mcrad

Tribalism is part of the cause for the dysfunction described in the article. Highly recommended.

bootlicker ^^^

Citizens united supporter are ya? I can't wrap my head around this notion that an agent of $40B public company constitutes "private censorship" do some research.

Most of the negative attitude about this article seems to come from people who weren't raised to appreciate art. It's obvious from all the rebuttals that focus on petty semantics over substance.

But hallmarks of authoritarianism are censorship, centralized power, collusion of private and public sectors.

If by authoritarian you mean he is mean to crybabies in his own company, you might read up on how actual authoritarians have gained power throughout history (hint: they get the crybabies on their side)

Clearly, Musk got into the Twitter business to reduce authoritarian tendencies exhibited by former staff.

I do believe public vs. private is relevant in terms of legal responsibility, which you any many in the tech community are dismissing.

Twitter is a public company ok?

The 14th Amendment may be more applicable. Despite what 1A states, censorship is unconstitutional, and nobody believes this baloney that the accused is innocent as long as they aren't "in the government"

Maybe I'm just not well trained as you in the art of separating conspiracy theory from conspiracy(?)

Yes, you can turn a dump of emails into biased statistics, easily.

Funny how popular this story is despite your "non story" assertion.

You can argue it is minor in comparison to, say, impeachment proceedings re: Burisma, but did Twitter do the right thing in suppressing the laptop story? Probably not. I don't think most people want private citizens like Gadde tampering with elections in the future.

Yep, and so began the golden age of fraud we now experience, and the backdrop for this SBF story. 100% agree that the bailout was bi-partisan and necessary though.

They just removed 7 tweets or do you mean removed the story about a presidential candidate's ties to shady business deals in China and Ukraine, while in office as VP? What was and is "all so stupid" is this perception that it's all about Hunter, you know, your everyday broken down drug addict.

It's an opinion about democratic thinking, and a general assessment in correlating level of education in finance/econ to party bases. I have no idea what "facts" you are referring to. Just wow.

I'm applying logic based on my actual experiences with corruption, you're obviously taking some other approach to come up with an opinion.

I think your mistake is to look at bought-and-paid-for politicians, I'm talking about the general public. My guess is you don't know many republican voters and therefore unqualified to to make the comparison. Most democrats I know think the bailout "paid for itself" lol

I mean ludicrous that since 2009 it's Democratic thinking to bail out the banks, sweep inflation concerns under the rug, spend more money, funding unprofitable tech companies etc. I never said Republicans aren't in on the deal, just that it's obvious one side leading the charge on those things.

And it's completely illogical to assume no conspiracy in this case?

I see mostly Dem and Dem-leaning celebrities been talking up crypto, and a conservative side more educated and knowledgeable about dysfunction in the financial sector as a whole. So even without any stats on the donations, it seems fairly logical to suggest party favoritism is at play.

Right, and SBX's handlers are pushing the lie that the scam doesn't effect the mainstream citizen / regular joe.

If you get paid well and have a unique talent that further incentivizes you to step up and do extra on occasion, what's the big deal? Engineering salaries have never in the history of technology been geared toward clock-watcher/union-boss mindset.

You might consider the fact that these "private companies" products and funding are significantly influenced by government policy. Besides, you totally miss the point of free speech if you think controlling the audience of said speech is irrelevant.

You would be "lucky" to be taken seriously when comparing 1.5 years of recent history with other well-known periods that most people think of as decades in length.

It's not illegal but totally immoral to call out corruption only when it's who you previously deemed your political opponent.

Nobody is unbiased in their opinions about what politicians do with the money, nor should they be. But if you really want to spend more than 10 seconds I'd say reference something more academic that what google spits out as fast facts. Yes, I am partial to books and history in assessing this situation, and see no issue with complaining about you minions taking their latest "internet research" so seriously.

10 seconds of searching is where your argument falls apart, good luck with that.

Anyway you are justifying this destructive behavior with more destructive behavior? It's no wonder you don't take more time to understand these things.

Some people will never understand how damaging this level of tech money tied up in politics is. Apparently it's easier to jump on one side and do finger-pointing than to actually accept the level of fraud happening.

Funny that low performers are seen 100% as a bug and never as a feature. Future leaders need minions too right?

uhm, paul pelosi?

blue anon - you know those brainwashed radicals that say government and SV has all the solutions.