- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
Someone tell the Republicans we found the immigrant interfering with the election.
The? Rupert Murdoch has been
running a huge propaganda networkplaying ‘defense’ for republicans for decades.An AFRICAN immigrant.
[blows dust off of cover]
Yeeah, a lot of these “not really news” lately… but it’s good that they’re talked about at least.
O RLY?
Someone please tell me that if we stop Trump, Musk shouts NO IT WASN’T SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN THIS WAY! and then spontaneously, melts, or shatters like glass, or gets swallowed up by a chasm, or eaten by hyenas.
And then every cybertruck, every tesla, every Spacex capsule and every Starlink satellite simultaneously turns into magic dust before evaporating into nothing.
Almost 100% onboard. The exception is SpaceX.
Obviously I don’t know the exact specifics of how they’re successful and I don’t care.
Leave SpaceX out as the “black sheep”, even though they should be the “golden child”.
I wish SpaceX continued success and a future of good luck.
SpaceX deserves a CEO who isn’t a complete disaster and enemy of the state.
It has Gwynne Shotwell, and she generally does quite well at managing Musk’s impact.
Indeed. She must be keeping very busy. I haven’t read much about her in a while (since she publicly defended him from sex scandals).
I wonder how she really feels about his spiralling mental illnesses and tragic obsessions (social media, conspiracies, politics). He seems quite useless and irrelevant to any business decisions these days. Just another investor to keep happy.
Imagine how much better the company would be if she didn’t have to burn so much of her time and effort on managing and mitigating Musk’s chaos.
https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/spacex-polluted-waters-texas-regulators-rcna166283
Hexavalent chromium in our waters. Yum!
I think Tesla could also be a company driving positive change if he wasn’t cutting costs and pushing stupid products
It can be successful with Musk. Would love to see it separated from him
Ready or Not rules: If trump doesn’t win in november then Musk and his entire empire explodes.
He will get eaten by hyenas, his investors, and then put in a cell.
Musk is on the trump mushroom dick train because he’s afraid he’s going to get indicted, and trump has already offered him a full pardon.
This makes too much sense to not be true.
Elon doesn’t want to have to compete with Chinese makes rolling into Mexico. Trump promised 200% tariffs on Mexican produced cars. He basically has a captive market in the US on connected cars I don’t really see anything in our domestic market that is comparable.
It’s funny how this maps exactly onto the Hunter Biden files, except that everything Republicans lied about happening is now actually happening.
Every accusation is an admission
I thought that was the whole point of buying Twitter…
That doesn’t make it legal
Elon is getting fat. Like old fat.
Yes, and that is clearly the reason he purchased the platform.
He purchased the platform because he was forced to buy it after he fucked around.
Unfortunately, we’re the ones that get to “find out”.
African immigrants are stealing the election
Throw the fuckers in prison already.
A) I don’t think there’s anything illegal, here, and B) of course large private agencies manipulate elections, from news agencies to SuperPACs to social media, and C) there’s not a heck of a lot we can do about that.
The best thing we can do is smarten up and think for ourselves. In short, we’re doomed!😅
I agree that it’s probably not illegal for him to do that. But it is solvable if we decide to legislate some long overdue guardrails.
Just be careful how you do it. The First Amendment gives a lot of leeway for people to be shitty.
I’ve always said that in order to get access to the internet, you should need a yearly updated photograph of your genitals that is easily displayed whenever you post something online.
That way, when you try to sway someones opinions, they can see how big your penis is, and say “No actually, shut up. You have a small penis, Elon Musk!”
Finally a way for the big penis club members to be taken seriously intellectually, and not just paraded around for our good looks!
Dude I know you get down voted a lot but you are probably my most favorite person on this platform. Always love to come across a Lost My Mind comment. Never know what to expect but im probably going to fucking laugh.
There’s a lot of people on this platform who take things very seriously. Internet comments are serious business, and jokes on here are like poking the bear.
Then I come along and I’m like Steve Irwin. "AW CRIKEY! IT’S THE GREAT LEMMY BEAR OF THE DECENTRALIZED TERRITORIES!!! THESE CREATURES CAN BE QUITE HOSTILE TOWARDS NON-LINUX USERS, AND ANYTHING SARCASTIC! THEY NEVER GET A CHANCE TO MATE, SO THEY’RE QUITE IRRITABLE!!!
…IMMA GO TICKLE THEIR BALLS!!!"
🤣 No kidding!
It’s not illegal in the broke an actual government law sense, but it certainly violates every moral principle I’ve ever heard of. Instead of being generous and grateful for his wealth, the richest man has decided to buy the largest place where news is shared on the internet, fired almost all the employees primarily out of spite, and pirated the network for the sake of turning it into a propaganda platform for an attempted dictator who will make him even richer.
This is what cancel culture is made for. Not some comedian misspeaking. This.
This was my first question. Where is the line between election “participation” and election “interference”? Putting a political sign on my lawn certainly isn’t interference?
Is your lawn a network of millions of people, which censors differing opinions, and deletes others signs?
Is that illegal, though? I agree it should be. I didn’t see any broken laws referenced in the article (or at least not the parts I could read though the adds.) Just curious as to when their actions crossed from just being a jerk to being illegal.
Removed by mod
Sure, if you completely ignore the fact that Spez was more than happy to harbor The_Donald until they went full on domestic terrorist.
deleted by creator
Good. That’s exactly the kinda of lowbrow crap that shouldn’t be accepted in public or online. And if you can’t advocate your favorite orange weirdo in a diaper without calls for violence, doxxing folks, etc, then you know what? That’s the kind of worthless shit heel society should not be wasting it’s time on…
deleted by creator
You’re not too bright, right?
If a kid calls his teacher a bitch and get sent to the principal, is that censorship?
deleted by creator
Define “kid.”
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
If the kid is below 21, what is such a circumstance defined as?
lol
What you smokin’ comrade?
How does a US citizen “interfere” in a US election? Nothing described in the article is illegal. “Interfere” is usually used to denote actions by outside powers.
-
Xwitter is definitely promoting disinformation, which is election interference and can be committed by American citizens. Jacob Wohl and Jack Burkman pled guilty in 2022 to hiring a firm to make calls spreading disinformation during the run-up to the 2020 election.
-
Xwitter is providing a measurable, financial benefit to the Trump campaign. That’s soft money, and using soft money to exceed individual campaign contribution limits is against the law.
Also pretty sure that creating a voter registration site that only appears to register voters in swing states (while gathering their data so you can follow up with only the ones you want to target) could also lead to criminal charges if the matter were to be pursued.
Nobody gives a flying fuck about campaign finance laws with this supreme court.
Whether or not it will be prosecuted is immaterial to whether or not it is legal.
Wohl and Burkman were fined for sending threatening and intimidating robocalls. Not spreading misinformation.
Fox News is also providing measurable benefit to Trump. They also spread disinformation. If euther of those things were illegal they’d been shut down back when they were calling Obama a Kenyan Muslim.
Please identify exactly which law Musk is breaking and with exactly which action.
-
Wohl and Burkman were sentenced to community service.
-
The charge they pled guilty to was fraud; that they “falsely claimed that mail-in voting would put voters into a database that would be used to collect outstanding debt, track down warrants or enforce mandatory vaccinations.” It doesn’t matter what the outcome was (intimidation or something else), the fraud was the crime.
-
Fox is a slightly different case, as they’re technically press and thus have a first amendment protection that automatically makes any case against them harder. But either way, the lack of prosecution is far from evidence that a crime was not committed.
-
I already identified exactly which law Musk is breaking and with what action. 52 USC 20511 and 52 USC 30101, if you find it particularly important.
-
They were also fined 2,500 USD each.
-
The case against them that most relates to what you’re talking about is in Michigan. They’re charged in accordance to a Michigan statute that bans deterring voters through “corrupt means or device”, referring specifically to disinformation that the two individuals specifically engaged in and their stated goals. That’s a world of difference from having a social media platform whose policies cultivate a userbase that seeks to get out the vote for a candidate and whose owner uses as a platform to advocate for that candidate. The case is actually going to the supreme court because the statute may be overly-broad.
-
You haven’t provided any evidence or compelling argument that what they or Musk do falls outside of 1A protection. It seems to me that you’re implying that media institutions with a slant towards a political actor or party during an election is violating campaign laws? Please clarify.
-
Invoking 20511 implies you believe pro-Trump disinfo on X posted by thousands of users constitutes “intimidation” of prospective voters. 30101 makes the “X support for Trump constitutes campaign finance fraud” argument look ridiculous:
(B) The term “expenditure” does **not include-
(i) any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate;
Please clarify.
Nah, honestly, by now the length of this conversation is way out of proportion to my interest in it. I’m not convinced by your argument even a little bit, but I’m really not compelled by talking about it anymore. Have a good one.
That’s fair, I’m also bored with the topic.
Cool. Glad we agree on that, at least. Cheers!
-
-
-
There are lots of potential ways, especially when you own a large social media platform that doesnt have rational reasons for blocking certain political content over others that skew a particular way.
There are no laws on the books that force social media platforms to tolerate all political expression. While there are laws allowing then to be sued for violating civil rights, that’s not the same thing. Selective bans on people of specific political background are still a common thing across the internet.
So until that’s remedied we’re trapped with billionaire cretins trying to swing politics with their huge platforms.
Lol tell that to Tina Peters.
