will25u said:

---

Twitter says it will NOT reinstate Trump despite Elon Musk vowing 'significant' change to woke platform https://t.co/0YGo6pwPa1

— Daily Mail US (@DailyMail) April 5, 2022

---

It's like they want to get fired.

Proc92 said:

---

will25u said:

---

Twitter says it will NOT reinstate Trump despite Elon Musk vowing 'significant' change to woke platform https://t.co/0YGo6pwPa1

— Daily Mail US (@DailyMail) April 5, 2022

---

It's like they want to get fired.

---

...or have Musk acquire control and reinstate Trump himself. Nobody should doubt Musk could do it; he could do it himself, much less gather allies' proxy votes.

will25u said:

---

---

Probably mean that people will be shown that free speech is not merely a guarantee by the government to its people, but also a concept that can exist in entities outside of the government.

The number of people that respond to people saying that Twitter should be a free speech platform with the government is the only entity covered by the first amendment is alarming, as if a requirement is the only way it should be done.

Harder to control the narrative when people can say whatever they want and they're aware they should be able to.

The peon making this claim has zero power to make any decisions either.

'Twitter is committed to impartiality in the development and enforcement of its policies and rules,' the company told DailyMail.com on Tuesday. 'Our policy decisions are not determined by the Board or shareholders, and we have no plans to reverse any policy decisions.'

If Musk pushes the issue about reinstating the 45th POTUS it will happen. The last thing they want is for him to prove a point, just because they dared him to.

richardag said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

IDaggie06 said:

---

They are not going to give him a seat on the Board.

---

I really disagree. They have 5 board members. Yes, Dorsey stepped down a ways back (oh btw, because a conservative bought a smaller chunk, though this is under-reported), but the comments from him I quoted/linked above were from last week.

. . . . .

---

From the link above

• Paul Singer's Elliott Management Corp. bought a sizable stake of Twitter with alleged plans to oust CEO Jack Dorsey over Twitter's overt political bias

So Musk has at least one ally, maybe more flying under the radar.

---

Paul Singer is not an ally. Just because they are pushing for similar things does not make them Allies at all. Singer is a vulture capitalist and a genuinely terrible person.

sicandtiredTXN said:

---

The peon making this claim has zero power to make any decisions either.

'Twitter is committed to impartiality in the development and enforcement of its policies and rules,' the company told DailyMail.com on Tuesday. 'Our policy decisions are not determined by the Board or shareholders, and we have no plans to reverse any policy decisions.'

If Musk pushes the issue about reinstating the 45th POTUS it will happen. The last thing they want is for him to prove a point, just because they dared him to.

---

Somebody already lost a bet about Musk getting on the board. Anybody willing to put a stake in the ground on the date for Trump's re-instatement?

aggiedata said:

---

LOL - you're not excited at all - you just don't have a choice. https://t.co/1PF69DSS2a

— Catturd ™ (@catturd2) April 5, 2022

---

"I’m excited to share that we’re appointing @elonmusk to our board!" pic.twitter.com/hWID71jMUl

— Larry Cermak (@lawmaster) April 5, 2022

They of course coulda invited Elon to be a board member two or more months ago. But now...it is exciting.

Quote:

---

The number of people that respond to people saying that Twitter should be a free speech platform with the government is the only entity covered by the first amendment is alarming, as if a requirement is the only way it should be done.

---

Like that whole, "Thou shalt not kill" thing really only applies to religious folk.

Quote:

---

Anybody willing to put a stake in the ground on the date for Trump's re-instatement?

---

I bet it will take more than 12 hours.

Quote:

---

The number of people that respond to people saying that Twitter should be a free speech platform with the government is the only entity covered by the first amendment is alarming, as if a requirement is the only way it should be done.

---

Why is it alarming that there are lots of people that know what the 1st amendment means? The "other way" was endorsed by Sotomayor and co. in manhattan community access v. halleck. so you aren't alone in that thought.

Has anybody mentioned the 14.9% limit yet? Seems like he had to make a deal to get on the board.

sicandtiredTXN said:

---

'Our policy decisions are not determined by the Board or shareholders, and we have no plans to reverse any policy decisions.'

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

The number of people that respond to people saying that Twitter should be a free speech platform with the government is the only entity covered by the first amendment is alarming, as if a requirement is the only way it should be done.

---

Why is it alarming that there are lots of people that know what the 1st amendment means? The "other way" was endorsed by Sotomayor and co. in manhattan community access v. halleck. so you aren't alone in that thought.

---

Free speech is an ideal that extends beyond the first amendment. The first amendment is the guarantee from the government to the people, it doesn't preclude other entities from operating under those ideals.

Saying that Twitter should be a free speech platform is not the same as saying they are in violation of the first amendment. When someone responds to the claim that Twitter should be a free speech platform with "that only applies to the government" they look like jackasses, because should be and are required to be are not the same thing.


Let's also not forget that much of the infrastructure that Twitter operates on was paid for with public dollars, so they are simultaneously benefitting from and restricting individuals. Absent tax dollars they would likely not exist, or at best could not exist with their current business model.

Maybe for you that's true, but for others it is not. Some People here think Twitter should be subject to the first amendment just like the government.

So you saying "Twitter didn't build that". Another interesting take.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

The number of people that respond to people saying that Twitter should be a free speech platform with the government is the only entity covered by the first amendment is alarming, as if a requirement is the only way it should be done.

---

Why is it alarming that there are lots of people that know what the 1st amendment means? The "other way" was endorsed by Sotomayor and co. in manhattan community access v. halleck. so you aren't alone in that thought.

---

Certain establishments are subject to federal laws for things like discrimination even though they are "private businesses". Why would companies that depend on our internet not be required to adhere to certain requirements as well.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Maybe for you that's true, but for others it is not. Some People here think Twitter should be subject to the first amendment just like the government.

So you saying "Twitter didn't build that". Another interesting take.

---

I would say it's one way or the other, not the Marxists have it their way either way. Force a bakery to violate their values, enforce quotas in banking and hiring practices, but sure, social media can use our internet and squelch free speech. Just doesn't make sense.

The problem with the tech giants is the anti-trust problem. We need intervention not to regulate what they do - but to create competition then the market will correct it for us.

Similar to the industrial revolution- we let a small group of companies create monopolies and they have stifled those market forces that work so well. Once we've got competition back their "policy" problems will self regulate just fine.

Right now I don't have viable alternatives to them and they collude together to keep it that way

So you're responding to me, but arguing with someone else that hasn't appeared on this thread.

Gotcha.

FrioAg 00 said:

---

The problem with the tech giants is the anti-trust problem. We need intervention not to regulate what they do - but to create competition then the market will correct it for us.

Similar to the industrial revolution- we let a small group of companies create monopolies and they have stifled those market forces that work so well. Once we've got competition back their "policy" problems will self regulate just fine.

Right now I don't have viable alternatives to them and they collude together to keep it that way

---

So you're still using MySpace and Alta Vista I presume?

I hear Gab and Truth Social are operating right now.

javajaws said:

---

Has anybody mentioned the 14.9% limit yet? Seems like he had to make a deal to get on the board.

---

Well.......go ahead.

'Twitter is committed to impartiality in the development and enforcement of its policies and rules,' the company told DailyMail.com on Tuesday. 'Our policy decisions are not determined by the Board or shareholders, and we have no plans to reverse any policy decisions.'

Note to the 'company'. Shareholders own the company. The Board establishes the direction of the company and are voted on by the owners.

Squadron7 said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Has anybody mentioned the 14.9% limit yet? Seems like he had to make a deal to get on the board.

---

Well.......go ahead.

---

https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0001418091/000119312522095651/d342257d8k.htm

javajaws said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Has anybody mentioned the 14.9% limit yet? Seems like he had to make a deal to get on the board.

---

Well.......go ahead.

---

https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0001418091/000119312522095651/d342257d8k.htm

---

But does Musk strike you as a guy without a plan?

Squadron7 said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Has anybody mentioned the 14.9% limit yet? Seems like he had to make a deal to get on the board.

---

Well.......go ahead.

---

https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0001418091/000119312522095651/d342257d8k.htm

---

But does Musk strike you as a guy without a plan?

---

I'm sure he has some idea of what he wants to accomplish - probably some combination of forcing change and making money. Regardless, we now know that plan doesn't involve buying much more Twitter stock.

javajaws said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Has anybody mentioned the 14.9% limit yet? Seems like he had to make a deal to get on the board.

---

Well.......go ahead.

---

https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0001418091/000119312522095651/d342257d8k.htm

---

So....he's on the board thru 2024 unless/until he buys over 14.9 percent of the company's stock. At which point he...would be kicked off the board.

Ok, there's not a lot of teeth to that, to put it mildly. It amounts to "Elon has agreed not to execute a hostile takeover...until he changes his mind."

Elon Musk reinstates Trump’s Twitter account pic.twitter.com/gizW4mOYYf

— Damon imani🔅 (@damonimani) April 4, 2022

$287 Billion. Passes Bezos like he's sittin still. Holy crap that's some real FU money. And here I am ******* about filling my Jeep.

Elon Musk is already making twitter a better place pic.twitter.com/9rTgRXoYTe

— Zero HP Lovecraft 🦅🐍 (@0x49fa98) April 4, 2022

Squadron7 said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Has anybody mentioned the 14.9% limit yet? Seems like he had to make a deal to get on the board.

---

Well.......go ahead.

---

https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0001418091/000119312522095651/d342257d8k.htm

---

But does Musk strike you as a guy without a plan?

---

Actually yes. I do believe Elon takes bold steps without a super detailed plan - he's got the confidence that he can solve problems as they arise

That 14.9% deal doesn't carry much weight.

It's basically them agreeing to give him a board seat now if he agrees to not do a hostile takeover while he is currently on the board and for 90 days after.

If I'm Elon I try to work from the seat on the board but drop hints that if they block you out from things that are important to you then you'll resign and wait 90 days and fire them all.

Elon is racist now....

Stop buying Elon Musk’s products.

His company is RACIST AF, and he’s gonna destroy Twitter.

— Pam Keith, Esq. (@PamKeithFL) April 6, 2022

As if being a white male wasn't enough.