RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://spectatorworld.com/topic/elon-musks-twitter-files-demand-answers-from-the-government/

The “Twitter files” Elon Musk released to two journalists have produced a cloud of confusion. So far, we have not seen the files themselves, only what one journalist, Matt Taibbi, has reported about them.

The main findings reinforce what we have known all along: Twitter’s former management strongly favored Democrats and used its powerful platform to aid them. It was far more likely to suppress the speech of conservatives and Republicans than of progressives and Democrats. Twitter’s systematic bias went far beyond its most famous instance, when it killed the New York Post story on Hunter Biden’s infamous laptop. Freddy Gray makes these important points in his recent piece here at The Spectator.

Bias like this can harm free, open, and robust political discourse in a democracy, especially if the bias is pervasive and hidden. But before criticizing Twitter, it is important to understand how our First Amendment protects free speech and what its limits are. Its protections do not require every media source to be fair and balanced. Each one can be as partisan as it wishes. Moreover, private entities, whether they are individuals, corporations, or nonprofits, are free to say whatever they wish, so long as they don’t directly threaten others. (If they libel or defame someone, then of course they can be sued.) These aspects of free speech reinforce each other. They encourage many voices to be heard, perhaps on different platforms, so citizens can judge for themselves.

That means Twitter, under Musk today or under the previous management, is perfectly free to say whatever it likes as a corporation, and free to encourage or discourage different political viewpoints from its users. Newspapers, TV stations, and podcasts can do the same thing. So can Donald Trump’s social media platform, Truth Social. Trump doesn’t have to broadcast the views of Rachel Maddow, and MSNBC doesn’t have to broadcast his. These platforms are also free to take whatever advice and guidance they wish from other private entities. If the Democratic National Committee wants Twitter to plug certain stories and deemphasize others, they are free to collaborate — or refuse to do so.

https://issuesinsights.com/2022/12/06/now-we-know-while-twitter-was-busy-silencing-conservatives-it-let-child-porn-fester/

Since Elon Musk took over, Twitter has been kicking more people off its network. Except this time around it isn’t conservatives getting the boot. It’s those trafficking in child porn.

This is what the left and woke companies are freaking out about?

Cybersecurity firm Ghost Data reported over the weekend that Twitter had nearly doubled the number of accounts it’s suspending each day that were sharing child pornography.

“In the past 24 hours, Twitter started to step up its efforts and took down 44,000 suspicious accounts, including over 1,300 profiles that tried to bypass detection using codewords and text in images to communicate. Zero tolerance,” said Ghost Data founder Andrea Stoppa, who has been monitoring this, in a tweet.

“Twitter is now fighting vigorously against child sexual exploitation content, it’s thanks to one person that set it as the #1 priority: Elon Musk,” she tweeted.

https://swtotd.blogspot.com/

Each year, lexicographers at Merriam-Webster, Britain-based Collins Dictionary, the Oxford English Dictionary, and others, select a “word of the year,” often a neologism, but not always. Gaslighting[1] (a form of psychological abuse) was the choice at M-W, while Collins chose permacrisis. The former was chosen because of the increase in lookups (up 1,740%), while the latter was selected, as it was applicable to a year that saw the first war in Europe in seventy-seven years, China’s increased aggression, and world-wide inflation. The OED selected three words, including my favorite – more a phrase than a word – goblin mode, which was also cited by Ben Zimmer in a recent op-ed in The Wall Street Journal. It refers to behavior that is “unapologetically lazy, slovenly, greedy, typically in a way that rejects social norms.” It is often assigned to those who spend inordinate amounts of time on social media, as in my grandchild is in goblin mode.

I have been thinking of words and phrases – their origins, meanings, and appropriation by political opportunists, often leaving their opponents with the etymological dregs. Over the past few years, we have created a political alphabet soup: CRT, DEI, ESG, and BLM, reminding one of Roosevelt’s “alphabet soup agencies’ from the 1930s. But, unlike FDR’s agencies which actually put people to work, today’s alphabet soups have more in common with Humpty Dumpty: “When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”

Words have assumed new meanings. Yesterday’s environmentalists have become today’s climate warriors. Information to some is misinformation to others. Should it be the state that decides what is accurate and what is not? Is it too much to ask Twitter users to be personally wary of conspiracy theories and to look out for offensive language – offensive to some but not to others? And what, for example, does the European Union means when it tells Twitter that it must apply “content moderation” to the posts it allows?

When I read of Larry Fink pontificating as to being socially responsible, I picture a greedy John Bull with a smirk on his face and a halo above his head. And the scam artist Samuel Bankman-Fried, a promoter of progressive fads, bills himself as an effective altruist. Is not an altruist already effective? Certainly, his investors and depositors who lost millions of dollars do not see him as altruistic.