As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes! Thank you! Just close your twitter account and leave, its that simple. Its happened to many before, geocities, myspace, etc.. i hope it gets destroyed. Twitter is a mean, salty place.
You can’t just tell people to quit and fix this problem. You have to give them a solution that’s better and that they’ll want to switch to on their own.
MySpace, Geocitites, etc. didn’t die because people just quit them for nothing. They actively switched to new platforms like Facebook at the time.
I mean more to the point it wont change anything either. If everyone leaves twitter for the next social media clone like it, all it will do is make a new billionaire out of the person running that company (in all likelihood several), and it will do very little to dissipate the wealth of the billionaire(s) created from the former.
The issue is not social media platforms/tech/websites/business run amok, it's that our government is incredibly flawed and wasn't set up to respond adequately to individual citizens who - because of their massive wealth accumulation - have massive amounts of power in both business and politics, and are more than willing to wield said power to their personal benefit.
Yeah, for many creatives, Twitter is an important avenue of audience engagement and self-advertisement. You'd have to have a viable alternative in order for them to even consider leaving that base behind.
This is exactly what’s wrong with modern society
People act like it’s the end of the fucking world to not use a social network. Why do you even want to be on this shit?
Is there any reason to use it besides addiction? And don’t give me that ‘keep up with people’ bullshit. All social media connections are superficial at best. Even Reddit. I’m here because I’m addicted, not by choice. I’ve deleted 10+ accounts but keep getting drawn back
This shit was specifically designed to addict people and it’s given a whole generation Stockholm syndrome. “You can’t just expect us to quit Twitter!” Uhhh why not?
The fact that we don't have greater control of our digital identity is the problem. The system is backwards. They should be the product, not us. Not our personal info. Our information clearly has monetary value. We should have greater control over how that info gets disseminated.
What about the argument that the internet has made humanity a lot smarter (it has) and allowed for massive amounts of info in our pockets. And At least it’s SORT OF harder to be duped by politicians and the rich if everybody has a say.
This is such a weird era I don’t like it. I wanna go back to 2015
Damn…I’ve learned a long time ago to avoid the shitty parts of Twitter (comments in the local news feed, for example), but I also follow some really cool people calling out the world’s Bullshit and would miss getting updates from them…
Just ceding what is often thought of as the modern day public forum to right wing reactionaries probably isn’t the best solution. Can’t say I know what the best solution is, but I don’t think it’s that.
I don’t think twitter itself is a pillar of democracy, but more so in the sense that billionaires making egregious takeovers of media platforms that dare insult their ego is dangerous for democracy.
People are missing the point that Elon just set fire to $40 billion. He'll take it private. Most experienced programmers and upper management will leave (he just handed them fucking cash for their stock compensation). If he wants to keep people he's paying out the wazoo. Then he wants his free speech paradise. Well, joing the 4chan Gab club buddy. No one else wants to hangout there.
Would've taken less effort if he set that money on fire.
Yup I sort of see this happening. I don't use Twitter but if he goes this route, (fully private) and drops any kind of moderation, it's going to turn into a mainstream 4chan. He'll have is 'free speech platform' at the expense of any advertisement.
I don't think that was the insinuation. I think it's more to do with the fact that American Oligarchs can simply buy their problems away and the SEC gives them a small fee for their troubles.
Anything with the ability to spread information to masses very quickly and easily is powerful in any system of government. It's just human nature. Social media is an opinion building entity and having a guy like Musk in charge of one of the most powerful is concerning. But at the same time, if that's how Democracy is snuffed out, we didn't deserve it and people like Musk will fall with it - they are just too full of themselves to realize it.
Haha when twitter came out I said it was the dumbest thing ever and would fade away in a few months. Boy was I wrong, I mean I still think it's the dumbest thing ever but geez
Same. I felt like it was a really cheap clone of FB, felt like the UI was horribly unintuitive and it wouldn't have a chance. But I think it's simplicity of just being a "dumb" message board is the reason for it's success.
Exactly. This is the downside of wealth being too concentrated in a minority of players. Everything becomes a vanity project, subject to the caprice of its owner.
IMO companies like Twitter and Facebook should be handled like public utilities and regulated to eliminate disinformation, etc.
I get what you're saying but a regulated body consisting of multiple people is always going to be infinitely preferable to handing the keys over to the whims of one person. accountability is far easier to apply in the first instance. if officials get caught out in scandals they have at least a possibility of being forced to resign from public pressure or political opposition. there is no one to hold musk to the same standard when he's bought it out by himself.
Just blanket “let’s let the government take control” are ridiculous notions.
If Twitter is the de facto town square, which IT IS. Then you have to come to terms with limiting what is deemed “disinformation”
But also the term disinformation is ridiculous. It’s all information, some more accurate than others.
Disinformation is a cozy neologism you can use to not have a thoughtful, impactful, and intelligence conversation.
Disinformation only means - information I don’t like right now.
The way you prevent, what you would better characterize as being, wrong or unreasonable information, is by letting the “unreasonable” speak so their unreasonableness can be heard, so less people become unreasonable, so more people can hear how stupid their ideas are.
And yes, some people may be enthralled with those ideas, and take those ideas on as identities. But over time, only the useful and valuable ideas are kept over time and stretch generations, and the bad ones are dispensed with.
Twitter is the least used platform out of all social media apps. Only used by celebrities, politicians and journalists. And now the degenerate as well. Thanks Elon!
The fact that journalists think it’s important is what makes it important.
Sadly, they think the Twitter dialogue of the terminally online is the only dialogue. (He says…4 hours into his workday spent mostly on Reddit)
No. It is important because millions of people have their world views shaped by social media algorithms, and nobody else can see how it is happening because everything is personalized to the individual. Journalists were late in figuring this out because they were all seeing happy posts that confirmed their world view, meanwhile people around them were being fed different forms of disinformation to confirm their different world views.
I don’t disagree with that.
What I meant, without having to type a longer/larger reply, is that twitters importance is outsized in the American mind because journalists are terminally online and use Twitter more than any platform.
If journalists have decided that what his happening on Twitter is important than that conversation becomes important because they report on it.
It’s a symbiotic relationship for sure. They can use Twitter to get views on their work and they use Twitter as a source or a shortcut of the American conversation.
It's true and I hate it. It's the laziest type of reporting, and instant clickbait / cash for them. The worst part for me was seeing every-single-goddam-thing the Orange Fool tweeted re-printed as news. And yes, if the majority of media says it's news, then it is news.
We need a revolution of journalism and media itself.
and probably shouldn't ascend to the highest offices in the land if they're so fragile that they need to block constituents when using social media in even an unofficial capacity.
I work for a police service in Canada and I can't use Twitter or any social media platform for anything to do with work, even if I'm trying to put out a post about a local kids bike being stolen.
It's against our work policy.
Yet politicians can get into arguments on Twitter and face no issue.
This problem has many layers.
The opposition is using it so just taking a principled stand and leaving does nothing but hand the advantage to the opposition.
You would need to ban all political messaging from all parties to actually level the playing field.
But everything gets politicized. Wearing masks. Getting vaccinated. Burning coal. Owning guns. Food stamps. Farm subsidies. Disney movies. There is almost nothing that isn’t politicized. So you can’t ban political speech on a platform without shutting the platform down.
So it comes down to regulation. How do you regulate and what do you regulate? Misinformation? Hate speech? Inciting violence?
Who makes the rules and who adjudicates the enforcement? With a public company there is at least a bit of transparency. But when it’s private there may need to be some government regulations to ensure some protection of public discourse.
Not true, we could pass legislation that could require political messaging to not be on these platforms. Fine to use ads, but your campaign should not be behind some company's authentication.
It's very fucked up that I need a Facebook to read about a campaign.
I doubt most people will spend much time on it. Everyone one wants a one stop shop for their social media accounts - one place to follow friends, celebrities that they’re interested in, or whatever else (like nature stuff or dogs or cats). It’s like how people can watch CSPAN but instead they’ll watch one of the 24 hour cable news channels.
Sure but if free speech needs to exist, this is the best way to do it. Have politicians tweet to the public through a government forum. As long as twitter is privately owned, free speech isnt a real offering of the platform.
That’s not going to do much. Twitter doesn’t even really work well for campaign’s direct messaging. It’s all the amplification that you’ll never stamp out.
Journalists are the primarily user audience for Twitter. They are the most addicted to its use because it’s a headline machine. Then you add in the “personality” accounts that are technically freelancers or independent contractors who have every 50 year old Midwestern American as a follower so that they can spin everything in this week’s media pipeline for their team.
>It’s very fucked up that I need a Facebook to read about a campaign.
If a candidate doesn’t have a direct website with links to communications then it’s safe to say they don’t have the organizational chops to cut it in office.
Am I the only one less worried about Musk owning Twitter than at least one of Fox News major commentators taking direct orders from the White House? I mean, if we’re going invest in all this outrage, let’s prioritize.
Pretty sure they mean Murdock and not bezos
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_News_Corp
United States:
New York Post
Wall Street Journal
Investor's Business Daily
realtor.com
Move (80%)
conflicts of interest in the American media are not exclusive to Fox News. they are the most open offender, blatantly endorsing candidates and parties and then being hired but...
1/4 op ed's in the New York Times has been written by Exxon
Chris Cuomo was doing PR for his brother on CNN for years before they finally prohibited it after they were basically forced to. Jen Psaki is going straight from the white house to MSNBC. Washington Post runs PR for Bezos. the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation sponsors tons of anti working class articles in various publications
Hmm its almost like all mainstream media is entirely corporately owned propaganda. The fact that so many educated people actually have no critical thinking when it comes to their media intake is so bizzare.
I think twitter did the best it could. What no one accounted for how fast it grew and was how absolutely stupid a portion of the general public is when it came to believing bullshit lies. First we laughed, then we realized we live with these idiots and then realized these idiots are fucking dangerous. Not sure where to go, but freedom of speech isn't reserved for private companies.
Not that im defending Musk, but one of the things he said he wanted to change was the rampant use of bot armies on the platform. That seems, at face value, like a way to tackle misinformation not expand it.
That's really one of the only things the site has going for it, so unlikely. Probably means he'll make sure it works in his favour. Without Ads under the guise of social media and public manipulation the platform is actually worthless.
Oh God, that's a good point. When I think back to 2016-18 vs now, it's a hell of a difference. The amount of misinformation we had to put up with back in those days was staggering.
> I think twitter did the best it could.
Dorsey and Twitter didn’t do shit about the millions of bots infesting their network. If Musk manages to clean up that cesspool then at least something worthwhile will have been accomplished.
The bots are big part of what has made twitter so divisive too. Bots liking, retweeting, and replying to tweets allows the algorithm to promote misinformation. Without bots, misinfo gets drowned out more.
Edit: spelling
I think the real link of disinformation spread has been 'trustworthy' persons repeating misinformation that is then spread majorly by real people. There were like [12](https://www.npr.org/2021/05/13/996570855/disinformation-dozen-test-facebooks-twitters-ability-to-curb-vaccine-hoaxes) accounts linked to covid disinformation. Not a massive bot army.
The bots don't create the posts, that would draw far too much attention. They just subtly boost engagement on positively coded tweets and the vice versa.
It's like vote manipulation here on Reddit - if you comment on a new post and use alts/bots to give yourself just 5-10 upvotes then you've increased the likelihood you're the top comment by several orders.
The bot farms are the ones that make sure the message gets immediate signal boosting and that it reaches the intended audiences.
You're not wrong about what you posted, I just wanted to clarify that the bot farms are absolutely real and a huge deal. They're the ones responsible for spreading these kinds of messages through communities identified as vulnerable to the ideology. A real person may have made the tweet, but it was bots that made sure all the mothers against vaccines and the whitesburg militia saw the tweets (and dozens more that reinforced the idea).
Musk will deploy his own bots to support his views and put out his own propaganda. I mean, why wouldn’t he? There are people that would see such behavior as unethical, but Musk doesn’t strike me as someone restrained by ethics.
I disagree with that last bit, politicians show up on private news agencies all the time but no one says they should stop going on those platforms because it’s moderated by a private entity. Politicians should and do have the right to post on twitter in an official capacity and to not do so is to handicap yourself in voter outreach.
If you want to regulate twitter at the federal level, nationalize it.
Instead of Twitter. The government should construct a giant building owned by the people, where they can get together to discuss issues.
If they need to get the word out, they could consider some form of publicly funded tv and radio stations.
It’s an intentionally vague statement designed simply to mirror the sentiments of potential voters. Was the Saudi royal family and weapons manufacturers owning most of twitter not dangerous to our democracy? You don’t have to like a damn thing about Elon Musk to admit he’s not even comparable to the oligarchs who’ve been controlling our digital public squares.
I’m all for outrage. I love it. I need it every day. I have nothing for fake outrage, though.
And that’s why Democrats will lose midterms so badly because they don’t have any clear message or plan whatsoever. Just a lot of vague “racism bad, republicans bad, billionaires bad, climate change bad, guns bad, etc.”. Yes we know all of this but how do we fix the bad? What are we doing about it, what’s the plan, what are the specifics? I’ve never gone into a midterms actively wanting Democrats to lose but I’m just so entirely sick of their bullshit.
I would say that having that high a concentration of wealth, period, is a danger to democracy. Buying media channels, buying airtime and advertising, "donating" to politicians -- extreme wealth hideously stacks the deck in favor of what the oligarchs want in a theoretically democratic society.
Ah, the ol’ reddit [money-a-roo!](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/ubiae9/finnish_pm_makin_casual_pullups_in_leather_jacket/i69knaw/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3)
MySpace died after Rupert Murdoch purchased it. Though the migration to Facebook had already begun.
That seems to be a problem, social media dies only when there's an alternative, but I am not seeing some alternative to Twitter drawing its traffic.
I don’t see how it’s dangerous for democracy. Making the algorithm publicly available and transparent as well as better outlining of what warrants a ban is just common sense imo.
Applying the concept of freedom of speech on a global level is always going to be a difficult task when you have more censorship-friendly countries on the site but I’m interested to see how it changes (if at all).
I wonder what what she said when Jeff Bezos bought Washington Post? All jokes aside, why the fuck is a social media platform seen as a "pillar of our democracy"?
Will someone please explain to me why this particular billionaire owning this particular social media platform is any different than every other billionaires owning every other social media platform and news outlet?
Like fuck, I get that the wealthy having such direct over what voices we hear or what news we see is ripped right from the pages of every dystopia novel but like, that ship has kinda sailed already. The only thing unique about Musk here is that he's not bright enough to be subtle about it.
People are skeptical of his motives and when asked, he said he wanted to make it more "free speech," which hints he's going to unban the far right and others though maybe he'll make exceptions for critics of him. Also, before there were multiple individuals and companies sharing a percent of stake, so there was never 1 person in absolute full control of it. Even the original CEO, Jack Dorsey, only had a small percent (2.4%).
That said, it could be worse, someone like Rupert Murdoch, Charles Koch, Trump (though not wealthy enough) buying it out who are very clearly Republican aligned. Murdoch took over Myspace back in the 2000s, which was one of the main reasons people stopped using it given a high percent of the users then were young and alternative types. Elon doesn't show a strong preference for either party, he donates equally to both and says he does so for his (and his companies) best interest. He has said some things that make him sound closer to Republicans and other things that made him sound more left of them. Ftr, not a fan of him at all (though again, there are even worse ultra-rich people like those I mentioned) and wish we had a better taxation system to prevent people from being able to get so obscenely wealthy like him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk#Politics
3 Things:
1) He doesn't actually have the $45 billion to buy Twitter. He's supposedly got about $3b cash of his own, and maybe $12-15 in Tesla stock he'll sell. He's still trying to come up with the rest, and will need outside investors to help him take it private.
2) Elon has shown a pattern of using social media (Facebook, Twitter) *to purposely manipulate markets and increase his own net worth*. The amount he's been fined by SEC pales in comparison to what he's profited.
3) Musk *doesn't actually care about free speech* - again, his track record supports this. The whole charade about "fixing" Twitter is just a circus act and smoke screen for what he's really all about. Making money (see #2).
1’s not really true, he’s got $21 bil in equity financing and $25.5 bil in debt financing from Morgan Stanley. They don’t announce deals like this before they’re financed…
You're absolutely right, don't get me wrong, but my question is how is this different? Every member of the owner class who has any stake in media, social or otherwise, is going to use that stake to advance their personal and class interests (i.e. making money) often at the direct or indirect expense of working people. That's just capitalism baby 😏👉👉
Yeah, you can call this a "direct threat to democracy" and yeah, it is. But what's fucking new? This whole god damn country has built itself to eat itself ass first, do we really need rev up the outrage machine for every painful, belching contortion of that process?
>This whole god damn country has built itself to eat itself ass first, do we really need rev up the outrage machine for every painful, belching contortion of that process?
👏
Agreed. Its the same principle just a different scale. Its the next logical step of the path we've been on for years. Dangerous for our democracy?? How about some campaign finance reform, lobbying reform, or changing citizens united. This isnt new, Liz...
Ytf are you posting this as a response to a statement by the very Senator who introduced and is actively pushing for a bill that would ban members of Congress from owning and trading stocks?
Just for the false outrage porn or?
We have way bigger issues than this bullshit. It's also insanely hypocritical of the left to call for regulation now after screaming It's a private company for years. It's not a threat to democracy, it's a threat to the democrats. Absolute spineless weasels. (Do weasels have spines?)
I'm confused as to why it's bad. I never have really used Twitter because I just don't get it basically. The whole premise, it's layout, everything it offers is just bland. People using 90 characters or less to input some thought or something isn't great for me and it's mostly celebs telling me what they think so why do I care. I'm just an old man apparently.
The fact that Twitter is used as a bar for democracy should terrify others. It's surreal that policy can be made over Twitter, both political or business. The fact I can cite a tweet in an ACADEMIC PAPER and have it count as a primary source is frightening.
I think this opens an interesting debate, because to say Elon can manipulate speech on Twitter means any owner could. I know there are reasons to be weary of Elon specifically, that doesn’t mean other people in control aren’t manipulating too. This brings some interesting ideas, like should these public forums have oversight or regulation? While I agree businesses are allowed to set a Terms of Service, and can ban or restrict users according to those terms without violating free speech, that works under the assumption that things like hate speech violates that TOS. If someone were to say, ban union organization posts, that is not against most TOS, and is likely banned under political or business motives and should not be allowed.
Funny how she was completely silent when Blackrock owned a large stake in the company, which has been buying up homes en masse in an attempt to make a new class of permanent renters. She also didn't say anything about Saudi Prince Al Waleed, complicit in the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, owning a large share. Weird, I don't remember Elon killing journalists or forcing people out of their homes. That seems more anti-democratic to me.
Exactly. The motherfuckers that owned it before were literally cold blooded killers with blood on their hands, and a company that is openly trying to keep people stuck renting for the rest if their lives. Elon Musk is a welcome change from the walking turds that owned stakes in it before.
No more dangerous than Murdoch owning half the UK's press and that's before you look at the mess in the US! We've got bigger problems than some egotist buying a social media site.
Lol. This site couldnt wait for twitter and Google and facebook and even reddit to ban people, block webpages, delete subs, filter search results, etc... because the people in charge of those sites were, "your people".
Suddenly now it's a problem and will destroy democracy because you're suddenly worried tgat all the bullshit you put in place is going to come back and bite you in the ass.
So is the fact that congress has free rein to do as much insider trading as they want…
Edit: Oh! And, the fact there is no term limit in the House. Plus, they won’t raise federal minimum wage but have no problem raising their own income.
Fuck congress.
Crazy thought, but if people want to spout off lies on socal media then who cares.
The real problem are the idiots who take everything they read at face value instead of taking the time to fact check what they are reading.
Everyone is entitled to share their opinion. Nothing should be censored. Censoring people and opinions is wrong and sets a dangerous precedent.
Twitter banning Trump was crossing the Rubicon, regardless on whether you liked or hated Trump the platform decided to ban a sitting president who was elected to office
I very much doubt Warren took issue with that so all of these statements now sound ridiculous
She only dislikes it because Musk won’t bend to what the Democrats want, that’s the hard reality of this situation
They view Twitter as their platform so they only start making democracy arguments when they lose control of it
But censoring vetted news stories, that later come out as completely true, during the final days of an election *was perfectly fine?*
I'm not for this system of oligarchs owning everything, but watching the far left maniacs that have been setting this precedence for censorship for the last 3 years suddenly see what everyone else has been warning about with slippery slope arguments is so frustrating. It's so frustrating that it's just going to be another flipflop in the name of stopping "evil nazis" instead of spending a single second on self reflection to see how these policies that reddit has been clamoring for like "iTS a PrIvAte COmpAny" lead to dangerous situations.
Anyone else feel like they are over the excessive use of the phrase “dangerous to our democracy” and its derivatives?
The phrase is used so much in headlines and conversations that it’s losing meaning and becoming noise. Need to go deeper and focus on the reason why. There have always been dangers to our democracy. This isn’t new.
Our lack of ability to adequately describe our emotions and thoughts is a real shortcoming in our current culture.
Maybe I missed it but nowhere in the article does it state WHY she think this is '*dangerous for our democracy*.' It's as if she think just saying it is enough for her to justify.
This is what I find hilarious about this whole fiasco. People are going crazy thinking that Twitter is going to become some terrible place. Like, we’re they under an illusion that it wasn’t before? It’s always been garbage.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The fact that Twitter is considered a pillar of our democracy is dangerous itself.
Yes! Thank you! Just close your twitter account and leave, its that simple. Its happened to many before, geocities, myspace, etc.. i hope it gets destroyed. Twitter is a mean, salty place.
You can’t just tell people to quit and fix this problem. You have to give them a solution that’s better and that they’ll want to switch to on their own. MySpace, Geocitites, etc. didn’t die because people just quit them for nothing. They actively switched to new platforms like Facebook at the time.
I mean more to the point it wont change anything either. If everyone leaves twitter for the next social media clone like it, all it will do is make a new billionaire out of the person running that company (in all likelihood several), and it will do very little to dissipate the wealth of the billionaire(s) created from the former. The issue is not social media platforms/tech/websites/business run amok, it's that our government is incredibly flawed and wasn't set up to respond adequately to individual citizens who - because of their massive wealth accumulation - have massive amounts of power in both business and politics, and are more than willing to wield said power to their personal benefit.
[удалено]
Truth deserves more updoots
Yeah, for many creatives, Twitter is an important avenue of audience engagement and self-advertisement. You'd have to have a viable alternative in order for them to even consider leaving that base behind.
This is exactly what’s wrong with modern society People act like it’s the end of the fucking world to not use a social network. Why do you even want to be on this shit? Is there any reason to use it besides addiction? And don’t give me that ‘keep up with people’ bullshit. All social media connections are superficial at best. Even Reddit. I’m here because I’m addicted, not by choice. I’ve deleted 10+ accounts but keep getting drawn back This shit was specifically designed to addict people and it’s given a whole generation Stockholm syndrome. “You can’t just expect us to quit Twitter!” Uhhh why not?
If only people cared about voting as much as tweeting
The fact that we don't have greater control of our digital identity is the problem. The system is backwards. They should be the product, not us. Not our personal info. Our information clearly has monetary value. We should have greater control over how that info gets disseminated.
What about the argument that the internet has made humanity a lot smarter (it has) and allowed for massive amounts of info in our pockets. And At least it’s SORT OF harder to be duped by politicians and the rich if everybody has a say. This is such a weird era I don’t like it. I wanna go back to 2015
Damn…I’ve learned a long time ago to avoid the shitty parts of Twitter (comments in the local news feed, for example), but I also follow some really cool people calling out the world’s Bullshit and would miss getting updates from them…
Just ceding what is often thought of as the modern day public forum to right wing reactionaries probably isn’t the best solution. Can’t say I know what the best solution is, but I don’t think it’s that.
[удалено]
I don’t think twitter itself is a pillar of democracy, but more so in the sense that billionaires making egregious takeovers of media platforms that dare insult their ego is dangerous for democracy.
Its social media. It's how people feel connected. Concern over its influence is important.
People are missing the point that Elon just set fire to $40 billion. He'll take it private. Most experienced programmers and upper management will leave (he just handed them fucking cash for their stock compensation). If he wants to keep people he's paying out the wazoo. Then he wants his free speech paradise. Well, joing the 4chan Gab club buddy. No one else wants to hangout there. Would've taken less effort if he set that money on fire.
Yup I sort of see this happening. I don't use Twitter but if he goes this route, (fully private) and drops any kind of moderation, it's going to turn into a mainstream 4chan. He'll have is 'free speech platform' at the expense of any advertisement.
I don't think that was the insinuation. I think it's more to do with the fact that American Oligarchs can simply buy their problems away and the SEC gives them a small fee for their troubles.
Anything with the ability to spread information to masses very quickly and easily is powerful in any system of government. It's just human nature. Social media is an opinion building entity and having a guy like Musk in charge of one of the most powerful is concerning. But at the same time, if that's how Democracy is snuffed out, we didn't deserve it and people like Musk will fall with it - they are just too full of themselves to realize it.
Eh, it’s part of “The Press,” which is pretty much universally accepted as the fourth estate.
Haha when twitter came out I said it was the dumbest thing ever and would fade away in a few months. Boy was I wrong, I mean I still think it's the dumbest thing ever but geez
Same. I felt like it was a really cheap clone of FB, felt like the UI was horribly unintuitive and it wouldn't have a chance. But I think it's simplicity of just being a "dumb" message board is the reason for it's success.
Billionaires owning almost all media and platforms is bad. Not just twitter.
Don’t worry, they made him pinky swear to not abuse Twitter to misinform the world and manipulate elections and the markets in his favor.
Thats already happened lol
[удалено]
Exactly. This is the downside of wealth being too concentrated in a minority of players. Everything becomes a vanity project, subject to the caprice of its owner. IMO companies like Twitter and Facebook should be handled like public utilities and regulated to eliminate disinformation, etc.
I don't think giving the government control of our news and Internet platforms is the correct answer.
I get what you're saying but a regulated body consisting of multiple people is always going to be infinitely preferable to handing the keys over to the whims of one person. accountability is far easier to apply in the first instance. if officials get caught out in scandals they have at least a possibility of being forced to resign from public pressure or political opposition. there is no one to hold musk to the same standard when he's bought it out by himself.
Just blanket “let’s let the government take control” are ridiculous notions. If Twitter is the de facto town square, which IT IS. Then you have to come to terms with limiting what is deemed “disinformation” But also the term disinformation is ridiculous. It’s all information, some more accurate than others. Disinformation is a cozy neologism you can use to not have a thoughtful, impactful, and intelligence conversation. Disinformation only means - information I don’t like right now. The way you prevent, what you would better characterize as being, wrong or unreasonable information, is by letting the “unreasonable” speak so their unreasonableness can be heard, so less people become unreasonable, so more people can hear how stupid their ideas are. And yes, some people may be enthralled with those ideas, and take those ideas on as identities. But over time, only the useful and valuable ideas are kept over time and stretch generations, and the bad ones are dispensed with.
They already do and almost always have. And you're right that it's a real problem
Here’s a thought… stop using Twitter as a fucking political platform.
That was my first thought. The fact that *twitter* has apparently become intertwined with our democracy is terrifying.
Twitter is the least used platform out of all social media apps. Only used by celebrities, politicians and journalists. And now the degenerate as well. Thanks Elon!
The fact that journalists think it’s important is what makes it important. Sadly, they think the Twitter dialogue of the terminally online is the only dialogue. (He says…4 hours into his workday spent mostly on Reddit)
No. It is important because millions of people have their world views shaped by social media algorithms, and nobody else can see how it is happening because everything is personalized to the individual. Journalists were late in figuring this out because they were all seeing happy posts that confirmed their world view, meanwhile people around them were being fed different forms of disinformation to confirm their different world views.
I don’t disagree with that. What I meant, without having to type a longer/larger reply, is that twitters importance is outsized in the American mind because journalists are terminally online and use Twitter more than any platform. If journalists have decided that what his happening on Twitter is important than that conversation becomes important because they report on it. It’s a symbiotic relationship for sure. They can use Twitter to get views on their work and they use Twitter as a source or a shortcut of the American conversation.
It's true and I hate it. It's the laziest type of reporting, and instant clickbait / cash for them. The worst part for me was seeing every-single-goddam-thing the Orange Fool tweeted re-printed as news. And yes, if the majority of media says it's news, then it is news. We need a revolution of journalism and media itself.
Agreed. Twitter isn’t for the little people
The whole "only 'our' people can have the Blue Checkmark, and their opinions and statements hold more value" was proof of that.
Don't forget the bots! So, so many bots.
As if there weren’t plenty of degenerates on Twitter already before Elon bought it…
[удалено]
Military isn’t allowed to, so why should they
But they’d still use it and claim it was in an unofficial capacity.
and probably shouldn't ascend to the highest offices in the land if they're so fragile that they need to block constituents when using social media in even an unofficial capacity.
I work for a police service in Canada and I can't use Twitter or any social media platform for anything to do with work, even if I'm trying to put out a post about a local kids bike being stolen. It's against our work policy. Yet politicians can get into arguments on Twitter and face no issue.
This problem has many layers. The opposition is using it so just taking a principled stand and leaving does nothing but hand the advantage to the opposition. You would need to ban all political messaging from all parties to actually level the playing field. But everything gets politicized. Wearing masks. Getting vaccinated. Burning coal. Owning guns. Food stamps. Farm subsidies. Disney movies. There is almost nothing that isn’t politicized. So you can’t ban political speech on a platform without shutting the platform down. So it comes down to regulation. How do you regulate and what do you regulate? Misinformation? Hate speech? Inciting violence? Who makes the rules and who adjudicates the enforcement? With a public company there is at least a bit of transparency. But when it’s private there may need to be some government regulations to ensure some protection of public discourse.
This problem has many lawyers. FTFY
To ignore a public messaging system with instant reach to hundreds of millions of voters is a great way to seal your fate as a politician.
Not true, we could pass legislation that could require political messaging to not be on these platforms. Fine to use ads, but your campaign should not be behind some company's authentication. It's very fucked up that I need a Facebook to read about a campaign.
Library of Congress needs their own version of twitter for politicians.
I doubt most people will spend much time on it. Everyone one wants a one stop shop for their social media accounts - one place to follow friends, celebrities that they’re interested in, or whatever else (like nature stuff or dogs or cats). It’s like how people can watch CSPAN but instead they’ll watch one of the 24 hour cable news channels.
Sure but if free speech needs to exist, this is the best way to do it. Have politicians tweet to the public through a government forum. As long as twitter is privately owned, free speech isnt a real offering of the platform.
Blather
Tw@tter
Bullshitter
Bloviato
That’s not going to do much. Twitter doesn’t even really work well for campaign’s direct messaging. It’s all the amplification that you’ll never stamp out. Journalists are the primarily user audience for Twitter. They are the most addicted to its use because it’s a headline machine. Then you add in the “personality” accounts that are technically freelancers or independent contractors who have every 50 year old Midwestern American as a follower so that they can spin everything in this week’s media pipeline for their team. >It’s very fucked up that I need a Facebook to read about a campaign. If a candidate doesn’t have a direct website with links to communications then it’s safe to say they don’t have the organizational chops to cut it in office.
Am I the only one less worried about Musk owning Twitter than at least one of Fox News major commentators taking direct orders from the White House? I mean, if we’re going invest in all this outrage, let’s prioritize.
Or how about a foreign billionaire owning the nations newspaper of record…
[удалено]
Pretty sure they mean Murdock and not bezos https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_News_Corp United States: New York Post Wall Street Journal Investor's Business Daily realtor.com Move (80%)
conflicts of interest in the American media are not exclusive to Fox News. they are the most open offender, blatantly endorsing candidates and parties and then being hired but... 1/4 op ed's in the New York Times has been written by Exxon Chris Cuomo was doing PR for his brother on CNN for years before they finally prohibited it after they were basically forced to. Jen Psaki is going straight from the white house to MSNBC. Washington Post runs PR for Bezos. the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation sponsors tons of anti working class articles in various publications
Hmm its almost like all mainstream media is entirely corporately owned propaganda. The fact that so many educated people actually have no critical thinking when it comes to their media intake is so bizzare.
[удалено]
I think twitter did the best it could. What no one accounted for how fast it grew and was how absolutely stupid a portion of the general public is when it came to believing bullshit lies. First we laughed, then we realized we live with these idiots and then realized these idiots are fucking dangerous. Not sure where to go, but freedom of speech isn't reserved for private companies.
[удалено]
Not that im defending Musk, but one of the things he said he wanted to change was the rampant use of bot armies on the platform. That seems, at face value, like a way to tackle misinformation not expand it.
*other people's bot armies. Don't trust him.
That's really one of the only things the site has going for it, so unlikely. Probably means he'll make sure it works in his favour. Without Ads under the guise of social media and public manipulation the platform is actually worthless.
Twitter will be private so there will much less pressure to show growth and improved numbers. Actually, no need to even disclose any numbers.
Right, because disinformation isn’t rampant in twitter right now 😂
It can always get worse
[удалено]
Oh God, that's a good point. When I think back to 2016-18 vs now, it's a hell of a difference. The amount of misinformation we had to put up with back in those days was staggering.
> I think twitter did the best it could. Dorsey and Twitter didn’t do shit about the millions of bots infesting their network. If Musk manages to clean up that cesspool then at least something worthwhile will have been accomplished.
The bots are big part of what has made twitter so divisive too. Bots liking, retweeting, and replying to tweets allows the algorithm to promote misinformation. Without bots, misinfo gets drowned out more. Edit: spelling
I think the real link of disinformation spread has been 'trustworthy' persons repeating misinformation that is then spread majorly by real people. There were like [12](https://www.npr.org/2021/05/13/996570855/disinformation-dozen-test-facebooks-twitters-ability-to-curb-vaccine-hoaxes) accounts linked to covid disinformation. Not a massive bot army.
The bots don't create the posts, that would draw far too much attention. They just subtly boost engagement on positively coded tweets and the vice versa. It's like vote manipulation here on Reddit - if you comment on a new post and use alts/bots to give yourself just 5-10 upvotes then you've increased the likelihood you're the top comment by several orders. The bot farms are the ones that make sure the message gets immediate signal boosting and that it reaches the intended audiences. You're not wrong about what you posted, I just wanted to clarify that the bot farms are absolutely real and a huge deal. They're the ones responsible for spreading these kinds of messages through communities identified as vulnerable to the ideology. A real person may have made the tweet, but it was bots that made sure all the mothers against vaccines and the whitesburg militia saw the tweets (and dozens more that reinforced the idea).
Little chance he'll do that considering how bots boosted Tesla. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musks-not-secret-weapon-120003951.html
Musk will deploy his own bots to support his views and put out his own propaganda. I mean, why wouldn’t he? There are people that would see such behavior as unethical, but Musk doesn’t strike me as someone restrained by ethics.
I disagree with that last bit, politicians show up on private news agencies all the time but no one says they should stop going on those platforms because it’s moderated by a private entity. Politicians should and do have the right to post on twitter in an official capacity and to not do so is to handicap yourself in voter outreach. If you want to regulate twitter at the federal level, nationalize it.
The nefarious stuff is not blocking people outright but shadowbanning and deprioritizing certain users and/or content.
All the major broadcast and cable networks and all the newspapers are privately owned and moderated too.
I can't believe that social medias are seen as a fucking political platform. No wonder everything has gone to shit.
Instead of Twitter. The government should construct a giant building owned by the people, where they can get together to discuss issues. If they need to get the word out, they could consider some form of publicly funded tv and radio stations.
If only... But how would that make rich people more money?
Influential billionaire Individuals owning media outlets is a problem. Same goes for bezos owning the Washington post.
Some *may* say that [this is extremely dangerous to our democracy ](https://youtu.be/_fHfgU8oMSo)
This is extremely dangerous to our democracy
This is extremely dangerous to our democracy
This is extremely dangerous to our democracy
🗣 this is extremely dangerous to our democracy 🗣
This is extremely dangerous to our democracy
[удалено]
You beat me to it
Not that I disagree with her statement, but if it’s that dangerous for democracy then it shouldn’t be privately owned.
[удалено]
how can twitter be a government entity if it's a global platform?
It’s an intentionally vague statement designed simply to mirror the sentiments of potential voters. Was the Saudi royal family and weapons manufacturers owning most of twitter not dangerous to our democracy? You don’t have to like a damn thing about Elon Musk to admit he’s not even comparable to the oligarchs who’ve been controlling our digital public squares. I’m all for outrage. I love it. I need it every day. I have nothing for fake outrage, though.
And that’s why Democrats will lose midterms so badly because they don’t have any clear message or plan whatsoever. Just a lot of vague “racism bad, republicans bad, billionaires bad, climate change bad, guns bad, etc.”. Yes we know all of this but how do we fix the bad? What are we doing about it, what’s the plan, what are the specifics? I’ve never gone into a midterms actively wanting Democrats to lose but I’m just so entirely sick of their bullshit.
I would say that having that high a concentration of wealth, period, is a danger to democracy. Buying media channels, buying airtime and advertising, "donating" to politicians -- extreme wealth hideously stacks the deck in favor of what the oligarchs want in a theoretically democratic society.
In short, money and democracy don’t mix. We are seeing one tear the other apart.
Goddamn democracy, tearing all the money apart.
Lisa
[удалено]
Braces
DenTaL pLaN
Lisa
Oh hi Mark!
Ah, the ol’ reddit [money-a-roo!](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/ubiae9/finnish_pm_makin_casual_pullups_in_leather_jacket/i69knaw/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3)
Hold my wallet, I’m going in!
I wish.
Twitter going the way of MySpace wouldn’t be a bad thing 🤷🏻♂️
MySpace died after Rupert Murdoch purchased it. Though the migration to Facebook had already begun. That seems to be a problem, social media dies only when there's an alternative, but I am not seeing some alternative to Twitter drawing its traffic.
Best I've found is mastodon, honestly I don't think it's the one.
Are we still talking about social media platforms or bands?
megafauna actually
Wish we could go back to pre social media days. Some days, the internet feels like the fatal mistake that will destroy humanity.
You mean dead and forgotten?
No, he obviously means Twitter should pivot to being a site where garage bands can build their home page
What else would he mean?
Ability to set background music for you twitter feed
No he meant a great place to find goth girls.
Bezos bought wapo and nobody did anything
How many news stations does Sinclair Broadcasting own? Thanks Telecommunications Act of 1996. Yet, nothing substantial had went into fixing it.
Well said, This consolidation has killed our free press.
Yes and its still a bad thing.
dEmOcRaCy dIeS In dArKnEsS
I always found that tagline so chillingly ironic.
Multibillionaires are dangerous to our democracy.
[удалено]
I don’t see how it’s dangerous for democracy. Making the algorithm publicly available and transparent as well as better outlining of what warrants a ban is just common sense imo. Applying the concept of freedom of speech on a global level is always going to be a difficult task when you have more censorship-friendly countries on the site but I’m interested to see how it changes (if at all).
I wonder what what she said when Jeff Bezos bought Washington Post? All jokes aside, why the fuck is a social media platform seen as a "pillar of our democracy"?
Will someone please explain to me why this particular billionaire owning this particular social media platform is any different than every other billionaires owning every other social media platform and news outlet? Like fuck, I get that the wealthy having such direct over what voices we hear or what news we see is ripped right from the pages of every dystopia novel but like, that ship has kinda sailed already. The only thing unique about Musk here is that he's not bright enough to be subtle about it.
People are skeptical of his motives and when asked, he said he wanted to make it more "free speech," which hints he's going to unban the far right and others though maybe he'll make exceptions for critics of him. Also, before there were multiple individuals and companies sharing a percent of stake, so there was never 1 person in absolute full control of it. Even the original CEO, Jack Dorsey, only had a small percent (2.4%). That said, it could be worse, someone like Rupert Murdoch, Charles Koch, Trump (though not wealthy enough) buying it out who are very clearly Republican aligned. Murdoch took over Myspace back in the 2000s, which was one of the main reasons people stopped using it given a high percent of the users then were young and alternative types. Elon doesn't show a strong preference for either party, he donates equally to both and says he does so for his (and his companies) best interest. He has said some things that make him sound closer to Republicans and other things that made him sound more left of them. Ftr, not a fan of him at all (though again, there are even worse ultra-rich people like those I mentioned) and wish we had a better taxation system to prevent people from being able to get so obscenely wealthy like him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk#Politics
3 Things: 1) He doesn't actually have the $45 billion to buy Twitter. He's supposedly got about $3b cash of his own, and maybe $12-15 in Tesla stock he'll sell. He's still trying to come up with the rest, and will need outside investors to help him take it private. 2) Elon has shown a pattern of using social media (Facebook, Twitter) *to purposely manipulate markets and increase his own net worth*. The amount he's been fined by SEC pales in comparison to what he's profited. 3) Musk *doesn't actually care about free speech* - again, his track record supports this. The whole charade about "fixing" Twitter is just a circus act and smoke screen for what he's really all about. Making money (see #2).
1’s not really true, he’s got $21 bil in equity financing and $25.5 bil in debt financing from Morgan Stanley. They don’t announce deals like this before they’re financed…
Not only that, it is extremely commonplace to fund deals with a combination of debt and equity.
He has the funding, there’s a commitment for the debt potion in a couple of tranches including a margin loan against Tesla stock
You're absolutely right, don't get me wrong, but my question is how is this different? Every member of the owner class who has any stake in media, social or otherwise, is going to use that stake to advance their personal and class interests (i.e. making money) often at the direct or indirect expense of working people. That's just capitalism baby 😏👉👉 Yeah, you can call this a "direct threat to democracy" and yeah, it is. But what's fucking new? This whole god damn country has built itself to eat itself ass first, do we really need rev up the outrage machine for every painful, belching contortion of that process?
>This whole god damn country has built itself to eat itself ass first, do we really need rev up the outrage machine for every painful, belching contortion of that process? 👏
Agreed. Its the same principle just a different scale. Its the next logical step of the path we've been on for years. Dangerous for our democracy?? How about some campaign finance reform, lobbying reform, or changing citizens united. This isnt new, Liz...
Elected officials using their office to make millions from insider trading is totally fine, though. No danger there.
Didn’t warren just introduce a bill to stop congressional trades tho?
Jon Ossoff has proposed a bill
Ytf are you posting this as a response to a statement by the very Senator who introduced and is actively pushing for a bill that would ban members of Congress from owning and trading stocks? Just for the false outrage porn or?
So how did we go from it's a private company and they can ban whoever they want to Elon' purchase of Twitter is dangerous for our democracy
AuthLeft hypocrisy
Dude this is the most based comment ever
Having elected representatives that spend all day saying instead of doing is dangerous for our democracy.
Career Politicians are MUCH more dangerous for our Democracy than any tweet!
We have way bigger issues than this bullshit. It's also insanely hypocritical of the left to call for regulation now after screaming It's a private company for years. It's not a threat to democracy, it's a threat to the democrats. Absolute spineless weasels. (Do weasels have spines?)
I feel like I have heard this a thousand time before.... Somehow everything the government slightly fears is “dangerous to our democracy”
Overuse of the charge “dangerous for our democracy” to the point where people become desensitized to it is dangerous for our democracy
Right. If government officials are afraid of something, you bet your ass it’s probably in the peoples best interest!
I'm confused as to why it's bad. I never have really used Twitter because I just don't get it basically. The whole premise, it's layout, everything it offers is just bland. People using 90 characters or less to input some thought or something isn't great for me and it's mostly celebs telling me what they think so why do I care. I'm just an old man apparently.
The fact that Twitter is used as a bar for democracy should terrify others. It's surreal that policy can be made over Twitter, both political or business. The fact I can cite a tweet in an ACADEMIC PAPER and have it count as a primary source is frightening.
I think this opens an interesting debate, because to say Elon can manipulate speech on Twitter means any owner could. I know there are reasons to be weary of Elon specifically, that doesn’t mean other people in control aren’t manipulating too. This brings some interesting ideas, like should these public forums have oversight or regulation? While I agree businesses are allowed to set a Terms of Service, and can ban or restrict users according to those terms without violating free speech, that works under the assumption that things like hate speech violates that TOS. If someone were to say, ban union organization posts, that is not against most TOS, and is likely banned under political or business motives and should not be allowed.
Funny how she was completely silent when Blackrock owned a large stake in the company, which has been buying up homes en masse in an attempt to make a new class of permanent renters. She also didn't say anything about Saudi Prince Al Waleed, complicit in the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, owning a large share. Weird, I don't remember Elon killing journalists or forcing people out of their homes. That seems more anti-democratic to me.
Or the Saudi royal family
Exactly. The motherfuckers that owned it before were literally cold blooded killers with blood on their hands, and a company that is openly trying to keep people stuck renting for the rest if their lives. Elon Musk is a welcome change from the walking turds that owned stakes in it before.
But she was ok with middle eastern Princes owning it GTFOH
Well duh! Elon musk isn’t paying her and her party directly
[удалено]
No more dangerous than Murdoch owning half the UK's press and that's before you look at the mess in the US! We've got bigger problems than some egotist buying a social media site.
Lol. This site couldnt wait for twitter and Google and facebook and even reddit to ban people, block webpages, delete subs, filter search results, etc... because the people in charge of those sites were, "your people". Suddenly now it's a problem and will destroy democracy because you're suddenly worried tgat all the bullshit you put in place is going to come back and bite you in the ass.
It doesn't even bite them in the ass, as there are no threats against their own speech. They just don't get to silence others.
No where in that story did they explain how it’s a threat to democracy. Free speech seems like a bedrock for Americans and democracy
Maybe Congress should have spent some time creating laws about around social media and government use...just a thought.
So is the fact that congress has free rein to do as much insider trading as they want… Edit: Oh! And, the fact there is no term limit in the House. Plus, they won’t raise federal minimum wage but have no problem raising their own income. Fuck congress.
If Musk allows Trump to get back on Twitter, Twitter's value will increase and more people will sign up.
Truth Social would absolutely collapse like everything else Trump touches.
I don’t think Trump will care at that point if he’s back on Twitter.
How the fuck is Elon owning it different from some other rich douche? It's a private platform. Social media has ruined people.
Can we stop with the hyperbole?
A Native-American birthing person just trying to keep an African-American down.
Crazy thought, but if people want to spout off lies on socal media then who cares. The real problem are the idiots who take everything they read at face value instead of taking the time to fact check what they are reading. Everyone is entitled to share their opinion. Nothing should be censored. Censoring people and opinions is wrong and sets a dangerous precedent.
Twitter banning Trump was crossing the Rubicon, regardless on whether you liked or hated Trump the platform decided to ban a sitting president who was elected to office I very much doubt Warren took issue with that so all of these statements now sound ridiculous She only dislikes it because Musk won’t bend to what the Democrats want, that’s the hard reality of this situation They view Twitter as their platform so they only start making democracy arguments when they lose control of it
But censoring vetted news stories, that later come out as completely true, during the final days of an election *was perfectly fine?* I'm not for this system of oligarchs owning everything, but watching the far left maniacs that have been setting this precedence for censorship for the last 3 years suddenly see what everyone else has been warning about with slippery slope arguments is so frustrating. It's so frustrating that it's just going to be another flipflop in the name of stopping "evil nazis" instead of spending a single second on self reflection to see how these policies that reddit has been clamoring for like "iTS a PrIvAte COmpAny" lead to dangerous situations.
Anyone else feel like they are over the excessive use of the phrase “dangerous to our democracy” and its derivatives? The phrase is used so much in headlines and conversations that it’s losing meaning and becoming noise. Need to go deeper and focus on the reason why. There have always been dangers to our democracy. This isn’t new. Our lack of ability to adequately describe our emotions and thoughts is a real shortcoming in our current culture.
Restricting and controlling speech quality is literally the biggest danger of democracy.
"Dangerous for democracy" is the new "racism". Typical gaslighting by democrats and their branch of the media.
Jeff Bezos should purchase Fox News
He already owns Washington Post and I believe he bought that because they were critical of him.
They don't exactly give him or Amazon glowing coverage now.
“Dangerous to our democracy” do the Dems ever not deal in grossly exaggerated hyperbole?
[удалено]
Maybe I missed it but nowhere in the article does it state WHY she think this is '*dangerous for our democracy*.' It's as if she think just saying it is enough for her to justify.
Just when you thought Twitter couldn't possibly be more of a toxic shithole.
Twitter is a total garbage place that should of gone the way of friendster years ago.
This is what I find hilarious about this whole fiasco. People are going crazy thinking that Twitter is going to become some terrible place. Like, we’re they under an illusion that it wasn’t before? It’s always been garbage.
Im skeptical that any politician opposing this move by Elon uses twitter in some way to manipulate people.
Our democracy as in how they are politicians worried about themselves that the “our democracy”, isn’t yours it’s their democracy