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Sat 17 Dec, 2022 09:46 am
Quote:
Angry, irrational, erratic: This is Elon Musk’s Twitter
It’s not about doxxing. It’s about Elon


.There are so many questions today after a wild night on Twitter, which saw Elon Musk suspend multiple journalists’ accounts, citing violation of his company’s anti-doxxing policies. Twitter also shut down its Spaces audio chat feature, which journalists — including at least one who Musk had suspended — and Musk used last night to have a live discussion about the suspensions.

We can’t list all the mysteries. But here’s a sampling:

Do Musk and his defenders have a point that Twitter accounts like @ElonJet, which tracked the movement of his private plane, can constitute a safety issue for its affluent owner?
Did Musk ban @ElonJet after promising not to do so because a car carrying one of his children was recently harassed in Los Angeles?
Is Musk’s claim about the car incident true?
Did Musk actually ban journalists for reporting on the incident and its veracity?
Will I get suspended from Twitter if I tweet about this?

Like I said, this list can get very long. But here’s what we do know: No matter what any of the answers to those questions turn out to be, they won’t really matter in the Elon Musk Twitter era. Because the only thing that matters in the Elon Musk Twitter era is what Musk believes and does at any given moment. So if you think the future of Twitter is important, you need to come to grips with that now.

This is a very obvious point. I’m belaboring it here because I think that during Musk’s ownership we have sometimes failed to fully grasp it: No matter what he says or what plenty of people who (still) admire him think must be the case, Musk has no real plan for Twitter. And whatever he says or tweets could change in a week or an hour because he’s changed his mind. Or maybe he never believed it in the first place.

If you closely followed Musk before he bought Twitter, you would know about his history of erratic and often destructive behavior. But it became fully apparent to everyone this spring when he first announced that he was joining Twitter’s board, then said he wasn’t, then said he was buying the company, and then floated out a business plan to investors that had zero connection to reality. And if you weren’t really tracking any of that, you surely knew about the months he spent this summer trying not to buy Twitter, where he attempted to get out of a signed contract with a series of transparent lies.

Anyway. We’re here now. And as long as Musk owns Twitter, none of this is going to change. He’s going to wake up and tweet something and later that night he’ll say it never happened, or that up is down and black is white.

You can dutifully point out that he’s contradicting himself — last night, we all noted, again, that he says he’s in favor of free speech, but he doesn’t support it when it comes to the things he owns — but that won’t matter. The only thing that matters is what Musk does in the moment. That’s the consistent part.

This is also one of the real parallels we’ve seen between Musk and Donald Trump, who also lies when he opens his mouth, and who also wielded enormous power erratically. Unlike Musk, however, when Trump was the leader of the free world there were some restrictions on his behavior. Sometimes they were structural, like a Congress or a court system that blocked some of his efforts; sometimes they were as flimsy as members of his inner circle who (say they) ignored or slow-walked his commands. And voters, in the end, acted to remove him from office after four years.

There’s none of that facing Musk right now, though. There’s no one in his inner circle who disagrees with him, and anyone who works for him who tells him no gets fired. And externally, there’s almost no force to curtail his behavior. The one exception was the US court system, which did eventually compel him to honor his purchase agreement and actually buy Twitter. (It’s possible that we could see another version of this manifest down the line if the federal government determines that Musk’s Twitter is violating an FTC consent decree that Twitter’s previous management signed off on. But traditionally, Musk has acted as though he’s not bound by regulators.)

But that’s it: Users and advertisers can howl and bail, but he doesn’t have to listen to them as long as he has enough money to fund the operation — he just sold another $3.6 billion in Tesla shares to keep this going, and even though the value of Tesla shares has been plummeting recently, he owns a lot of them. His banks, friends, and allies who helped him fund the deal in the first place? They can grouse, too, but that doesn’t matter to Musk. All of this keeps going until the day he decides he’s done with Twitter.

If he ever does. Bloomberg’s Ashlee Vance, who knows Musk well and wrote a comprehensive biography of him in 2015, thinks Musk will never admit defeat: “I just cannot see him giving up,” Vance told me.

I wish I could tell you a different story. That, say, Musk is in turmoil mode now, rolling up his sleeves and getting hardcore with his new purchase. And that once he’s out of this phase Twitter will settle down, just in time for the 2024 election cycle. Or that we could all solve this by moving to a Twitter alternative or creating our own Twitter on the blockchain, so that no billionaire will ever have single-handed control of our messaging platform.
Vox (many internal links in piece)

0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -1  
Sat 17 Dec, 2022 10:08 am
@blatham,
If it was due to doxxing, I support it; if it was because he didn’t like them, I don’t—although, correct me if I’m wrong—you and your buddies are on record as saying Twitter 1.0 was a private company and well within their rights to ban who they pleased.

So, this is a good time to specify which of the two opinions is yours.
revelette1
 
  3  
Sat 17 Dec, 2022 10:25 am
@Lash,
I am still of the view that as Twitter is a private business, they can ban who they want to. It is the sheer irony of Musk being all about "transparency and freedom of speech" in his desire to expose so-called past suppression of right wing users on Twitter, and then one of the first things he does is ban journalist unfavorable to himself.
blatham
 
  3  
Sat 17 Dec, 2022 10:44 am
@Lash,
Quote:
If it was due to doxxing, I support it; if it was because he didn’t like them, I don’t—although, correct me if I’m wrong—you and your buddies are on record as saying Twitter 1.0 was a private company and well within their rights to ban who they pleased.

So, this is a good time to specify which of the two opinions is yours.


First, in his own words, "reporters I don't like". Some banning included individuals who had nothing to do with ElonJet.

Second, and you have had this explained to you over and over again. A private company has the "right" to do whatever they wish so long as it does not violate existing laws and regulations. Though Musk has portrayed himself as free speech absolutist and hero, his behaviors consistently violate this self-description. Either he's been lying or he just proceeded without any depth of thought and reflection at all. Probably both are true.


Lash
 
  -1  
Sat 17 Dec, 2022 10:49 am
Democrats who seek to hold others accountable for their words, while being demonstrably guilty of the same thing, being questioned by Nancy Mace (R, SC)

(I just went on a NAFTA tirade here—only tangentially related to the video.)
This is one glaring example of how democrats have lost all credibility and empowered republicans. Hypocrisy to this degree is widely noted and despised by people in this country who felt (and now clearly see) that they have no voice or semblance of equality in this country. Normal working people have been radicalized by a growing knowledge that they are ignored, suppressed, and marginalized.

NAFTA was a light switch moment in this dismissal of the ‘flyover states’. The rug was ripped from under several states. Clinton’s loss was directly tied to her husband’s NAFTA decision. Seems like opiates, Trump & QANON were the radical responses.

Anyway. Hypocrisy on parade, comeuppance at minute 1:42

https://youtu.be/_mB26uArS88
Lash
 
  -1  
Sat 17 Dec, 2022 10:51 am
@blatham,
Is Twitter a private company and well within its rights to ban who they please or not?
Lash
 
  -1  
Sat 17 Dec, 2022 10:54 am
@revelette1,
At least you gave an honest answer.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  4  
Sat 17 Dec, 2022 11:03 am
@blatham,
You're being told to apply a brick wall to your thinking.

Does Musk have the right to ban whoever he wants?

Yes, of course he does, but than doesn't mean follow up questions aren't allowed, as if once Musk's legal rights have been determined, all further discussion must stop.

So much for free speech, we're not supposed to question Musk's motivation in banning those critical of him, or point out the hypocrisy of someohe who claims to be in favour of free speech.

Lash's thinking is incapable of moving beyond the parameters set so expect the Musk legal right to be repeated a lot.

And that's about it, rinse, repeat.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Sat 17 Dec, 2022 11:15 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:


You're being told to apply a brick wall to your thinking.

Does Musk have the right to ban whoever he wants?

Yes, of course he does, but than doesn't mean follow up questions aren't allowed, as if once Musk's legal rights have been determined, all further discussion must stop.

So much for free speech, we're not supposed to question Musk's motivation in banning those critical of him, or point out the hypocrisy of someohe who claims to be in favour of free speech.

Lash's thinking is incapable of moving beyond the parameters set so expect the Musk legal right to be repeated a lot.

And that's about it, rinse, repeat.


Excellent post, Izzy. Nail smashed squarely on its head.
izzythepush
 
  4  
Sat 17 Dec, 2022 11:18 am
@Frank Apisa,
She's got me on ignore, which is quite sweet.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 11/15/2024 at 03:53:50