So did anyone check the badge (or vape or whatever it is) to see if it was legit? No?
My 6-year-old has a badge, too. It came with his Halloween costume. He was a detective (trench cost, fedora, etc....)
It's not like fake badges don't exist.
This is just sad.
Someone wake me up from my nap if it turns out Mike Lee was right about whoever he's accusing here. Otherwise, I'm not getting my panties in a twist and wasting any more effort on this "exciting discovery" than typing this post up.
I don't get this obsession people have with thinking John John is still alive and that if he was, he would be helping Trump.
JFK, Jr. was a lifelong liberal and democrat. Why the hell would he be working with Trump? I don't get the fascination with JFK, Sr., either. He was also a lifelong liberal and democrat, and would not be working with Trump if he was around today.
Seriously, what is up with this?
I don't agree with Musk's position on this matter. That hasn't changed since he threatened to sue the ADL for turning advertisers against him. (He never went through with that lawsuit). And it didn't change when he threatened to sue the Center For Countering Digital Hate for turning advertisers against him. (He never followed through with that threat, either).
He made the choice to allow certain content on his site, fully knowing what much of the public thinks of that content. And when that public complains about it, and companies choose not to work with him because their customers are speaking out against it, he tries to bully them into staying and he tries to bully his critics into silence.
This is just another case of a group saying negative things about the content on X and advertisers leaving because of it. And I would be absolutely shocked if Musk followed through with his threats on this one.
There's a reason he never follows through on these threats. You realize that, right? It's because he knows he won't win.
Musk just likes to throw public temper tantrums when things don't go his way, then he threatens to sue everyone who hurts his feelings. After that he goes and blows up some rockets or makes some electric pick up trucks or whatever and forgets about all the lawsuits he threatens people with.
Whether Brock is a pedo or not doesn't change or have anything at all to do with any of this. It's just an effort at "guilt by association". It's lame.
Why do you assume that just because I don't side with Musk on this, I must be shilling for Media Matters, David Brock, or anyone else?
Why are you so fervrent in your defense of Musk? Are you shilling for him?
Is it really such an outrageous idea that someone just thinks Musk is wrong in this matter?
Is it not acceptable for someone to have a different opinion? Is this supposed to be a hive mind? We're all supposed to think the same about everything?
Thanks for being fair in listening to viewpoints that aren't popular here.
I'm not some undercover agent for Media Matters or Soros or some such bullshit. I simply don't think Elon Musk is as great as many others here do, so I don't just jump to his defense no matter what stupid thing he does.
And threatening a lawsuit over this is stupid.
And since many of his fans have the memory spans of goldfish, they forget that he was making these same types of threats to sue the ADL for pretty much the same thing. They said bad things about the content on X, so companies started pulling their ads. This was back in September, and he has yet to file a lawsuit.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/sep/05/elon-musk-sue-adl-x-twitter
This kind of thing has been happening regularly since he bought Twitter. Some group will bring attention to the type of content on his site, and he has a hissy fit and threatens to sue them.
Here's where he was going to sue The Center For Countering Digital Hate back in July because they were documenting the rise in hate speech on Twitter. Spoiler alert, he never went through with the lawsuit.
This is not anything new. Musk has had a bad time with advertisers bailing on Twitter/X because of its content since he bought the company.
Here is the issue, without all the BS cluttering things up:
Musk wants to make Twitter/X a "completely free speech" site. So the company is not taking down many posts that are considered hate speech by the general population.
Since so many companies are on the woke side these days, they don't want to be associated with a business that doesn't stop hate speech posts on their site. So they pull their advertisements from Twitter/X.
Obviously, this greatly upsets Musk, because he's hemorrhaging money on Twitter/X.
So he's going after anyone who points out that the content on Twitter/X is increasing in what is considered hate speech. He threatens to sue them for billions of dollars and blah blah blah. Yet he has failed to follow through on any of those threats. He's simply trying to bully people into not criticizing Twitter/X and into not pulling their accounts from it.
The issue is that Musk wants to have his cake and eat it, too. He wants to be able to turn Twitter/X into a "completely free speech" space, where people can post whatever they want, even if it's considered hate speech. If you've ever been on sites like 8chan, you'll know what kind of material we're talking about.
So he wants to have a site where all that is allowed, AND he wants to keep making money from all his advertisers. But like I said, most companies are woke these days, and they don't want to be associated with sites that allow hate speech to flourish on their sites. So they don't want to do business with Twitter/X anymore. Which is 100% their right.
But Musk wants to intimidate advertisers into not leaving X, and he wants to intimidate anyone who calls attention to the hate speech on his site, which scares advertisers away.
And he simply can't have his cake and eat it too, in this woke climate. He can't force or bully or sue companies into advertising with him if they don't want to be associated with his business.
Now, people can argue about what is considered "hate speech" and argue about if it's hate speech to post anti-Jewish, anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-trans, anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-whatever else content. And I'm sure plenty of people will try after this post.
But the simple fact is that a shit ton of people believe it is. And those people will threaten to boycott the products of people who work with X, and those companies, not wanting to lose money from such boycotts, will obviously choose to not advertise with X. And that makes Musk mad, because it costs him money.
So, there it is. That's really the heart of the matter. Without all the BS.
I would be absolutely shocked if Musk went through with his threat and filed whatever "nuclear" lawsuit or whatever "the second court opens" on Monday. I would be shocked if he ever filed this lawsuit. Just like I would be shocked if he ever followed through with any of the many lawsuits he's threatened in connection to him losing advertisers over his content.
Most likely, he'll just grouse about it for a while and then let it just fade from everyone's memories. And judging by what I see here, that might take as much as a week for them to forget all about it.
He'll continue championing a "completely free speech" site, and people will continue to post hate speech, and the woke public will get upset about it and threaten to boycott the advertisers on X, and the advertisers will ditch X because they don't want to lose their customers, and Musk will get upset that companies don't want to be associated with his site, and he'll blow up the next time some other group points out the rise in hate speech on his site, and he'll threaten to sue them to hell and back, and then we'll have more posts here about it, where people get all excited about taking down whoever is hurting Musk's feelings and maybe I'll be here to point out why that lawsuit won't work, and then I'll get called a shill and idiot or whatever it is I'm getting called here and then Musk won't follow through on that lawsuit, either, and everyone will forget about it, and we'll start the cycle all over again.
But maybe you, and others who don't feel the need to defend Musk over anything he does, will remember this conversation. And see it for what it is. A man who made a horrible business decision by dumping 44 Billion dollars into a failing business, and is hemorrhaging money from that business every day because of the very questionable decisions he makes, and continually tries to force companies to advertise with him because he NEEDS their money.
And maybe you'll even notice how Musk's "completely free speech" stance doesn't cover people who point out all the hate speech on his site. He certainly wants to shut them up.
Anyway, sorry for the epic run-on sentences, and the ridiculously long post here.
But again, thanks for being objective and willing to listen to something that doesn't conform to the groupthink going on here over this.
Sometimes people forget it's ok for others to have different opinions.
The issue is that people are criticizing X for allowing hate speech.
Musk and X are in control of what content they allow on their site. If they choose to let people post pro-Nazi posts, and they don't put into place a control of which ads go where, then this is the consequence.
Companies will not want to put ads on his site, for fear of their ads being placed next to this type of content. They won't want to put ads on X at all, just because they disagree with his business practices of allowing what is considered hate speech.
Does the company have the right to want to protect their image?
It all boils down to people being against what they view as anti-Semitism and pro-Nazism and pulling their ads from a site that is not controlling that sort of content on their site.
Musk thinks he can have his cake and eat it, too, in this situation. He wants to have a "completely free speech" site (which if he gets his wish will quickly look like some of the chans, and run wild with pro-Nazi, antiJewish, anti Muslim, anti gay, anti woman posts) and he wants to keep his ad revenue.
But considering how woke most companies are now, that's just not going to happen.
And no matter what atomic bomb lawsuits or whatever he calls them, in the end he's not going to be able to force companies to advertise with him.
He's not going to win this lawsuit. He's not going to win the woke war. He can't bully people into advertising with him if they don't want to.
Dude, it's really simple.
Does X have pro-Nazi content? Yes
Do ads run next to his content? Yes
Does it bother some companies that their ads are run next to pro-Nazi content? Yes
Everything else is bullshit. If it bothers a company that their ad is run next to pro-Nazi posts, then they should be able to pull their ads without being threatened of a lawsuit.
This is just some really hypocritical shit, considering how gleeful people were about Bud Light getting canceled over the tranny thing.
Conservative media watchdog groups went around to companies that ran Bud Light ads and then those companies pulled the ads.
Why was that ok, but this isn't?
How often does a company's ad need to be placed next to a pro-nazi post for it to count, in your opinion?
If that company didn't want it to happen even once, can't that be their right?
Let's spin this around. Let's say that some really conservative company had their ad placed next to, let's say, a pro-trans or pro-pedophilia post. And they pulled their ad because of that. Would you argue that it didn't happen enough to matter, or it was taken out of context?
Well, since I don't have access to what Media Matters has discovered, and I don't really care enough about it to do any more research, how about a bet?
If Musk actually follows through with this, and he wins this case, I'll give you a very sincere apology and admit you were right.
If he loses the case, or drops it, you give me a very sincere apology and admit I was right.
How about that?
No problem. There's a whole lot of stupid crap in what Musk put out in his complaint, but those are the main issues.
I think the one Musk is relying on to support him is when he says that Media Matters used some algorithm or something to make it look like those ads placed on pro-Nazi posts would come up in someone's feed more often than they really would. I don't really understand it.
But if you're a company that doesn't want to be associated with pro-Nazism, having just one ad show up next to pro-Nazi content is one too many.
Now, if Media Matters did something legitimately fraudulent or illegal, sure, go after them hard. But that doesn't seem to be the case.
It's not illegal for media watchdog groups to gather information or for them to inform companies of what they find and it's not illegal for companies to pull ads from something they don't want to be associated with their product. And that's what Musk is complaining about the loudest.
Doesn't matter much when it comes to things like media watchdog groups.
Tortious Interference: The Limits of Common Law Liability for Newsgathering https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1480&context=wmborj
A liberal media watchdog group found a bunch of ads (from companies like IBM and Lionsgate and some other big companies) that X was putting next to pro-Nazi, pro-Hitler posts. And since it's a media watchdog group, they informed these companies that their ads were being put next to pro-Nazi posts. And the companies, not wanting to be associated with pro-Nazism, pulled their ads.
So obviously, Musk is angry about that, because he's losing ad revenue, so he wants to sue Media Matters for doing their job. Basically, he said they were "aggressively searching" for content they don't like (well no shit, Sherlock, that's their job) and were somehow misrepresenting how often ads were coming up next to pro-Nazi posts, or something equally stupid.
Because a) it's not illegal for media watchdog groups to "aggressively" search for content, or to share their finding with the companies involved (that's their job) and b) the idea that it's ok for a company to have their ads placed next to content that goes against their values is ok, because it doesn't happen over x amount of times, is just stupid. If a company doesn't want to be associated with pro-Nazi groups, then that's their right. Saying, "Oh, but that only happens x amount of times" is idiotic if one time is too many for the company's values.
Musk himself said that some ads were placed by pro-Nazi posts. There's evidence of it happening. He doesn't have a case. He's just trying to bully advertisers into staying with him and trying to scare a liberal media watchdog group.
Now, for those that agree with him, I'd like to remind them of that whole thing with Bud Light and the tranny. When What's his face started doing ads for Bud Light, conservative watchdog groups went to all the companies running ads (aggressively searching for content) and said, "Hey, this doesn't match your company's values" (or whatever) and those companies dropped their ads for Bud Light. So, just imagine Bud Light saying they're going to sue the conservative media watchdog groups for doing their job and getting those companies to pull the Bud Light ads, along with the companies who pulled their ads because of something stupid, like they only showed the Bud Light tranny ads on Hallmark(or insert conservative company here) x amount of times. Think they would win that lawsuit? Would you support Bud Light in their lawsuit?
Isn't it their right to stop running ads on a platform they disagree with? How are they legally obligated to continue placing ads on X?
This is a common scenario. Back in 2021, over 1,000 companies pulled their ads from Facebook because they thought Facebook didn't do enough to stop hate speech after the George Floyd thing.
There was a big kerfuffle over what some of those nags on "The View" said, and the tv station lost 5 big ad accounts because of it.
I just don't see how you can legally force a company to advertise with X if they don't want to.
And what can of worms is this going to open up in the future? Because you know if Musk wins this, libs will use it as well. They'll start forcing conservative companies to advertise on pornohub or something.
This is just stupid.
Are they legally obligated to advertise on X? I don't understand this. If someone doesn't want to put ads on X any longer, for whatever reason, isn't that their business? How can someone force a company to place ads on their site?
So how does this work in the theory that the 2020 election was meant to be stolen, according to Q's plan?
This is what just confuses the hell out of me.
On one hand, we're told that it was part of Q's plan all along that the 2020 election be stolen. (Though by my understanding of the word "stolen", it doesn't mean something someone planned to give away. But maybe that's just me.)
And on the other hand, we have all these things that happened because of the 2020 election going how it did. All of these things are the direct result of Q's plan. So, should we be complaining about them, or are the results also part of Q's plan? Surely Q would have seen what some of the consequences of the plan would be.
But Trump is no longer a liberal or democrat.
What evidence is there that JFK Jr is now a conservative when he has been presumed dead since, what, 1999? 2000? I forget when he died. Or supposedly died.
I'd never heard about JFK Jr supposedly faking his death or becoming a Trump supporter until one day everyone started talking about how he was still alive and was going to reveal. himself in Dallas or something and was going to be announced as Trump's new VP pick. That obviously never happened. And there was never an explanation for the no show.
But whenever I asked people where this was coming from, I never got a straight answer. It's just something that suddenly popped up and everyone just jumped on the JFK Jr bandwagon.
I never got an explanation about where that info came from, or why JFK Jr was suddenly a Trump supporter or why he faked his death, or any of it.
The JFK Jr stuff has pretty much died off since his no-show in Dallas, but obviously, there are still some die-hard fans around.
So, if you have any answers to the issues I mentioned, I'd love to hear some explanations for them.