this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2024
1130 points (97.6% liked)

Enough Musk Spam

2203 readers
17 users here now

For those that have had enough of the Elon Musk worship online.

No flaming, baiting, etc. This community is intended for those opposed to the influx of Elon Musk-related advertising online. Coming here to defend Musk or his companies will not get you banned, but it likely will result in downvotes. Please use the reporting feature if you see a rule violation.

Opinions from all sides of the political spectrum are welcome here. However, we kindly ask that off-topic political discussion be kept to a minimum, so as to focus on the goal of this sub. This community is minimally moderated, so discussion and the power of upvotes/downvotes are allowed, provided lemmy.world rules are not broken.

Post links to instances of obvious Elon Musk fanboy brigading in default subreddits, lemmy/kbin communities/instances, astroturfing from Tesla/SpaceX/etc., or any articles critical of Musk, his ideas, unrealistic promises and timelines, or the working conditions at his companies.

Tesla-specific discussion can be posted here as well as our sister community /c/RealTesla.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 42 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Question: As this is no longer a neutral platform, what would be the legal implications? Is Twitter still a neutral carrier (or whatever the proper term is) and enjoys far-reaching legal protections for this?

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 43 points 3 months ago (1 children)

There is no such thing as a "neutral carrier" for social media. It's a made-up concept used to pretend that a social media site isn't allowed to be partisan.

There are zero legal ramifications for making Twitter as partisan as musk wants.

[–] AFC1886VCC@reddthat.com 27 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Funny how the "free speech" guy bought Twitter and made it more biased and authoritarian than it has ever been.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago

Sure, he's an asshole and a hypocrite. But there's nothing "illegal" about it.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

This is literally every "free speech" guy, with the possible exception of Julian Assange.

[–] model_tar_gz@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Which part of “free speech (for me)” is hard to understand?

[–] worsedoughnut@lemdro.id -2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Authoritarian? Definitely.

More biased? Be real, It's just as biased, but just in the other direction post-musk.

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I really don't feel like it was extremely biased to the left before lol.

[–] worsedoughnut@lemdro.id 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I dunno, I think it was pretty blatantly one sided. I have to assume most people who agree with the bias don't tend to see it around them though.

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I just remember arguing with wacko right wingers more then I liked lmao. Here we have a photographer getting banned, on old Twitter you had Alex Jones (and that took many years) or people literally throwing out casual violence who got banned.

[–] worsedoughnut@lemdro.id 1 points 3 months ago

That's definitely fair.

[–] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 11 points 3 months ago

Nothing. Private company can block whoever they want from using their service. Doesn't impact section 230 protections.