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

That literally appeared in my Instagram like 2hours ago

You seem to have the notion that Twitter has the monopoly on information. It simply doesn't. You like to think the world wouldn't get any real information without it. It would.

We'd all keep spinning if the server was knocked off on the morning. I suspect you may lose more personally because who knows 🤷‍♂️

The post you were replying to has no bearing on you posting something which is incorrect.

Oh we know, it's very loose in terms of what's acceptable free speech.
Tracking jets specifically of Elon is not acceptable apparently but
personally targeting a transgender teen who is an athlete is totally
fine. Censoring for totalitarian regimes is also good apparently....

I've answered this before. There's basically a public interest test. Is there a public interest in tracking the movements of individual people? There might be sometimes, but generally there isn't because it is personal information that a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy about. Even if that information is easily obtainable through other public information like aircraft broadcasts, it's fairly ridiculous to claim that your freedom of speech is limited because you can't publicise the daily movements of Elon Musk …

"targeting a transgender teen who is an athlete is fine"

.. that's what this is all about isn't it?

Most journalists here have self-censored themselves to avoid discussing that issue. Until Musk took over at Twitter there was the same censorship there as well. People like you want X shutdown because that discussion is allowed now.

As I said before "Censoring for totalitarian regimes" is not good, but it's more a reflection on the totalitarian regimes. I imagine other sites like Bluesky will be censored in those countries as well if (big if 😁) they are perceived to be a threat to the regime.

Of course it has a bearing. The post I replied to was about racism. So, my reply was in that context specifically. If you disallow any talk that some people think is racist, then that is the thin end of a wedge which leads to a situation that (ridiculously) arose on this site only the other day in relation to the Belfast stabbing incident. A poster described the perpetrator as "an animal" but was chastised because the term "animal" is supposedly a racist dog whistle when used against people of colour. Hard to believe but it happened. Open conversations about difficult topics would just not be possible if that level of language policing were to be allowed generally.

What are you suggesting? He bribed the jury?

It gets boring when people blame losses in court as just being a matter of money. Of course, money helps. Hiring a bad lawyer could end up losing a case. But, hiring an expensive one is no guarantee you will win. One good thing about the American legal system also, is that the loser never gets saddled with the winner's legal costs. That's why litigation is so common there.

You should read the article I linked about that case. It's a great example in how to lose a case graciously. He didn't suggest the jury were corrupt, or that his legal team did anything wrong. He just rolled the dice and lost.

As I said in full.

"Want to say anything without consequences"

Making my point for me.

Musk was trying to hijack a rescue operation for his well ego and pr

Really? How can you be sure of this? I think that's quite a childish thing to say when you don't really know what was going through his mind. Maybe as the head of a company with significant engineering resources he thought he could help (rightly or wrongly).

so telling him to shove his submarine up his ass was a pretty restrained
response, particularly from the man responsible for the rescue

Again, I don't think that response was "restrained" at all. What else could he have said?

"Thanks Mr Musk, but no thanks!" maybe! 😀

Maybe it's a cautionary tale for how social media has addled the modern brain and where the loss of previous standards in civility have led us. I'd say he is regretting it now as it was an expensive lesson for him.

We're only arguing this because a poster claimed that as a billionaire he was always going to win the case (he should pass that advice on to Trump who seems to be losing a fair number of cases). I'm trying to point out to some of you that not everyone thinks the same way as ye do. Certainly, the 12 randomly chosen voters in Los Angeles on that jury don't.

Of course it's about money. The court system is an ass, it's not really about who is guilty or not guilty. It's about whoever can put on the best show to convince the jury one way or the other. And expensive lawyers tend to be better at playing that game. OJ Simpson being the perfect example.