UKH

Seems like a bit of a mess! Has Musk fundamentally misunderstood what he's bought and the limits of his power?

Unless he was actually planning to completely re-task the product/company in some way we don't understand it seems to me he's treated Twitter like any other big media purchase, a megaphone he can use to press his agenda and in theory at least, one with huge reach.

What he actually got is a user group with places to go and no loyalty to him. He's pissed them off.

Plus employees with places to go and no loyalty to him. He's pissed them off by summarily sacking half of them then treating the remainder as if they work for a brand new start up operating on redbull and dreams out of a basement. That's gone well.

Of course he has the code and the physical assets but how long before that falls over now 80+% of the experienced staff have been sacked or quit and the rest have been locked out.

Assuming Musk can't save Twitter from here and will presumably be too pig headed to give it up to someone who can, has anyone else ever burned up quite so much quite so fast*? Not even Nasa's ridiculous Frankenstein moon-shot has wasted that much.

*No, not you Kwarteng, that was other people's money

jk

Twitter is certainly odd. Keeps thinking because I clicked on something about fell running I need to see lots of posts on ice hockey, cage fighting, basketball and American football teams I've never heard of. Oh, and dogs, calf feeders, Gary Neville and ESPN.

I've never tried it but you're not selling it!

Facebook is no better for bonkers algorithms though, mine is currently serving me endless pictures of stylish wood/glass cabins (nice but why) and desiccated mummies (grim and why).

jk

I think he has mostly been living in an echo chamber on twitter in the past with all those nutters praising every utterance as if it was the Bible, Koran and Bhagavad Gita rolled into one.

Most people ignored him and even those who disliked him dont seem to have really bothered engaging so he had a false impression of how popular he was on the site.

Now though he painted a target on his back.

I was thinking FTX had a good attempt last week but that was also others money.

You can pick and choose who you follow, and if you're reasonably selective about that then you can get quite a lot of what you're interested in and relatively little chaff. The stuff that the algorithm promotes to you as "you might also like this" tends to be rubbish, particularly if you aren't following much to start with, but it's generally ignorable in practice.

That said, it's not obvious how long it's going to remain functional for unless something changes in the organization.

Was that before or after we started discussing sheds on UKC....

Weeks before, it's not started trying to sell me straw yet I guess it guessed I'd like one and I probably did so now it keeps sending me them. Who knew black triangular cabins in the woods was an apparently quite significant genre of architecture!

jk

Fascinating thread here about all the ways it could go wrong:

https://twitter.com/mosquitocapital/status/1593541177965678592

Though it's interesting that even under the current circumstances, a lot of the best commentary is still to be found on Twitter itself.

To be fair, if you count the absurd per-launch cost as being expended during the time of the launch itself, SLS is right back on top of the money:time disgrace list.

He basically threatened them with “Work like a slave or leave”, should be no surprise that they are choosing to leave. No one needs a culture or threats like he is offering.

Exactly. I imagine he lives in a very weird bubble but can this really have come as a surprise to Musk?

jk

Come on own up. You are looking for a new mummy and a nice cabinet to keep it in. 

Even more stupidly, he threatened them with “Work like a slave or leave with three months severance"! Apparently something like 75% of the people left at Twitter to receive the ultimatum decided to take the money and go...

Who gives a .......

A multi billionaire chucks a load of money away buying a poisonous chat room.

I don't.

Im sure he's bought it to run it into the ground on purpose so he can then come along as the one who 'saved it' either that or has something else lined up.

It does seem like it's being asset stripped!

Some interesting commentary from David Allan Green on the purchase. Main question: why did his confunders put money in?

https://davidallengreen.com/2022/11/musk-and-the-three-ways-his-acquisition...

This is noteworthy too. True??

https://www.reddit.com/r/RealTesla/comments/yy1tyc/someone_has_to_say_it_el...

Hard to see how Twitter could ever have lived up to it’s pre-Musk valuation.  Perhaps his insanity is just accelerating the inevitable.

Musk does seem blind to why staff work so hard for SpaceX given he seems to think people will work like that for Twitter when nobody has presented a comparable vision to drive people beyond a 9-to-5 mentality.  Also hard to see how on earth Twitter could ever offer such a compelling vision.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63672307

I think 'Chief Twit' is a perfectly accurate description of Musk.

His threats to staff aren't new: "come to the office full time, or leave" to Space-X staff ignores the paradigm shift in working practices that covid accelerated.

There are very few assets to strip. Its value is entirely notional, based on platform and user base. "You are the product" has never been more true.

It couldnt. Hence why once they did a quick internal review of likely sale price they bit his hand off saying yes even before the markets went to shit.

The banks were almost certainly planning on selling it on as soon as possible to people buying into the Musk mythos which minus the market issues and him dragging it out for ten thousand years probably would have worked.

I think you’re giving him too much credit. He tried pretty hard to get out of what seemed to be the world’s biggest impulse purchase. 

I think people misunderstand the value in twitter.

People will pay to have a platform to tweet. Not casual users, but businesses and personalities.

Key to making money is getting the most from those who'll pay, and reducing fake accounts and driving engagement will help. Twitter use is up.

Next you need to reduce your costs.

I don't think anything that has happened is unusual in a restructure, it's happened publicly because that achieves the engagement goal.

I’m not too good at predicting this kind of stuff but it does appear that Musk has the same problem with ego that Trump has.

Incredible ... let this be a warning. Elon Musk has it as his Latin motto that Vox populi, vox Dei. I dared to tweet that EM is neither the voice of the people nor the voice of God, and I've been banned from Twitter for 12 hours. I was threatened with an even longer term of silence if I didn't delete my alleged offensive tweet immediately. So, anything Musk says about free speech is complete bullshit.

'Elon Musk emailed Twitter staff on Friday asking that any employees who write software code report to the 10th floor of the office in San Francisco in the early afternoon, according to multiple news reports.

The billionaire said in a follow-up email, “If possible, I would appreciate it if you could fly to SF to be present in person,” adding he would be at the company’s headquarters until midnight and would return Saturday morning, Reuters reported. The engineers should report at 2pm on Friday.'

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/nov/18/elon-musk-twitter-engine...

So whilst other platforms allow content creators to monetize it, you think Twitter will succeed by charging people to produce content?

Yes. If I take an industrial trade show as a comparison.

Twitter is the venue. Exhibitors pay, visitors don't (in this case). Sponsors pay. Invited guests presenting papers don't.

So twitter charges those who want to be heard above others and those who want to advertise. It makes it generally free to visit, but benefits from the non-payment higher quality amateur content. The latter will exist if the paid content (blue tick) and adverts are good.

For example, I follow a lot of naturalists, mostly amateur. If some wish to promote their content by getting blue tick because professionally they require high profiles then they will pay. As will advertiser's trying to sell me bird guides, or bat detectors. The remaining content providers who tweet for their own benefit or the benefit of a small group of interested followers, will continue as before. They don't need blue tick. They operate on the quid pro quo basis that twitter gives them a home and they provide interesting content.

Facebook has descended into an advertising hell where the Wall is basically unusuable and the amount of targeted ads is disturbing and beyond the point of value to the user. If twitter created an environment where I can distinguish promoted content (blue tick) from others, and where adverts are relevant then it will be an improvement.

Targeted advertising is hardly a revolutionary new idea for supporting a social media company and most responsible platforms already distinguish paid content from the rest in some way. I don't really understand what you're proposing Twitter do differently to suddenly make the business model work well for them.

There's nothing wrong with using a blue tick to distinguish paid content, other than the stupidity that the same symbol already meant something completely different.

how long was your UKC ban?

Reread. I'm proposing they do anything. I'm explaining that charging content creators to share content for free is an existing thing.

My Twitter wall today is relatively free of blue ticks, and pleasingly full of bird watching, cookery and nature art.

I think for quite a few weeks, but that was for a justified reason. My comment about Musk was incredibly mild, indeed little more than a truism. Because how can he literally be 'the voice of the people' or more absurdly, 'the voice of God'?

yes, surprised they have enough staff left to moderate such moderate stuff.

my brief foray into the twitter world resulted in Peter Daszak blocking me

not sure ukc is much different..

The man's ubiquitous! My phone just bleeped ~ He's running some poll 'Reinstate former President Trump Yes/No'. I don't even follow Musk!

I read that the results are in and apparently Trump is going to be reinstated following a narrow 'yes' vote. 

51.8%  It seems that's the magic number for confirming an act of utter feckwittery in a dodgy half-arsed referendum.

Edit to add:  Oh FFS, "the people have spoken": https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/nov/20/twitter-lifts-donald-trump-...

I think you may have misunderstood the meaning of Vox populi, vox Dei.  It means the voice of the people *is* the voice of god.  Maybe Musk was using to say he will do what the people want on some particular issue.  He has done that before.

Certainly looks like Twitter will be saving a packet on salaries.

I think some others have been allowed back on too. I cant remember the names but I believe highly controversial figures in conspiracy, misogyny etc. 

Well, I was deliberately distorting the saying to apply it Musk (who clearly thinks he's God), which is probably why I got temporarily banned (for 24 hours) ... ! 

The question is, where to go from here. Mastodon looks complicated/clunky, I think I'll wait for Blue Sky (or whatever it's going to be called), then I'll leave the Trump-promoting Twitter - as I hope 100s of 1000s of others will.

12 or 24 hours ? I think we deserve to know the TRUTH.

I can't actually remember now if it was 12 or 24 hours. I know I had to wait to 5.30 in the evening, which suggests it was 24 hours because it would have been very odd for me to have been tweeting at 5.30 in the morning.

Is this really true? How disappointing. I'd like to hear Elon's response to a question on the lines of why users are being banned for insulting him on his free speech platform.

Seems harsh. The circumstances are intriguing tho', but I guess you're not allowed to share the details and probably wouldn't want to.

Jordan Peterson (who I believe is banned from Twitter, not a user so wouldn't actually know) had what I think is a good idea for Twitter. It would probably work on UKC also. By default, all the chat is only for people who are verified users and do not have anonymous names. This would then result in somewhat self-regulated commentary.

You can then choose to enter the snake-pit cesspool of unverified and anonymous users if you wish.

So further reducing the already miniscule number of women prepared to contribute.  If you can't work out why, then you are (as the saying goes) part of the problem.

“Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, Vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit.”

“And those people should not be listened to who keep saying the voice of the people is the voice of God, since the riotousness of the crowd is always very close to madness.” 

Alcuin of York, 798

Seems about right. 

"Twitter fails to delete 99% of racist tweets aimed at footballers in run-up to World Cup"

And yet it appears they'll suspend you for mild criticism of Musk, he must be very thin skinned compared to what he expects footballers to be.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/nov/20/twitter-fails-to-delete-...

Yeah, it's the terrible, terrible idea that refuses to die. It also sidelines anyone who wants to talk about their gender identity, sexuality or politics while living under social or political conditions where that could put them in danger, anyone who wants to talk about their gender identity or sexuality without necessarily being "outed" to their family and colleagues, whistleblowers, anyone with a strong need to keep their work and personal life separate (I'm guessing teachers, social workers and psychiatrists might not be happy to be too easily googleable by anyone they encounter in their work life), anyone who doesn't like the idea of their entire social media footprint being easily findable by a job interviewer. And all this to reach the lofty standard of discourse that we see on Facebook, where people have been posting absolute trash under real names since forever.

On the other hand, given all that, I'm very much not surprised that Jordan Peterson thinks it's a good idea...

I beiieve hs's got a secret agenda. Many people were baffled why he'd bought Twitter (and for such a price), but I now believe one of his main aims is to promote Trump, or rather, to let Trump promote himself.

I'm not sure about that. Last I heard, Trump hadn't used his Twitter account since it was reinstated and still wants to push his own failing social network.

The idea is it wouldn't be a threatening place if people had to own what they say.

Your comment assumes no behaviour change.

Granted as far as personal attacks go that one is pretty mild but something I always follow when speaking online (I hope, or at least I do my best) is never to participate in personal attacks. I'm sure I've slipped up from time to time during a heated debates but as a rule I say what I think but I never aim to make it personal.

Good for you. Sadly, there are enough people who are more than happy to resort to personal insults as to render much of social media utterly untouchable for some. We regularly see reports of fines and prison sentences for people who have breached the bounds of decency and more importantly, considered to have broken laws. Given the tiny proportion of posts on social media which are actually subject to any kind of sanction (see the point about 99% of offensive messages aimed at footballers, for example), it seems that it is all to easy to avoid punishment.  

Is 'Truth Social' actually failing? How would one measure its success? Is it supposed to be a money-making business?

Good point. After a quick bit of Googling, it seems it might not be face-planting like I hoped. I guess I was thinking in terms of influence and attention garnered as well as money. And because his posts on there weren't breaking through into mainstream media saturation like his tweets did, and because the influence of Trump himself seems to be fading somewhat, I considered it to be largely failing. And it is indeed still a minnow compared to any mainstream social media site. But it seems to be getting quite a lot of traction in the nasty subcultures of the Republican party, so maybe I shouldn't write it off.

The real money making part was the Spac converting it to a public company and giving lots of cash to Trump and friends. That has hit a bit of a brickwall.

And again, and this is an open question, this is surely exacerbated by unverified users is it not? Of course there will always be those that cross a line openly but verified users will surely reduce this occurrence. By how much we won't know unless it is trialed.

I suspect the tiny numbers of persecutions you suggest come down to not knowing who the user is. If they have broken the law online and a user is verified then a prosecution would be very easy surely. The evidence is there and all the details of who the user is would be available to the police.

I think the idea has merit and could result in a much happier internet. We'll never know if we don't try it.

How are you going to verify these users? Especially on an international platform.

How are you going to secure those users identity. Otherwise there would be a lot of people who wouldnt feel able to comment due to the likelihood of reallife persecution.

I believe the Chinese are trying it. I am not sure its that much happy although admittedly far more agreeable to the powers that be.

Isn't this just Facebook's 'real name' policy? I'm not sure Facebook is a good advert for it. The policy is very much possibly to circumvent on there but most people do seem to use their genuine name and it's still a dumpster fire in a lot of communities.

Twitter do it now. So it's clearly possible. there's tonnes of ways. I signed up for something recently and I had to hold my ID next to my face whilst my phone camera too a photo to verify me. No idea if a computer or a human verified it.

The whole point is your not hiding your identity. If you're unfortunate to live in a country that has unreasonable laws you could still post as an anonymous user, it just wouldn't be visible to all who choose not to view it.

Trying what exactly? What's the relevance? The Chinese are also trying to crack fusion power. Should we avoid that? 

Facebook is by far not the worst. I'd say Twitter and Instagram take that biscuit.

After the departure of 80% of the staff, Twitter could now be profitable -  as long as revenue has not fallen of a cliff.

If it can lose 80% of its staff and still carry on - what were they all doing?

And this is why Twitter being owned by one person is a problem. Im not sure what the financials behind the purchase are but assuming he owns it outright, he can now do what he wants, at will. 

He can determine policy, staffing (within local laws), performance, and ultimately who he has using 'his toy' and what they can say. He is the ultimate arbiter now.

His response can now be, play by my rules or you can build or buy yourself a new platform, as I did.

As long as he doesn't break laws then there's no recourse. He's beholden to advertisers only and even then he could let them all go, let the platform close and it wont matter to him.

Dunno about that. There is 44 billion dollars to be accounted for, one way or another. Not to mention the risk of reputational damage.

The point is, its less than 1/4 of his wealth, which when each unit of measure is in the billion, it really wouldn't matter. 

As far as reputation is concerned,  I  dont think he cares, based on recent evidence at least.

The takeover was not simply funded by his own money: other people and companies also have a stake. See e.g. https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2022/10/28/how-elon-musk-financed-his-twi...

The wheels are still turning but no one is driving the car. Errors and bugs will build up over time until it is unusable. I think.

Possibly. An alternative is that it was being badly-run, and had gotten used to burning investors' money. Time will tell. I myself wouldn't bet against Musk.

Don't you have to buy something cheaply, with valuable assets, for that to work?

Yep. Or a ticking time bomb. Or both.

Does he really need it to be profitable, he's surely bought it as a mouthpiece and a tool for political manipulation (for example by reconnecting Trump) rather than purely to make money. His fellow investors may have different aspirations of course. See earlier point about timebombs.

jk

You can pay good money so long as you can then load the debt onto the company and then walk away with the profits.  In this case though only some of the debts have been loaded onto the company and the assets look to be mostly goodwill.

He did not need to buy it to get a mouthpiece, his tweets/utterances & interviews already got large coverage.

I think he wants to fix the business.  Make it profitable and grow it.

He is doing just that. 

Ha, yeah, right.  He's doing a bang up job, in the same sense as Trump making America great again.

Yeah but now it's in his gift who else has access to the platform and potentially who gets amplified or muted. If Trump needs Twitter for another successful presidential run then he needs Musk and having an indebted president must be worth a fair chunk of the buying price given the other business Musk is in and their ability to milk government.

We'll see.

jk

What does he need to do for *you* to accept he is fixing the business?

If it becomes profitable?

If it removes child exploitation content?

Twitter allowed the Taliban, but banned people for hate speech for suggesting that a woman was an adult human female.  Allowing Trump back on is just a plus for free speech,  I don't quite understand why that makes people so apoplectic.

youtube.com/watch?v=XkCBhKs4faI&

Because he used the platform to undermine (among other things) a legitimate election result, to incite an armed insurrection during which people died, which had it succeeded would have effectively ended the run of democracy in America, a key ally and, arguably, the world's military superpower? Apoplectic, no. Definitely a bit queasy.

No idea what the Taliban use Twitter for but I can well imagine they're a bunch of tools.

jk

I don't think you can or should prevent people from spewing false and or malevolent crap. 

The ideas and arguments themselves need to be countered by further argument.

That only works with "equality of arms". If one side has £100bs to dominate communication channels, you don't get a worthwhile argument.

I disagree. Somewhat squeamishly and assuming some perspective here. "The moon is made of cheese" from mad Bob down the pub: Ok. "The* election was rigged, I didn't lose" from the an outgoing president: Not so much.

*free, fair and well regulated by most reasonable standards

jk

And that is where the grand ideals of free speech come crashing against the reality of the world.

As an example, fossil fuel companies have spend decades and billions of dollars spewing false and malevolent crap about the science of global warming and climate change. They knew they were telling lies, but they continued regardless, in their own self-interest. Their ideas and arguments have been countered by scientists laying out the science.

Despite the counter arguments being presented, the consequence of the actions of the fossil fuel companies is that we are decades too late in addressing the issues of climate change.

The free speech you are keen on is having, and will continue to have, disastrous consequences for the world. 

I think you and lowersharpnose are talking about slightly different things.

If I understand lowersharpnose correctly he is talking about individuals should have the right to express their view or lie. I agree with this.

But we all accept limitations to this (well most of us do). You can't lie in court, you can't lie on an electoral form, you can't try and convince someone to kill themselves. I would hope 99.9% of the public agree with these "limitations" to free speech.

Your example of companies lying should be treated differently. We already have laws where you can't lie when advertising. Perhaps your example may not fall under the same laws, but it's effectively the same thing for the same gain and should probably be treated the same in my view. Where this gets messy is when individuals of such companies choose to speak in a personal manner. Their rights should be honored. 

Well Musk has implemented a general amnesty for all banned accounts (except it seems for anyone who ridiculed him) so we may get a real-time ringside seat on how many individuals being able to air their voices without limits pans out.

https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/social/elon-musk-announces-genera...

I disagree. My point is that free speech can have seriously adverse consequences.

And yet we know that fossil fuels companies have lied and lied and lied over decades, without any adverse consequences to their corporate entities but with dramatically adverse consequences for the world. 

It is markedly different to the case of advertising. False advertising pertains to the misrepresentation of the benefits of products. The cases I am presenting go far beyond this. 

Not quite so free speech, then, eh...?

Ah, the poor precious little flower...

The SM companies need to bear liability as publishers here. If someone has a million followers they have the influence of a newspaper and should be held to the same standards

That has worked well, hasn't it...? We're in the Brexit shit we're in largely due to bollocks printed by swivel-eyed press barons.

Only the other day, the Excess and Heil were ranting about 'betrayal on hard Brexit'.

The statement "The free speech you are keen on is having, and will continue to have, disastrous consequences for the world."  reads like an appeal for authoritarian censorship.

Are you seriously against free speech?

Are you in favour of shouting fire in a crowded theatre?

Freedom of speech has never meant the freedom to shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre.  And freedom of speech has never implied an obligation for others to give the speaker a platform to speak from.

If this is the level of nuance you're working at I'm a bit surprised anyone is bothering to take you seriously on this thread tbh.  You're not looking for an honest debate, you're inviting people to play you at pigeon chess.

Doesn't that depend on whether or not there's a fire?

That case is rightly and correctly covered by law, as I presume you know.

Why the ad hominem?

Yes, but that law, and the theatre analogy, were both conceived before every smartphone gave potential access to the thoughts and opinions of millions and millions of people. Just like the US 2nd Amendment didn't cover AR15s, there's an argument that current laws aren't appropriate.

As others have said, freedom of speech doesn't equal freedom of reach. You can shout whatever craziness you like on Hyde Park corner but if you wandered into the lobby of the Ritz and continued you would be justifiably asked to leave.

If you want to stretch the analogy to fit Trump's big lie about the presidential election, it's shouting fire when there isn't a fire in order to create enough chaos and confusion in the crowd to act as cover when you start the fire.

Which country and which law? Although thats mostly irrelevant.

I assume by "rightly" you do agree with it being banned? Which means you arent in favour of "free speech" but instead "free speech with limitations".

At which point the question is what limitations are reasonable and on whom.

Me suggesting x might be ok but what if we have a foreign state pushing x in order to try and damage the country. Should that be considered fair game?

No, I'm pointing out that there are consequences to the right to free speech. Some people recognise the consequences and act accordingly. Sadly, there are those who abuse that right and have no concern for any adverse consequences. This is where we run into difficulties.

I don't want to stretch the analogy. There either is a fire in the crowded theatre or there isn't. If there is then you can shout "fire". If there isn't then you can't(shouldn't). But it's difficult to only let people into the theatre if they promise not to shout fire even if they find a fire.

It's daft to pretend this is a black and white argument with only two sides. Even the most ardent free speech absolutists tend to accept the need for some limitations, even if they think they should be very minimal. And even the most brutal dictator permits some degree of free speech and carefully controlled criticism. The debate makes no sense if it's cast as "do you support or oppose free speech?". Everybody supports it. The only interesting question is where you draw the line.

The rest of your post seems to give the lie to that a wee bit.

It's the standard response from the UKC leftie-crazy brigade, to anyone whose opinion differs from their own. 

Generally, it's a fair indicator that they're running out of arguments.

Embrace it!

Fair point, but not even the mail was telling all its readers to inject bleach to cure COVID, or that a pizza shop was the centre of a paedo ring involving the government, or that the last election was stolen. Some lies need to be stopped by the law, as well as by convincing counter argument.

No it doesn't. I'm merely trying to clarify whether you really mean "Freedom of speech has never meant the freedom to shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre". Or whether it might be a little more nuance than never being able to shout "fire" in a theatre.

Ironic.  Ha.

(My post wasn't an ad-hom btw.  I was playing the ball, not the man.  The post I was replying to was disingenuous, witless or both, but I wasn't calling lowersharpnose either of those things.)

Oh I see!  You want to abandon the analogy completely and have a conversation about literally shouting 'fire' in a theatre.  (Which may or may not be literally on fire.) 

I think that would probably be better as a topic for another thread.  But FWIW if the building you're in is on fire, it's definitely better to wait until you're outside before you take the time to post on social media of it.

Excellent, you've realised your analogy doesn't work (as is so often the case with poorly applied analogies).

Because that's worked well so far.

Imagine a see-saw with:

• On one side, an elephant.  It stands for a few hundred thousand subject specific experts armed with peer review analysis of evidence gathered with peer reviewed methods in peer reviewed processed.
• On the other side, a mouse.  It sands for the minority of people spewing false and malevolent crap.

That's reality, and the ideas are countered not by further argument, but by sheer weight of methodical evidence.

Along comes a new part of reality - social media systems that draw users in with carefully understood addiction mechanisms and that focus tiny little windows of attention in on the mouse and the elephant, re-sizing the content to be the same in each window by giving each a similar amount of air time, and cutting out the critical context of the sea-saw of evidential judgement, giving a thoroughly false impression of parity between equally valid opinions.

That's not "free speech".  The elephant and the mouse have free speech.  The platform is a highly selective context stripping and amplifying device bereft of any legal or moral controls and without one shit given for the consequences of its actions.

I agree.  But I don't think we should allow companies to selectively amplify the false and malevolent component of individual's free speech to the distortion of society.  This is not a debate about free speech, but about corporate responsibility.  We can't even pretend this is all accidental distortion and amplification (cough Cambridge analytica cough, for example)

Trump's idiotic 'bleach' comment was made at an official US Government press conference, of course; nothing to do with Twitter.