SO CALLED SOCIAL MEDIA = DIRECTLY HARMFUL; SHOULD BE BANNED

January 31, 2024 by Karl Denninger

Here's Musk...

You're lying, you've been lying since you took over Twitter (now "X") and proof is right here.

Just minutes after you posted this Massie pointed out that Lindsey Graham had called in public, on Twitter, for Iran to be "hit" -- that is, bombed, within the prior day.

That is a direct call and advocacy of violence.

Why was Lindsey Graham's account unrestricted?  He is calling, directly, for actual physical violence against the people of another nation and this is allegedly against Twitter's rules.

Massie asked what people would say to this, and my response is what got me a 12 hour stay in Twitmo with a demand that I remove my post yet, as I write this, Lindsey's remains on the platform and he was not suspended.

Note that I did not advocate or call for violence.  I said I would vote for it against the person who has policy power to cause direct and actual violence to occur to many, many more than one person.

That is no more advocacy than it would be for me to say I would vote for a politician who says he will go to war.

I chose my words very deliberately and carefully.  I intentionally stated that I would vote for a policy (whether in a legislative capacity were I ever to hold one) or for a politician who says he will do something, in this case engage in said violence.  I am not glorifying it or advocating it.  I am stating I will vote for it which is protected political speech and in fact we have a President in office right now who is funding an actual real, no-bullshit shooting war between Ukraine and Russia, so my statement is no more "advocacy" than is one that I would vote for Biden because he (obviously) supports prosecuting said war.

Lindsey Graham holds an actual policy position and advocated, publicly, for actual physical violence.

His account was not restricted for advocating ACTUAL violence while mine was for stating I would VOTE for such a policy -- and yes, I reported Lindsey's tweet.

Not a single word of Musk's rhetoric is true when it comes to such nor is any single representation that such a policy applies to all true.  You can advocate as a Senator sitting on a committee with power to actually implement blowing up Iran and by Elon's rules that is fine but I'll bet any amount of money you'd like to lose that were I to advocate for laying Tel Aviv waste in the exact same fashion I'd be permanently barred.

If anyone can advocate for bombing Iran then anyone has to be able to advocate for bombing Israel, London, Paris, Moscow or Beijing.  If someone cannot advocate that Beijing be erased for their part in letting Covid out given the several million dead people worldwide over the last few years (and it doesn't matter if the interventions kills them or the virus did -- no virus, no interventions) then any person advocating Iran be pasted, no matter the reason and no matter who they are must face the same sanction.  Indeed the only possible argument otherwise would be that advocacy for a declaration of war by Congress is permissible as that is expressly Constitution -- but no other "kinetic" or other violent action.

None of Elon's claims are true and the entire site, along with the rest of social media, is the very definition of election and political interference and thus gives rise to the question:  If the First Amendment in the context of political speech can be controlled in such a fashion in direct contravention of the Constitution is that a seditious conspiracy?

To Elon Musk and his desire for me, and others, to pay him a subscription fee:

Go.
Fuck.
Yourself.