So "X" - nothing to see here. Elon's in control - Part XXX

Right or wrong he should probably get to work and show he can deliver some of his promises.

Even if Trump has some contractual agreement with truth social, Musk needs to reinstate his account.

Paskalis was grandstanding, probably trying to get a reduced rate for his clients.

There have been no changes in Twitters moderation since the takeover, this has been confirmed by multiple staff.

Did you read my post at all? You know... the one you replied to?

Imagine accusing Paskalis of grandstanding when we look at the very thing he was responding to which was pure grandstanding. Literally.

"acting or speaking in a way intended to attract the good opinion of other people who are watching" - Cambridge

'

You didn't seem to respond to the post and instead went into some weird diatribe but cheers anyway.

It's probably the biggest lie I've seen on this thread, which says a lot. The left are completly open about using boycotts and putting pressure on companies to get their way. It's not some hidden tactic, it's literally something they take pride in. A good chunk of the deniers here have done the same to boards management for years, always crying wolf in the name of getting the outcome that they want.

If history isn't enough of a precedent, then this should do:

It's not happening though, nothing is, when your reality is shaped by what suits you and not what is.

If the case was likely never going ahead then it would have died on motion to dismiss. It didn't:

Had the case been more likely than not to fail on its own merits, the judge would have clearly agreed with the motion to dismiss but that's not what occurred at all, instead judge sided with the plaintiff and issued bench order to complete the deal.

Over the summer Musk tried to argue that 'disclosure about bots' are why he had cold feet but again - he signed a binding agreement, and according to the lawsuit filed by twitter, affirmatively waived his right of due diligence.

This is activity that reportedly just started happening and not evident of any boycott campaign launched ahead of Musk's remarks.

And is this really "activism?" Calling the Anti Defamation League activists for example. I think that's stretching the picture being painted in the thread of a bunch of screaming liberals demanding a boycott because Elon hurt their feelings. These organization are adults and carefully address mature topics, like the Holocaust.

"Given the actions in the past few days and especially the mass layoffs today, it's become clear that he's not going to continue to moderate content or at least not to the effect necessary so we are calling for a global pause on ads," said Jessica J. González, co-CEO of Free Press.

Holup,

"The billionaire signed a legally binding agreement in April to buy the company for $54.20 a share, waiving due diligence to get the deal done quickly. The terms included a $1 billion breakup fee if the agreement fell apart and a clause that gives Twitter the right to sue Mr. Musk and force him to complete or pay for the deal, so long as the debt financing he has corralled remains intact."

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/08/technology/elon-musk-twitter.html

True speech!

I didn't understand that comment either: the terms of the binding agreement provided that Twitter would be a private company when the deal closed, as Musk was buying 100% of shares and delisting it from the exchange per the terms of the sale.

.

I won't weigh in on the "equal speech" as I think it's a made up term only used by one person.

But on free speech, trump probably was fine being on twitter? Was the banning necessary?

Like at the time he was speaking from the white house, and leading his fans to drink bleach, I'm not sure banning him from twitter saved any of them.