BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

And no, it is not the "sole" criticism of Musk that he lied (or changed his mind) about the Twitter policy on this issue.

---

It's not the sole criticism, but it is one that has been raised repeatedly and that Musk's defenders seemingly don't want to address.

---

I will address it. Not everything Musk does is perfect. I will, however, defend invalid criticism of him.

---

Exactly. He changed the twitter policy - in part because he and his family were in fact being stalked. He didn't just change the policy as it applied to him. The new doxxing rules apply to everyone.

And more importantly, Musk announced the changed policy. For better or worse, he owned it and didn't make the change without subjecting twitter and himself to debate/criticism.

Rather funny that liberals are suddenly very concerned about the fair and consistent application of twitter moderation policies and sudden changes thereto.

---

But again he specifically said he would not ban this account. Presumably he knew what it was before buying the company. Then he went back on that in an apparent fit of pique.

I think it was always hard to fairly apply Twitter policies across the board, because Twitter is so damn big. That's something Elon is also finding out now. I will say that I prefer Twitter policies to be up for review by a group of people and not subject to one man's whims, but that's how it goes sometimes. It's a private company.

---

It really depends on the group, doesn't it?

We just saw the "group" that was previously reviewing twitter policies testify before congress. There was zero transparency with that group and there was complete political group think. Not much respect for First Amendment traditions or principles. Also a lot of governmental pressure applied to said group.

If the choice is one accountable individual vs a group that operates in secret, without standards, then I know what I'd pick. With Musk, at least you know who is responsible (in a larger sense).

You didn't like what he did with the account ban and knew exactly who to blame. How does that compare to the pre-Musk time where many people were banned/censored by the anonymous "group" with little or no accountability and no public explanation?

Big picture - this is the reason why there should be as little censorship as possible. There is no one who can plausibly and without bias moderate political thought. Certainly not anyone subject to government influence, as Twitter and the other social media companies have been.

To the maximum extent possible, let the marketplace of ideas reign free.

---

So by that standard, Musk should have let the jet account stay. Like he originally promised he would.

---

Not if he felt it was a security risk or otherwise was doxxing - hence "to the maximum extent possible" qualifier.

Musk felt his security was at risk and felt others' security would be at risk due to these types of disclosures. FB has adopted similar policies re posting of otherwise "public information" for exactly the same type of personal security reasons. So Musk is not alone.

Unit2 is going to keep posting his conclusory opinion that there was "no security risk" because he can't acknowledge that others (including facebook) disagree. He won't answer what he would do if his family (or members of his political tribe) faced the same sort of doxxing/disclosure of real time geolocation information. I imagine Nancy and Paul Pelosi agree with me, not Unit2.

Musk/Twitter adopted the policy. Fine to criticize him for changing his mind - which incidentally happened after his family's car was stalked. Maybe that changed his mind? In any event, there are real security risks and many (if not most) social media websites don't permit the disclosure of personal information - even if derived from public sources.

---

Right, "he felt" his security was at risk. There's no real evidence that plane tracking actually puts anyone at risk, which is why it isn't illegal. But hey, let's have censorship decisions made based on one man's emotional state. What could go wrong?

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

And no, it is not the "sole" criticism of Musk that he lied (or changed his mind) about the Twitter policy on this issue.

---

It's not the sole criticism, but it is one that has been raised repeatedly and that Musk's defenders seemingly don't want to address.

---

I will address it. Not everything Musk does is perfect. I will, however, defend invalid criticism of him.

---

Exactly. He changed the twitter policy - in part because he and his family were in fact being stalked. He didn't just change the policy as it applied to him. The new doxxing rules apply to everyone.

And more importantly, Musk announced the changed policy. For better or worse, he owned it and didn't make the change without subjecting twitter and himself to debate/criticism.

Rather funny that liberals are suddenly very concerned about the fair and consistent application of twitter moderation policies and sudden changes thereto.

---

But again he specifically said he would not ban this account. Presumably he knew what it was before buying the company. Then he went back on that in an apparent fit of pique.

I think it was always hard to fairly apply Twitter policies across the board, because Twitter is so damn big. That's something Elon is also finding out now. I will say that I prefer Twitter policies to be up for review by a group of people and not subject to one man's whims, but that's how it goes sometimes. It's a private company.

---

It really depends on the group, doesn't it?

We just saw the "group" that was previously reviewing twitter policies testify before congress. There was zero transparency with that group and there was complete political group think. Not much respect for First Amendment traditions or principles. Also a lot of governmental pressure applied to said group.

If the choice is one accountable individual vs a group that operates in secret, without standards, then I know what I'd pick. With Musk, at least you know who is responsible (in a larger sense).

You didn't like what he did with the account ban and knew exactly who to blame. How does that compare to the pre-Musk time where many people were banned/censored by the anonymous "group" with little or no accountability and no public explanation?

Big picture - this is the reason why there should be as little censorship as possible. There is no one who can plausibly and without bias moderate political thought. Certainly not anyone subject to government influence, as Twitter and the other social media companies have been.

To the maximum extent possible, let the marketplace of ideas reign free.

---

So by that standard, Musk should have let the jet account stay. Like he originally promised he would.

---

Not if he felt it was a security risk or otherwise was doxxing - hence "to the maximum extent possible" qualifier.

Musk felt his security was at risk and felt others' security would be at risk due to these types of disclosures. FB has adopted similar policies re posting of otherwise "public information" for exactly the same type of personal security reasons. So Musk is not alone.

Unit2 is going to keep posting his conclusory opinion that there was "no security risk" because he can't acknowledge that others (including facebook) disagree. He won't answer what he would do if his family (or members of his political tribe) faced the same sort of doxxing/disclosure of real time geolocation information. I imagine Nancy and Paul Pelosi agree with me, not Unit2.

Musk/Twitter adopted the policy. Fine to criticize him for changing his mind - which incidentally happened after his family's car was stalked. Maybe that changed his mind? In any event, there are real security risks and many (if not most) social media websites don't permit the disclosure of personal information - even if derived from public sources.

---

You know you're lying right? The original tracker is currently still live on Instagram and Facebook. I posted the IG link previously. Here's the fb link: https://m.facebook.com/ElonJet/

So unlike your poorly researched claim, whatever Meta's TOS state, they apparently don't prevent the disclosure of slightly delayed location information for a private plane.

This just brings us back to the fact that your argument doesn't survive the bare minimum of factual inquiry. You keep conflating and confusing a number of different points in order to yadda yadda yadda your way out of an absolutely indefensible position. You can keep embarrassing yourself here but you will never turn this loser of an argument into a winner here because you have neither the facts nor the "law" on your side.

Again, without resorting to false equivalences and utter misstatements of fact, your argument is reduced to subjective feelings, which is what I've stated from the get go. This is purely subjective for Elno.

My guess is that you haven't even done the bare minimum here, because if you had you would have given a mea culpa or slinked off in quiet shame rather than continuing to press a counterfactual claim. You don't know what the banned account posted. You have no reason to believe that information is actually "real-time" the way you keep claiming it is and you have no basis to conclude that it poses an actual security risk to Elno or that it bears any resemblance to the posting of Nancy Posi's home address.

You also continue to pathetically claim what my response would be if this were me when you have the answer because I've said what I would do. Hint: you don't have to make things up, you can read my prior response on what I would actually do. To reiterate, since you don't seem to want to address anything other than your own projected straw men, I would do what other similarly situated individual do when they care about their privacy and are well advised but apparently Elno is incapable of doing it. So you can stop pretending that I would act like an idiot and take unreasonable positions and you can stop pretending you actually have an informed position.

Thank you again for giving me the opportunity to rub your nose in it. I'm amazed that you continue to come back for more given how easily your claims are beaten back.

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

And no, it is not the "sole" criticism of Musk that he lied (or changed his mind) about the Twitter policy on this issue.

---

It's not the sole criticism, but it is one that has been raised repeatedly and that Musk's defenders seemingly don't want to address.

---

I will address it. Not everything Musk does is perfect. I will, however, defend invalid criticism of him.

---

Exactly. He changed the twitter policy - in part because he and his family were in fact being stalked. He didn't just change the policy as it applied to him. The new doxxing rules apply to everyone.

And more importantly, Musk announced the changed policy. For better or worse, he owned it and didn't make the change without subjecting twitter and himself to debate/criticism.

Rather funny that liberals are suddenly very concerned about the fair and consistent application of twitter moderation policies and sudden changes thereto.

---

But again he specifically said he would not ban this account. Presumably he knew what it was before buying the company. Then he went back on that in an apparent fit of pique.

I think it was always hard to fairly apply Twitter policies across the board, because Twitter is so damn big. That's something Elon is also finding out now. I will say that I prefer Twitter policies to be up for review by a group of people and not subject to one man's whims, but that's how it goes sometimes. It's a private company.

---

It really depends on the group, doesn't it?

We just saw the "group" that was previously reviewing twitter policies testify before congress. There was zero transparency with that group and there was complete political group think. Not much respect for First Amendment traditions or principles. Also a lot of governmental pressure applied to said group.

If the choice is one accountable individual vs a group that operates in secret, without standards, then I know what I'd pick. With Musk, at least you know who is responsible (in a larger sense).

You didn't like what he did with the account ban and knew exactly who to blame. How does that compare to the pre-Musk time where many people were banned/censored by the anonymous "group" with little or no accountability and no public explanation?

Big picture - this is the reason why there should be as little censorship as possible. There is no one who can plausibly and without bias moderate political thought. Certainly not anyone subject to government influence, as Twitter and the other social media companies have been.

To the maximum extent possible, let the marketplace of ideas reign free.

---

So by that standard, Musk should have let the jet account stay. Like he originally promised he would.

---

Not if he felt it was a security risk or otherwise was doxxing - hence "to the maximum extent possible" qualifier.

Musk felt his security was at risk and felt others' security would be at risk due to these types of disclosures. FB has adopted similar policies re posting of otherwise "public information" for exactly the same type of personal security reasons. So Musk is not alone.

Unit2 is going to keep posting his conclusory opinion that there was "no security risk" because he can't acknowledge that others (including facebook) disagree. He won't answer what he would do if his family (or members of his political tribe) faced the same sort of doxxing/disclosure of real time geolocation information. I imagine Nancy and Paul Pelosi agree with me, not Unit2.

Musk/Twitter adopted the policy. Fine to criticize him for changing his mind - which incidentally happened after his family's car was stalked. Maybe that changed his mind? In any event, there are real security risks and many (if not most) social media websites don't permit the disclosure of personal information - even if derived from public sources.

---

If Musk's family was truly stalked, why didn't any of them ever file a police report? They have the guy on video. They had him stopped at the scene. This is a serious threat, and totally not a ridiculously amateur staged PR event, right? So why no call to police?

You're so obsessed about one CEO implementing one minor change to protect people's privacy, and possibly safety.

Yet I haven't seen you post anything about dozens of 'former' FBI officials working at Twitter, and censoring free speech of thousands.

I've seen you post nothing about the government creating a secret backdoor portal to Twitter to censor free speech, and on top of that pay them Millions.

Which means it's also happening at Facebook, Google, YouTube, and elsewhere.

We've got fentanyl pouring across our southern border leading to over 100,000 drug ODs, over 5 Million illegal immigrants in Biden's term, including human traffickers and gang members, Antifa operating scott free, a spike in violent crime, we're in an open proxy war with Russia.

And you're obsessed with calling a CEO 'Elno' for a minor policy change?

movielover said:

---

You're so obsessed about one CEO implementing one minor change to protect people's privacy, and possibly safety.

Yet I haven't seen you post anything about dozens of 'former' FBI officials working at Twitter, and censoring free speech of thousands.

I've seen you post nothing about the government creating a secret backdoor portal to Twitter to censor free speech, and on top of that pay them Millions.

Which means it's also happening at Facebook, Google, YouTube, and elsewhere.

We've got fentanyl pouring across our southern border leading to over 100,000 drug ODs, over 5 Million illegal immigrants in Biden's term, including human traffickers and gang members, Antifa operating scott free, a spike in violent crime, we're in an open proxy war with Russia.

And you're obsessed with calling a CEO 'Elno' for a minor policy change?

---

I'm having an adult conversation with another poster. Feel free to start a new thread with all your right wing talking points and wait for me to respond. Might be waiting a while since I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge your hero Putin's position on Minsk, or any other number of questions you've ignored. Turns out that people can choose what to post about.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

movielover said:

---

Still waiting for your source that Putin said he wasn't going to honor Minsk.

---

Sure. Looking forward to your propaganda spin since you were unwilling to go on record earlier.

https://tass.com/world/1334327

Quote:

---

Diplomat reminds US, Ukraine that Russia is not a party to Minsk agreements

Maria Zakharova stressed that the Package of Measures was mandatory for the parties to the intra-Ukrainian conflict: Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk

MOSCOW, September 6. /TASS/. Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has stressed that Russia is not a party to the Minsk agreements and urged the US Embassy in Moscow to inform the US diplomatic mission in Kiev about that.

Zakharova was commenting on reports saying that the US Embassy in Ukraine had called on Russia to fully honor its commitments under the Minsk accords. "I did not know that the US Embassy in Ukraine also performed the functions of the American diplomatic mission in Russia. Is that how they are optimizing or what?" she wrote on her Telegram channel.

"As long as we do not know anything about that, I urge the US Embassy in Russia to tell the US Embassy in Ukraine that Russia is not a party to the Minsk agreements. At the same time, the Package of Measures is mandatory for the parties to the intra-Ukrainian conflict: Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk," she stressed.

---

---

This sounds like Russia was treating the Donbass itself as a party to the Minsk Agreement, as opposed to Russia being a direct party to the agreements. The document was signed by Separatist Leaders Zakharchenko and Plotnisky (not agents of Russia), an OSCE rep, and a Ukranian Rep.

I don't see anything there saying Russia will break the agreement. Rather, they weren't direct parties to it (unlike Ukraine, who was arming itself through NATO to get strong enough to break it and take back territory it felt was theirs).

Unit2Sucks said:

---

movielover said:

---

You're so obsessed about one CEO implementing one minor change to protect people's privacy, and possibly safety.

Yet I haven't seen you post anything about dozens of 'former' FBI officials working at Twitter, and censoring free speech of thousands.

I've seen you post nothing about the government creating a secret backdoor portal to Twitter to censor free speech, and on top of that pay them Millions.

Which means it's also happening at Facebook, Google, YouTube, and elsewhere.

We've got fentanyl pouring across our southern border leading to over 100,000 drug ODs, over 5 Million illegal immigrants in Biden's term, including human traffickers and gang members, Antifa operating scott free, a spike in violent crime, we're in an open proxy war with Russia.

And you're obsessed with calling a CEO 'Elno' for a minor policy change?

---

I'm having an adult conversation with another poster. Feel free to start a new thread with all your right wing talking points and wait for me to respond. Might be waiting a while since I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge your hero Putin's position on Minsk, or any other number of questions you've ignored. Turns out that people can choose what to post about.

---

Calling me a liar is an adult conversation. Interesting.

The issue is whether it is unusual for social media websites to consider the publication of "publicly available" information as doxxing. it is not unusual. The fact that FB allows the plane tracker to post doesn't change the fact that disclosure of SOME TYPES of public information is against FB TOS specifically for security reasons. FB and Twitter have slightly different policies (or perhaps enforce them differently). But unequivocally, there is no unqualified right to post all public informaition

Since we are having an adult conversation, I do have some additional comments I'd like you to respond to:

You're so obsessed about one CEO implementing one minor change to protect people's privacy, and possibly safety.

Yet I haven't seen you post anything about dozens of 'former' FBI officials working at Twitter, and censoring free speech of thousands.

I've seen you post nothing about the government creating a secret backdoor portal to Twitter to censor free speech, and on top of that pay them Millions.

Which means it's also happening at Facebook, Google, YouTube, and elsewhere.

We've got fentanyl pouring across our southern border leading to over 100,000 drug ODs, over 5 Million illegal immigrants in Biden's term, including human traffickers and gang members, Antifa operating scott free, a spike in violent crime, we're in an open proxy war with Russia.

And you're obsessed with calling a CEO 'Elno' for a minor policy change?

WalterSobchak said:

---

Can't help but notice you've once again avoided my questions about the "stalking." Why no police call?

---

Do you know for a fact that there was no police call? Even if there wasn't does that mean it didn't happen?

Why would Musk make something like that up? To get attention, because he has no other way to do that?

It is fine to disagree with Musk's Twitter doxxing policy decision - or for that matter his assessment of the risks to his personal security. But there is no good reason to impugn his motives. You just hate the guy's politics and, like many on the left, direct hate at people you disagree with.

All of this from you, Sycasey, and Unit 2 is a reaction to the liberals losing control of Twitter. The same kind of ire is directed at any person or media outlet who doesn't adhere to liberal politics - it is a strategy not a coincidence. Punish the dissenters to reduce dissent. Musk was a hero to the left until he had the audacity to disagree about free speech.

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

movielover said:

---

You're so obsessed about one CEO implementing one minor change to protect people's privacy, and possibly safety.

Yet I haven't seen you post anything about dozens of 'former' FBI officials working at Twitter, and censoring free speech of thousands.

I've seen you post nothing about the government creating a secret backdoor portal to Twitter to censor free speech, and on top of that pay them Millions.

Which means it's also happening at Facebook, Google, YouTube, and elsewhere.

We've got fentanyl pouring across our southern border leading to over 100,000 drug ODs, over 5 Million illegal immigrants in Biden's term, including human traffickers and gang members, Antifa operating scott free, a spike in violent crime, we're in an open proxy war with Russia.

And you're obsessed with calling a CEO 'Elno' for a minor policy change?

---

I'm having an adult conversation with another poster. Feel free to start a new thread with all your right wing talking points and wait for me to respond. Might be waiting a while since I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge your hero Putin's position on Minsk, or any other number of questions you've ignored. Turns out that people can choose what to post about.

---

Calling me a liar is an adult conversation. Interesting.

The issue is whether it is unusual for social media websites to consider the publication of "publicly available" information as doxxing. it is not unusual. The fact that FB allows the plane tracker to post doesn't change the fact that disclosure of SOME TYPES of public information is against FB TOS specifically for security reasons. FB and Twitter have slightly different policies (or perhaps enforce them differently). But unequivocally, there is no unqualified right to post all public informaition

Since we are having an adult conversation, I do have some additional comments I'd like you to respond to:

You're so obsessed about one CEO implementing one minor change to protect people's privacy, and possibly safety.

Yet I haven't seen you post anything about dozens of 'former' FBI officials working at Twitter, and censoring free speech of thousands.

I've seen you post nothing about the government creating a secret backdoor portal to Twitter to censor free speech, and on top of that pay them Millions.

Which means it's also happening at Facebook, Google, YouTube, and elsewhere.

We've got fentanyl pouring across our southern border leading to over 100,000 drug ODs, over 5 Million illegal immigrants in Biden's term, including human traffickers and gang members, Antifa operating scott free, a spike in violent crime, we're in an open proxy war with Russia.

And you're obsessed with calling a CEO 'Elno' for a minor policy change?

---

I'm going to make this really simple - because it appears you are having a hard time catching up.

I have no problem with Elno changing the TOS for a business he owns in order to implement his personal privacy preference. It appears that changing the rules of Twitter to suit him was one of the reasons he did the deal.

The reason I'm here is because I do have a problem with obviously flawed and/or disingenuous arguments and your argument fits the bill.

You have brought up any number of false equivalences in order to defend a position that needs no real defense. We all know he did it because he subjectively felt like this was an invasion of privacy. That's fine, he can feel that way and we can all accept that is how he feels. What I don't consider to be fine is these breathless defenses attempting to yadda yadda yadda your way into pretending that posting when his plane has taken off or landed is the same as a whole bunch of other things.

There is a reason that no other major social media website prevents the publication of this information. Pointing out that other things are prohibited only really serves to prove you wrong. It means that they have thought about what to allow and what to prohibit and everyone else thinks this information is fine.

Yet you persist because apparently you enjoy being proven wrong over and over again. If there is another reason for your desire to repeatedly subject yourself to clowning, I haven't figured it out yet.

If you think bringing in ML's RWNJ fantasies is relevant, all you've done is disprove my point about this being an adult conversation. Congrats.

BearGoggles said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

Can't help but notice you've once again avoided my questions about the "stalking." Why no police call?

---

Do you know for a fact that there was no police call? Even if there wasn't does that mean it didn't happen?

Why would Musk make something like that up? To get attention, because he has no other way to do that?

It is fine to disagree with Musk's Twitter doxxing policy decision - or for that matter his assessment of the risks to his personal security. But there is no good reason to impugn his motives. You just hate the guy's politics and, like many on the left, direct hate at people you disagree with.

All of this from you, Sycasey, and Unit 2 is a reaction to the liberals losing control of Twitter. The same kind of ire is directed at any person or media outlet who doesn't adhere to liberal politics - it is a strategy not a coincidence. Punish the dissenters to reduce dissent. Musk was a hero to the left until he had the audacity to disagree about free speech.

---

Man you are pathetic. The LAPD is on record that there was no call for this. Somehow this will not be good enough for you, I'm sure.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-12-15/elon-musks-stalker-incident-no-police-report-lapd-says

WalterSobchak said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

Can't help but notice you've once again avoided my questions about the "stalking." Why no police call?

---

Do you know for a fact that there was no police call? Even if there wasn't does that mean it didn't happen?

Why would Musk make something like that up? To get attention, because he has no other way to do that?

It is fine to disagree with Musk's Twitter doxxing policy decision - or for that matter his assessment of the risks to his personal security. But there is no good reason to impugn his motives. You just hate the guy's politics and, like many on the left, direct hate at people you disagree with.

All of this from you, Sycasey, and Unit 2 is a reaction to the liberals losing control of Twitter. The same kind of ire is directed at any person or media outlet who doesn't adhere to liberal politics - it is a strategy not a coincidence. Punish the dissenters to reduce dissent. Musk was a hero to the left until he had the audacity to disagree about free speech.

---

Man you are pathetic. The LAPD is on record that there was no call for this. Somehow this will not be good enough for you, I'm sure.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-12-15/elon-musks-stalker-incident-no-police-report-lapd-says

---

An article from December 15, 2022 says "No crime reports have been filed yet" but the police were in fact in contact with Musk's security team. Did it occur to you that events could have transpired since that time - such as filing a police report?

Other than nitpicking musk, what is your point? Are you suggesting the event didn't happen and the absence of a police report is evidence of that? Or that it happened but was not a security issue because he didn't file a report?
Be specific.

BearGoggles said:

---

All of this from you, Sycasey, and Unit 2 is a reaction to the liberals losing control of Twitter.

---

Speaking only for myself, no, that's not what it is. It's a reaction to the conservatives who freaked out about Twitter censorship when it was being done by other people but bend over backwards to defend Elon's censorship because they believe he's on their "team" now. Mostly I'm making fun of you guys.

My position on Twitter censorship is that they are a private company and can do what they want. No one is entitled to perfectly free speech there.

sycasey said:

---

okaydo said:

---

New: Tesla workers file NLRB complaint alleging free-speech enthusiast Elon Musk had their Twitter account shadowbanned the day after they announced a union drive. Third-party tools show searches for the account return restricted results, ie a "shadowban." https://t.co/tp1VbPI9ae

— Tim Marchman (@timmarchman) February 17, 2023

---

"Operation Let Them Speak" -MinotStBeav

---

Are there any updates to this story? Did Twitter under Musk really shadowban here for Tesla just like the previous ownership continuously shadowbanned for Pfizer, Moderna, Fauci, and the never Trumpers?

The biggest takeaway from this thread:

Righteous Righties still don't understand "Free Speach" and the 1st Amendment.

AunBear89 said:

---

The biggest takeaway from this thread:

Righteous Righties still don't understand "Free Speach" and the 1st Amendment.

---

The biggest takeaway from this thread:

AunBear89 still doesn't know how to contribute to a topic without flaming and insulting like a six year old child. That is his sole "contribution" to just about any topic.

Stalker. I didn't address you. But thanks for pretending your input here is meaningful.

Regarding my post: prove me wrong. How does the 1st amendment have any relevance to this topic?

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

All of this from you, Sycasey, and Unit 2 is a reaction to the liberals losing control of Twitter.

---

Speaking only for myself, no, that's not what it is. It's a reaction to the conservatives who freaked out about Twitter censorship when it was being done by other people but bend over backwards to defend Elon's censorship because they believe he's on their "team" now. Mostly I'm making fun of you guys.

My position on Twitter censorship is that they are a private company and can do what they want. No one is entitled to perfectly free speech there.

---

Fair enough. I think you've been consistent on that.

I actually disagree to some extent - not sure its a truly private company when the government has enacted regulatory protections, the government and politicians are exerting pressure and/or the company has a monopoly of sorts.

Between censorious private companies and gov funded censorship, we're entering 1984 territory.

https://nypost.com/2023/02/13/censorship-by-the-feds-crushes-news-via-lefty-disinfo-firms/

---

If conservatives want to start discussing more government regulation to combat this censorship problem, I'm all ears. Usually they don't want that.

BearGoggles said:

---

Be specific.

---

This is hilarious coming from you. Reread my previous posts on this. My position is clear.

Your habit of filling in blanks with favorable conjecture while simultaneously accusing me and others of doing the opposite is entirely telling. I'm not attacking Musk here at all. I'm attacking YOU for falling for it.

BearGoggles said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Be specific.

---

This is hilarious coming from you. Reread my previous posts on this. My position is clear.

Your habit of filling in blanks with favorable conjecture while simultaneously accusing me and others of doing the opposite is entirely telling. I'm not attacking Musk here at all. I'm attacking YOU for falling for it.

---

Hi Walter,

You pestered me to answer your question (which I did). Yet you dodge mine. It is almost like you don't want to answer.

So I'll ask again:

Other than nitpicking musk, what is your point? Are you suggesting the event didn't happen and the absence of a police report is evidence of that? Or that it happened but was not a security issue because he didn't file a report?

Be specific. What is the relevance of whether or not there is a police report?

---

You answered the question? Where? I see your misdirection ploy with rank speculation about things that you hope might have happened to strengthen your position since the incident without any corroboration, but no answer. I'm sure you can figure out why refusing to file a police report hurts the credibility of a claim that a crime was committed if you try really hard.

WalterSobchak said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Be specific.

---

This is hilarious coming from you. Reread my previous posts on this. My position is clear.

Your habit of filling in blanks with favorable conjecture while simultaneously accusing me and others of doing the opposite is entirely telling. I'm not attacking Musk here at all. I'm attacking YOU for falling for it.

---

Hi Walter,

You pestered me to answer your question (which I did). Yet you dodge mine. It is almost like you don't want to answer.

So I'll ask again:

Other than nitpicking musk, what is your point? Are you suggesting the event didn't happen and the absence of a police report is evidence of that? Or that it happened but was not a security issue because he didn't file a report?

Be specific. What is the relevance of whether or not there is a police report?

---

You answered the question? Where? I see your misdirection ploy with rank speculation about things that you hope might have happened to strengthen your position since the incident without any corroboration, but no answer. I'm sure you can figure out why refusing to file a police report hurts the credibility of a claim that a crime was committed if you try really hard.

---

Just as I thought, you don't actually know if a police report or complaint was ever filed. You're the one engaging in conjecture and it is quite funny you are so sanctimonious while not seeing that.

As it turns out, the press found the guy on the video and confirmed the police were investigating. So it seems likely Musk (or his team) filed a report/complaint or someone else did. Or perhaps they didn't because the police were already investigating? Whatever the specifics, it is very clear the incident happened which directly refutes the shade you're throwing on Musk (as evidenced by the bolded text above).

The other driver was, by his own words, proven certifiably crazy. Among other things, he thought Musk's ex-wife Grimes was sending him coded messages through Instagram. He also claimed that Musk was stalking him and his family for the past year and preventing him from working at Uber Eats. Those are facts, per the l ink below.

But yeah - you must be right, Musk made all of this up and was wrong to think it was a security issue for him and/or his family.

https://nypost.com/2022/12/19/elon-musks-crazy-stalker-outs-himself-as-uber-eats-driver-brandon-collado/

And just to be clear, I never claimed this incidence was a "crime". I did claim the event happened and that Musk had reason to consider it a security issue. He and his family have had previous stalkers and this appears to be another one. That seems to be a big part of the reason why he doesn't want his real time information broadcast.

BearGoggles said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Be specific.

---

This is hilarious coming from you. Reread my previous posts on this. My position is clear.

Your habit of filling in blanks with favorable conjecture while simultaneously accusing me and others of doing the opposite is entirely telling. I'm not attacking Musk here at all. I'm attacking YOU for falling for it.

---

Hi Walter,

You pestered me to answer your question (which I did). Yet you dodge mine. It is almost like you don't want to answer.

So I'll ask again:

Other than nitpicking musk, what is your point? Are you suggesting the event didn't happen and the absence of a police report is evidence of that? Or that it happened but was not a security issue because he didn't file a report?

Be specific. What is the relevance of whether or not there is a police report?

---

You answered the question? Where? I see your misdirection ploy with rank speculation about things that you hope might have happened to strengthen your position since the incident without any corroboration, but no answer. I'm sure you can figure out why refusing to file a police report hurts the credibility of a claim that a crime was committed if you try really hard.

---

Just as I thought, you don't actually know if a police report or complaint was ever filed. You're the one engaging in conjecture and it is quite funny you are so sanctimonious while not seeing that.

As it turns out, the press found the guy on the video and confirmed the police were investigating. So it seems likely Musk (or his team) filed a report/complaint or someone else did. Or perhaps they didn't because the police were already investigating? Whatever the specifics, it is very clear the incident happened which directly refutes the shade you're throwing on Musk (as evidenced by the bolded text above).

The other driver was, by his own words, proven certifiably crazy. Among other things, he thought Musk's ex-wife Grimes was sending him coded messages through Instagram. He also claimed that Musk was stalking him and his family for the past year and preventing him from working at Uber Eats. Those are facts, per the l ink below.

But yeah - you must be right, Musk made all of this up and was wrong to think it was a security issue for him and/or his family.

https://nypost.com/2022/12/19/elon-musks-crazy-stalker-outs-himself-as-uber-eats-driver-brandon-collado/

And just to be clear, I never claimed this incidence was a "crime". I did claim the event happened and that Musk had reason to consider it a security issue. He and his family have had previous stalkers and this appears to be another one. That seems to be a big part of the reason why he doesn't want his real time information broadcast.

---

Thanks for posting another article that confirms there was no police report, and that LAPD saw the Musk tweet and independently investigated the incident (must be nice). The fact that it's a right-wing tabloid would typically be a big red flag, but here it's actually more persuasive because they admit my position. I particularly liked this tidbit:

Quote:

---

So far, [the LAPD detective] said, there was no direct evidence that the man had used the @ElonJet page that tracks the mogul's flights.

---

For a *very* long time, US media was racist against non-white people, now they’re racist against whites & Asians.

Same thing happened with elite colleges & high schools in America.

Maybe they can try not being racist.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 26, 2023

Elon Musk may be coming to the defense of East Bay resident Scott Adams. Adams referred to a recent Rasmussen poll(s) about "Woke" ideologies, and took issue with a subset of the poll. I

I have not seen the Hotep Jesus podcast. Adams made some comments about race that resulted in Dilbert being pulled from over 100 newspapers.

BLACK AMERICANS ONLY:
"It's okay to be white."
53% agree, 26% disagree, 21% not sure

"Black people can be racist, too"
76% of agree, 27% disagree, 8% not sure. https://t.co/5pYBvT00qn

— Rasmussen Reports (@Rasmussen_Poll) February 22, 2023

The Washington Post is in spin mode now. They had to ignore 80% of the context by not mentioning the Hotep Jesus podcast. Lol. https://t.co/eNj1A8VlXl

— Scott Adams (@ScottAdamsSays) February 26, 2023