Amazon slaps U.S. sellers with 5% fuel and inflation surcharge

[16bwhitt]

@16bwhitt: Unlike you, I do not believe that most businesses, and Twitter is one, will participate in capricious moderation that would ultimately harm their business.

And I do believe that counterfactual information, that is, lies, should not be protected or promulgated by publishers. They have an obligation to vet what they publish, even if that vetting occurs after something hits cyberspace.

Twitter, like every other private enterprise that publishes under its own banner, has absolute editorial control and should. I wrote what follows years ago, before Twitter was ever a thing, but it applies here in spades:

Suppression of expression by the government is censorship.
Suppression of expression by a publisher or broadcaster over what it disseminates is editorial oversight.
Suppression of expression of the wrong thing by oneself is discretion, restraint, and good manners.
Suppression of expression of children by their parents is necessary socialization and good parenting.

It has, though. Twitter stock is failing (until Elon came along). User growth/engagement is flatlining or a decline at worst. Income is down. Twitter is not a publisher or a broadcaster.

 

[Sky-Knight]

@16bwhitt COVID vaccination has prevented COVID infection for many, so that statement isn't even false. One could say the vaccines in question do prevent infection and still be correct, despite the fact that statistically speaking it really doesn't. No vaccine has been 100% in this case, few of them are better than 80% in this space. The "facts" in this case specifically depend on perspective and which stat you're using.

Twitter isn't a town square, nor will it ever be even if privately owned. Twitter is private property. If you want Twitter to be a town square, you don't get there by a rich guy buying it, you get there by defining it as a utility and developing a government construct that defines shared ownership.

If Musk bought Twitter, and defined things as he has said, what he does is get sued into oblivion because he's allowed everyone in his private property and done nothing to stop defamation and many other types of speech that are actually illegal despite it being his responsibility to do so. So if Musk bought Twitter and did what he suggests, he'd find himself forced to change his tune just because of established law. Because again, we haven't actually defined a public ownership of the property in question. When we do that, we also defined shared liability, which changes the dynamic.

The problems we face here is a dangerous merging of public and private property rights, against freedom of speech concerns. Which don't actually come into play until the government gets into owning the medium in question.

 

[britechguy]

Twitter is not a publisher or a broadcaster.

Yes, it is. The only thing different about it from traditional ones is the specific medium.

I am far, far, far more worried about the following than I am about `excessive` editorial control where it should be rightly exercised:

Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect. . . Considering that natural disposition in many men to lie, and in multitudes to believe, I have been perplexed what to do with that maxim so frequent in every body's mouth, that truth will at last prevail.
~ Jonathan Swift, Examiner No. XIV - Thursday, November 9, 1710

 

[16bwhitt]

@16bwhitt COVID vaccination has prevented COVID infection for many, so that statement isn't even false. One could say the vaccines in question do prevent infection and still be correct, despite the fact that statistically speaking it really doesn't. No vaccine has been 100% in this case, few of them are better than 80% in this space. The "facts" in this case specifically depend on perspective and which stat you're using.

Twitter isn't a town square, nor will it ever be even if privately owned. Twitter is private property. If you want Twitter to be a town square, you don't get there by a rich guy buying it, you get there by defining it as a utility and developing a government construct that defines shared ownership.

If Musk bought Twitter, and defined things as he has said, what he does is get sued into oblivion because he's allowed everyone in his private property and done nothing to stop defamation and many other types of speech that are actually illegal despite it being his responsibility to do so. So if Musk bought Twitter and did what he suggests, he'd find himself forced to change his tune just because of established law. Because again, we haven't actually defined a public ownership of the property in question. When we do that, we also defined shared liability, which changes the dynamic.

The problems we face here is a dangerous merging of public and private property rights, against freedom of speech concerns. Which don't actually come into play until the government gets into owning the medium in question.

Joe Biden said in July if you get the vaccine, you will not get COVID-19. This is false. You will get covid. Will you get sick? Probably, but not nearly as bad. It was a false statement and still is. COVID-19 vaccine prevents severe infection. So Joe Biden should be banned. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...-if-you-get-vaccinated-you-will-not-get-covid.

We also at one point thought their world was geocentric. But, it is in fact heliocentric.

Why is the Taliban on Twitter? I don't see Twitter getting sued for it. If someone posts a manifesto on Twitter, Twitter is not liable, the person who posts it is.

 

[Sky-Knight]

Joe Biden said in July if you get the vaccine, you will not get COVID-19. This is false. You will get covid. Will you get sick? Probably, but not nearly as bad. It was a false statement and still is. COVID-19 vaccine prevents severe infection. So Joe Biden should be banned. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...-if-you-get-vaccinated-you-will-not-get-covid.

We also at one point thought their world was geocentric. But, it is in fact heliocentric.

Why is the Taliban on Twitter? I don't see Twitter getting sued for it. If someone posts a manifesto on Twitter, Twitter is not liable, the person who posts it is.

And at that time, with the variants in play... the statement was true. Even with current variants if you're vaccinated you have somewhere around an 80% chance of either simply not getting sick, or being asymptomatic. Which from a lay perspective is functionally the same. But more to the point, a year later this point has been found to be false... and the public statements made by the CDC modified as the scientific process worked through the relevant data and made came to a conclusion.

Ergo... Joe isn't banned unless he continues to harp on the already defeated point. You know... like Trump and his assertion that the 2020 election was stolen. He has no evidence to backup that claim, and we've spent MILLIONS investigating in Arizona alone trying to find evidence to backup that claim and yet we still have none. Investigations I might add funded and run by GOP members, into the behavior of more GOP members that were doing the counting to begin with.

If some nutter posts a manifesto on Twitter, Twitter is actually liable. The thing is most nutters don't have the reach to find someone wealthy enough to penetrate Twitter's ring of lawyers. But that simply doesn't change the fact of the law itself. Those laws need changed... yes... they very much do! But they are what they are currently, because Twitter is private property. And when you have someone calling for violence against someone else, that's no longer protected speech but instead a crime. And Twitter is at least an accessory to that crime. So if you publish a manifesto saying so, Twitter is now on the hook for it, and you are too. Now Twitter's liability is variable depending on factors a court will consider, but a court still has to consider it... and that makes it EXPENSIVE.

Which is why they're removing people from the platform that say and do stupid things that get them sued. Because they have no choice... BUT the nature of the problem is such that only the really loud voices get called out on this stuff. (Which is how the Taliban keeps their accounts, they're quiet and have an audience that goes largely unnoticed)

So if Musk buys Twitter, he gets to deal with all of the above, and is forced to behave just as Twitter is behaving now. And Twitter cannot ever behave differently until we the people define shared ownership of the platform. The Town Square is a GREAT example! Because that square was built with tax money, and belongs to the city and ergo the people, it is public property, not private property. And as such, different rules apply. Twitter wasn't built as such, and doesn't exist as such, and therefore cannot function as such regardless of ownership.

If we force Twitter to behave as if it's a town square via the force of law without public ownership, we the people no longer have any property rights at all... this is a VERY dangerous place.

 

[britechguy]

Joe Biden said in July if you get the vaccine, you will not get COVID-19. This is false. You will get covid.

Er, no. The vast majority of those immunized will never contract the disease. His is not a falsehood, but a distillation. If you'd prefered he had said, "If you get the Covid vaccine you are statistically very unlikely to contract Covid, and if you do you are even less likely to have serious illness with hospitalization or death," well, then, fine. I can't disagree that this would be the fully qualified statement.

Given how often people complain about my being long-winded for doing just that, and typing things like TLDR, I'll take Mr. Biden's distillation as "mostly true," which matters.

I expect all people to exercise critical thinking when talking about speech and editorial control. There's plenty of gray area, but the example you give is one where any sane person I know would come down on Joe Biden's side.

 

[callthatgirl]

@britechguy

 

[nlinecomputers]

It has, though. Twitter stock is failing (until Elon came along). User growth/engagement is flatlining or a decline at worst. Income is down. Twitter is not a publisher or a broadcaster.

Nonsense. It absolutely is a publisher and a broadcaster. The only difference is that it freely takes content from its members and publishes it first. It has bots that can block outright known harmful falsehoods or harmful information. If I try to publish information on how to build a truck bomb Twitter will censor me or perhaps ban me. Trump got banned and we all know that you are slyly defending him because he repeatedly said comments that were factually incorrect and were attempting to incite violence. They do so because as they permit the content to exist on their network it is an endorsement of the content. They risk legal liability. Elon can try and relax the rules but he is going to have a fight with his own lawyers. They are not going to allow him to do the things he thinks he wants to do. He also is still going to get in trouble with SEC for his attempts at stock price manipulation. As I said earlier Elon is a billionaire looking after his own interests. He isn't doing this for the benefit of mankind or some stupid nonsense like that. This is for him and only him. If you think otherwise you are just being played.

 

[Sky-Knight]

Musk gets Twitter for $44 billion, to cheers and fears of 'free speech' plan

Elon Musk clinched a deal to buy Twitter Inc for $44 billion cash on Monday in a transaction that will shift control of the social media platform populated by millions of users and global leaders to the world's richest person.

www.reuters.com

Twitter is going private, and Musk has supposedly promised the selection algorithms will be open sourced. I'll believe it when I see it, but that would be quite the positive change.

Still, Musk is about to find out what liabilities he has, if he wants them or not.

 

[16bwhitt]

Musk gets Twitter for $44 billion, to cheers and fears of 'free speech' plan

Elon Musk clinched a deal to buy Twitter Inc for $44 billion cash on Monday in a transaction that will shift control of the social media platform populated by millions of users and global leaders to the world's richest person.

www.reuters.com

Twitter is going private, and Musk has supposedly promised the selection algorithms will be open sourced. I'll believe it when I see it, but that would be quite the positive change.

Still, Musk is about to find out what liabilities he has, if he wants them or not.

I find it very funny how you believe you are more aware of any liabilities Musk has with Twitter than Musk himself knows.

 

[16bwhitt]

Nonsense. It absolutely is a publisher and a broadcaster. The only difference is that it freely takes content from its members and publishes it first. It has bots that can block outright known harmful falsehoods or harmful information. If I try to publish information on how to build a truck bomb Twitter will censor me or perhaps ban me. Trump got banned and we all know that you are slyly defending him because he repeatedly said comments that were factually incorrect and were attempting to incite violence. They do so because as they permit the content to exist on their network it is an endorsement of the content. They risk legal liability. Elon can try and relax the rules but he is going to have a fight with his own lawyers. They are not going to allow him to do the things he thinks he wants to do. He also is still going to get in trouble with SEC for his attempts at stock price manipulation. As I said earlier Elon is a billionaire looking after his own interests. He isn't doing this for the benefit of mankind or some stupid nonsense like that. This is for him and only him. If you think otherwise you are just being played.

Trump’s last words on Twitter was something along the lines of “stop, let there be peace” in regards to the Jan 6th protest. So in fact, you just stated factually incorrect information so you should be banned from this site, right?

I suppose to some, peace is violence.

 

[britechguy]

I find it very funny how you believe you are more aware of any liabilities Musk has with Twitter than Musk himself knows.

It's entirely possible. Nothing about this acquisition suggests that Musk has given this any serious, long term thought nor listened to those advising him against.

I can't say that the above is true, but from what's public-facing about it that's what's indicated.

Everything about this screams "Elon's Whim!"

 

[nlinecomputers]

I find it very funny how you believe you are more aware of any liabilities Musk has with Twitter than Musk himself knows.

I find it funny that you think he’s infallible and not capable of makings bad business decisions. And plenty of experts are saying that his buyout is a mistake. Plenty of experts are applauding it. And also note that what is good for Elon Musk is not necessarily good for us. He is a billionaire looking after his own interests first.

 

[Porthos]

 

[britechguy]

Well, if he were to actually do that, both parts, I'd hail him as a visionary in more realms than he currently is.

The probability of either is zero.

 

[Blues]

The issue also would be people just move to the next one and some we have now are arguably worse for people than the current titans ie TikTok which is very large but still not the power of FB or Twitter.

 

[Sky-Knight]

Social Media will always be a cancer unless the tech offsets the simple fact that bad news travels faster than good news, and humans are too stupid to see past their own confirmation bias.

The platforms make money by selling ads and placement, and both of those things when it comes to news perform several orders of magnitude better if they're formatted to be just this side of propaganda. Doesn't matter what your political leanings are, the algorithm will find the content designed to upset you, because you're most likely to interact with that content and get people paid.

 

[nlinecomputers]

Who didn't see that coming from the gitgo?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/07/10/twitter-legal-action-musk-deal/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook

 

[britechguy]

Who didn't see that coming from the gitgo?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/07/10/twitter-legal-action-musk-deal/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook

Only the willfully blind, I imagine. Elon Musk may be a entreprenurial genius in a lot of respects, but he's a petulant child in a lot of others. The Twitter deal always struck me as a child who wanted a "big toy" and where when that "oooh, shiny" characteristic wore off it would be dropped like an old sock. It just happened sooner than I'd expected.

 

[Sky-Knight]

One could make the argument that Musk wanted the legal fight. I don't think he actually did...

But in the end we're all going to benefit anyway because Twitter's algorithms and bot population problem are going to be in the public eye soon.

But yeah, I expected him to complete the purchase and then attempt to divest himself of it just as quickly. A simple breach of contract that winds up in court is off brand.