Stocks A to Z / Stocks B / Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A) ❤
No. of Recommendations: 3
Just lays waste to corporate, state-run media:
https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/1730100...What went wrong here is not what Elon Musk said. It's so revealing that so many journalists are aghast that anyone would dare tell Disney and major corporations to go f**k yourself when they're trying to limit, censor, and control the flow of political content.
If you aren't willing to say that to corporations who are trying to limit what you can say, don't bother calling yourself a journalist.
We need way more journalists willing to say, go f**k yourself to people who try and limit what they say.
The problem is, is that the people who are hired by these major media corporations, and who thrive in them and succeed in them are people who have the opposite instinct.
Their instinct is to assuage and serve and placate establishment power, not to defy it. Even though the purpose of journalism is to be adversarial to establishment power.Glenn's wrong on one sense: When there's a Republican in the White House these people all of a sudden are Champions Of The First Amendment because dEmOcRaCy DiEs In DaRkNeSs or something.
Of course, when a lib is in charge the lights go right out again.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Glenn continues:
Once journalism started getting corporatized no longer owned by families dedicated to journalism or local communities but by major corporations that have all kinds of other interests besides their media division. And, what kind of attributes are awarded at major corporations?
People who avoid controversy who avoid conflict, who avoid displeasing and angering powerful people. That's the corporate ethos, and the corporatization of media meant that that kind of attribute was imported into journalism.
And that's why almost no one who works for large media corporations or the media corporations themselves has the courage to say this. They're shocked. They think it's a sign that he's unhinged when in reality, it's just a sign of how cowardly and craven they are.
No. of Recommendations: 8
If you aren't willing to say that to corporations who are trying to limit what you can say, don't bother calling yourself a journalist.
But.....Elon Musk isn't a journalist. He's a businessman.
And Greenwald, bless his heart, is just wrong. Or rather, he's applying a correct principle to a situation it just doesn't apply to. Just because it's a noble principle of a society to protect freedom of speech - or that it's noble for actual journalists (not Elon Musk) to resist editorial pressure - doesn't mean that randos saying reprehensible things on Twitter is noble. Even if one of the randos owns the company.
While there is journalism happening on Twitter, whatever Musk and the antisemitic randos whose retweeted posts landed him in that interview chair are doing isn't journalism.
No. of Recommendations: 12
Dope1: It's so revealing that so many journalists are aghast that anyone would dare tell Disney and major corporations to go f**k yourself when they're trying to limit, censor, and control the flow of political content.
First, white supremacy, Naziism, and antisemitism are not "political content". Second, Disney and other companies are not telling Musk what he can say on X -- whatever racist nonsense he wants to promote -- but that they have no intention of having their companies or products associated with his racism.
Jeebus, you free market republican keyboard warriors embrace boycotts of beer and books but love you some antisemitism.
Dope1: When there's a Republican in the White House these people all of a sudden are Champions Of The First Amendment because dEmOcRaCy DiEs In DaRkNeSs or something.
Why are republicans clueless about the First Amendment? The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without government interference or regulation and has nothing to do with the free market decision to stop sending advertising dollars to a Nazi.
No. of Recommendations: 2
And Greenwald, bless his heart, is just wrong. Or rather, he's applying a correct principle to a situation it just doesn't apply to. Just because it's a noble principle of a society to protect freedom of speech - or that it's noble for actual journalists (not Elon Musk) to resist editorial pressure - doesn't mean that randos saying reprehensible things on Twitter is noble. Even if one of the randos owns the company.So Twitter was free of randos saying reprehensible things before Elon bought it?
How old is this account?
https://twitter.com/khamenei%5FirWhile there is journalism happening on Twitter, whatever Musk and the antisemitic randos whose retweeted posts landed him in that interview chair are doing isn't journalism.Not the point.
First off, MediaMatters rigged those posts with the specific intent of driving advertisers off. Those advertisers - woke outfits like Disney and Apple - have been waiting for an excuse to virtue signal their way off the platform and thus they ran with it.
Musk is *enabling* journalism. Twitter was a censorious pit where conservatives were throttled, shadow-banned or flat out censored Because Rulez. Now it's a level playing field and people like David Brock and the editorial boards that masquerade as news agencies don't like that. At all.
So Elon is perfectly correct to call out Apple, et als. attempt at going along with MediaMatter's boycott/blackmail scheme ("Nice platform you have there, be a shame if anything happened to it..")
No. of Recommendations: 1
No. of Recommendations: 14
So Twitter was free of randos saying reprehensible things before Elon bought it?
No. But Jack Dorsey wasn't on there re-tweeting antisemitic randos.
Plus, the fact that Twitter was at least trying to remove toxic content gave companies - and more importantly the executives within those companies that decide advertising spends - a fig leaf to stay on the site.
First off, MediaMatters rigged those posts with the specific intent of driving advertisers off. Those advertisers - woke outfits like Disney and Apple - have been waiting for an excuse to virtue signal their way off the platform and thus they ran with it.
Why would they wait more than a year to do that? They don't need anyone's permission - or an excuse - to pull or reduce their ad spend on a site. If they were waiting for an excuse to virtue signal their way off the site, they could have done so in October 2022 when a bunch of other companies left after Musk started slashing the content safety teams.
This current pullback of advertisers isn't due to Twitter's journalism - it's due to Twitter's antisemitic content. Musk's tweet was horrible (and he admitted how poor a choice it was in the interview). And it's not just the fact of that post. By retweeting it, he shows that his own personal consumption on the site exposes him to that kind of stuff and he doesn't know/understand/care how horrible it is. Which undermines his whole "speech not reach" sales pitch that it's possible to have toxic hateful stuff on the site but not have it spread very far - because he's an unbelievably visible counterexample.
I understand why Twitter - and allies like Greenwald - want to reframe this as being about journalism and not toxic content. But it's not journalism, not political speech, that launched this firestorm. It's just randos posting their antisemitic screeds and dank Hitler memes. Musk has made a choice for his site that such toxic content (or "Hateful Conduct," as Twitter calls such stuff that violates their "Rulez") gets to stay on the site rather than pulled. That the people who post that stuff get to stay on the site, rather than getting banned. So when he retweets that toxic content, and it becomes front-page news again that Twitter is perfectly willing to let antisemitic posts and posters remain on the site, he loses advertisers.
There's nothing laudable about choosing to let people publish antisemitic stuff on Twitter. And wrapping that in the flag of "journalism" doesn't change that.
No. of Recommendations: 9
Why are republicans clueless about the First Amendment? The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without government interference or regulation and has nothing to do with the free market decision to stop sending advertising dollars to a Nazi.
Absolutely. It's like me deleting my FB account. Does that mean I'm opposing freedom of speech because I eschew their forum? Or am I exercising said freedom? Any entity that wants to pull their ads are not interfering with freedom of speech, they are exercising it in the form of withdrawing support for speech they find objectionable. They aren't obligated to advertise on X, or FB, or during the Super Bowl, if they don't want to.
As you say, the First Amendment is about government interference. And, as albaby has explained before, the 1A is not carte blanche to say whatever you feel like. Just as a few examples: national security/secrets, hate speech, libel/slander. To name a few.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Broken Record....
Our side should stop coddling Woke Corporations. Jack up their taxes and unionize all the bast-turds. Use the money for red state funds and workers. Many of those guys vote with US anyway.
It's time the Woke Corporations pay the piper.
When Schumer is BEGGING us to lower the minimum wage and BEGGING us not to unionize high tech - then you'll know it's working.
Right now, we coddle Woke Corporations. The other side - LOVES IT but paints us as "Big Corporations"......and then the Woke Corporations bash us.
%30.00 Minimum Wage. SurTax on every job sent to China by the Woke.
Diversity: 10,000,000 H1B High Tech Visas NOW "pro immigration".
Easier union rules especially for Silicon Valley.
It's time to make the S AND P 500 the little sex slave getting taken care of by an ISIS fighter.
Club 401K here would shit kittens. Corporate Fascist Sellouts, these Liberals are.
How much longer will be shield them and enrich them?
This, while our #2 is a NeoCon darling and we haven't learned, NeoCons are just Liberals who A.)Bow to Israel B.)Love intervening abroad and getting us killed.
No. of Recommendations: 7
The trajectory of Glenn Greenwald's career is a good example of the odd dynamic that seems to happen in the social network era of "media" and "journalism". As Naomi Klein described in her book Doppelganger, there is a very distinct set of pressures which come to bear on someone who becomes a noted public personnae, adopts media technologies with very intense, very immediate positive reinforcement mechanisms, then becomes addicted to those reinforcement stimulus and begins chasing the stimulus rather than the truth.
It seems like one of the most deceptive logical tropes that attracts this type of personality into the shoals is the idea of embracing something simply because it is so "out there", counter to prevailing sensitivities and counter to conventional wisdom that its very repulsiveness becomes their defense for espousing and promoting it.
I know this is offensive, and I know it might make me look like a racist idiot but my professional integrity is so great that I refuse to allow this position to go unheard by the masses, so it has to be true.
Uh, no, most of the time, it just means that you have lost your moral compass and have learned (explicitly or sub-consciously) that it's easier to retain a smaller base of dupes with fringe falsehoods than do REAL investigative journalism. It's a lot more work to master the material of a subject to correctly explain a reality with twenty shades of gray than spew out simplistic black and white theories that can fit into a tweet to incorrectly explain a false reality to an idiot.
What an absolute nut-job he has evolved into.
WTH
No. of Recommendations: 4
Blackmail?
Bwahahhaahaaa.
Swiss cheese.
No. of Recommendations: 2
In his first six months of his administration President Biden held a EV summit.
They invited Ford, GM, Chrysler and UAW.
They specifically refused to allow Tesla to attend.
To add insult to injury, President Biden thanked GM for leading the Electric car revolution.
This is the same quarter in which Tesla sold 300k EV cars. GM had sold 26 EV cars.
This hurt the 140k employees. Tesla has created more manufacturing jobs than every one else combined.
No. of Recommendations: 3
They specifically refused to allow Tesla to attend.
This hurt the 140k employees. Tesla has created more manufacturing jobs than every one else combined.
To add insult to injury, President Biden thanked GM for leading the Electric car revolution.Union companies Ford, GM, Chrysler(Stellantis) combined employ 612,000 people.
Volkswagen, another non-union EV maker, was also not invited to the initial EV meetings at the White House.
Tesla was included when the issue of EV charging stations was on the table.
It's not hard to understand why Musk is excluded:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/elon-mus...
No. of Recommendations: 8
dividends20:
In his first six months of his administration President Biden held a EV summit.
They invited Ford, GM, Chrysler and UAW.
They specifically refused to allow Tesla to attend.Are you asking why an anti-Union automaker wasn't invited by a Union supporting president to a summit of Union automakers?
dividends20:
Tesla has created more manufacturing jobs than every one else combined.Link? I see data from 2022 that shows that of the 80,000 EV jobs added that year, Tesla accounted for 28,524, little more than 1/3 of them:
https://insideevs.com/news/686180/us-added-188k-ev...
No. of Recommendations: 3
dividends20: In his first six months of his administration President Biden held a EV summit.
They invited Ford, GM, Chrysler and UAW. They specifically refused to allow Tesla to attend.
Commonone: Are you asking why an anti-Union automaker wasn't invited by a Union supporting president to a summit of Union automakers?
Thanks for that, I had a laugh out loud moment!
Dude is pissed 'cause his favorite anti-union, anti-semite was not invited to a summit of Union automakers!
