They presumably have some sort of policy in place. They don't have to use the 1A as the basis whether or not Musk is in charge and his own company has fired an employee for speaking out of turn. And he actually didn't say he'd follow a 1A based policy, he said he'd censor both the far left and right instead of the far right as Twitter currently does.
Actually it is exactly what he said:
Still interesting times with lots of drama.
The same old tired arguments. Musk eventually figured out that free speech still has limits even with bots because guess what? SPAM is FREE SPEECH - you want to get rid of SPAM you're CENSORING.
The board have to sue him, its their duty. Otherwise they get sued by shareholders.
Huh? He has been saying this for quite a while.
Let's not conflate the issue. They were never hostile - they made the recommendation to sell to the shareholders in record time. They're simply moving forward with the purchase as contractually agreed to. Thus Musk should either move forward or face penalties and lawsuits as with any deal of this nature.
They absolutely were hostile. You cannot adopt a poison pill and still declare yourself non-hostile.
Since when do bots have any rights? So no, removing bots is not censoring by any stretch of the imagination.
Are you being obtuse? You can't get rid of bots or spam if you uphold free speech?
No they've been completely honest because it's not about authenticated users. It has to do with monetizable daily active users which has been an estimated metric. It does represent number of authenticated users. If I have 2 twitter accounts and then I should only count as 1 but this is imprecise because the number of humans or devices doing the posting might vary hence why it's always been qualified as such. Go compare this site's registered users with unique users as per their publishing / site statistics - they differ.
Don't get stuck on the terminology. It's not hostile to ensure that a deal is made in good faith. Musk wasn't forced to agree to go through with deal inclusive of the clause.
Why does the mechanism change the right of expression? If I program something to spew my speech at every possible opportunity why should it be curtailed? Are you saying only my direct speech is free? Am I not allowed to counter your speech with my own via an automated process or pseudonym?
Nah he does - he has the guarantees - it's just going to cost him more stock in Tesla than he is willing to part with
You can say whatever you want under whatever pseudonym you wish, but a bot is not a representation of you and therefore not your speech. The main problem with bots is the one to many ratio.
Of course it’s a representation of me? Why can’t it be? My view being parroted isn’t allowable? Pretty sure free speech extends to marketing or lobbying?
Sign up with Google