I don’t think ppl itt know what parody or satire is

He said that parody and satire is fine.

Impersonation as I reiterate is not free speech. Free speech can only apply if you're speaking on your behalf, not someone else speaking on your behalf. That's not freedom.

And people being banned even despite having parody in their bio doesn't change what I said, but it does show some level of hypocrisy from Elon.

the next logical step is someone changing their actual birthname to elon musk and therefore not having to say they’re a parody account as a result. surely there is someone mad enough to do this out there.

Haven’t noticed any difference since the purchase

IDENTITY THEFT IS A REAL THING JIM

Whose interests do you think are Elon furthering with this genuine question? I’m assuming he didn’t make profit off this but is it for his own pockets/endeavors and what comes with owning a huge social media platform. I can’t really articulate well but if that makes sense or even know.

changing your avatar and username on a f***ing internet forum is not fraud lmfao

no one has a divine right to use either of those things. this is literally why the original verification process existed and why this dumb free speech definition is getting narrower with each passing day

Just want to be sure I understand, are you asking about whose motives he's furthering by buying twitter, or whose motives he's furthering with the supporting republican stuff?

The first one.

yday i got notifs (rare) frm twitter nd it was frm 2 verified accs parodying musk nd mario nd i nvr interact w/ reddity memes...

Free speech does only apply to the state so they wont lock you up for speaking your mind 😁

Interesting how often the free speech definitions change when it fits your narrative

Elon is allowed to act like a b**** and ban whoever he wants on twitter. He owns it. Still doesn't negate the fact he deserves this s*** show with how he's trying to brute force these changes publicly lol.

If he was doing it the same way Meta changes FB and Ig then nobody would care tbh

Well, there's a lot of layers to it. It's important to understand the kind of underbelly paradigm of silicon valley to really understand why he's doing this. It's unfortunately not as simple as like "he did this to further a political agenda" or "he bought twitter to own the libs" or "he bit more than he can chew because of his ego" something. First off, you have to look at who co-financed the buyout; other co-purchasers include the Saudis Foreign Wealth Fund/Public Investment Fund and Larry Ellison from Oracle.

Since the early 00s, SIlicon Valley has gone in many different directions. It's not really a secret that the Tech Industry is largely a front for the FIRE industry; behind Big Tech is Big Finance, particularly Banks & VCs. The same is not particularly true of every industry - FIRE (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate) does play a role elsewhere inherently, particularly in Media & Entertainment, but it's not the basis of those industries like it is with Big Tech. The thing is that there's a big power struggle within Tech, and in order to understand this you have to understand that most of the real higher ups in tech are hardcore idealogues who truly believe in very distinct political diatribes. People like Marc Andreesen, Peter Thiel, etc. This isn't to say they have the "same" politics, but they're aligned in one general belief - the general public is bad, public interest is bad, society is broken, and western institutions since the 90s have been fundamentally flawed and are increasingly destroying the fabric of society. This is, to a degree, a literal representation of the tug of war between Tech & FIRE. Most higher ups in Tech desperately want to separate their industry from FIRE because they believe their ideological cohorts can change social paradigms if they control institutions, which otherwise are leading society toward destruction.

When you see people like Jack saying he supports the buyout, it's because he has the same belief - he's said many times he regrets twitter going public. This isn't just as simple as them being against liberalism/democrats or something - it's more that they see his modern liberalism as a mask for exploitative interests from FIRE (whether or not this is true is a different discussion, but they certainly aren't approaching it from the right angle lol). The "new Tech" belief is that the other way to conspire against institutional interests is to essentially own institutions yourself, since there is no such thing as "neutrality" - even the ideas of "democratized platforms" always are underscored by a certain idea of wanting certain ideologies or content to thrive. It's a quasi-libertarian belief which really only has existed since the 80s. People like MBS from Saudi have placed bets on anti-FIRE institutions because they believe the future of industry is in taking advantage of the mercantile state structure of the US; i.e. the more diversity in institutions in a multi-polar world, the more money there is as opposed to singular homogeneity. There is an overtly political aspect to it, it's the same reason Saudi is now investing in stuff like NEOM - it's not just about pure economics.

Musk is friends with people like Thiel, etc. - hell he literally founded Paypal with them. The so-called "Paypal Mafia" in Silicon Valley is powerful, and the inner circle share a lot of ideological beliefs, but it wasn't until 2016 when they started really recognizing institutions and began meeting to work out the best means of waging financial wars on institutions. A large part of this was Thiel's discussions with Bannon liaised through the Trump Administration & RNC, but also Marc Andresseen's involvement in solvent wealth funds for the Paypal Mafia, which is partially linked back to people like Curtis Yarvin & Nick Land (unironically), who. I know a lot of people who work in these circles - this move for privatization of twitter to swap wider public investor financial interest with privatized ideological motive is only the beginning of a much wider move from these types of tech inner circles. Andresseen tried doing it w/ Clubhouse but the same thing happened where he saw other VCs get involved and then Clubhouse was no longer a secret club for ideologically similar people; he regrets getting other investors involved, but they're planning moves next by further media buyouts and involvements.

btw Zuck & Meta have nothing to do w any of this, Zuck is straight up a lone wolf in all of this and has no connection to this conspiracy lol.

first amendment doesnt apply to private actors

Impersonation so as to gain a financial benefit is a crime. Simply impersonating someone is free speech

this is what people have been saying for years while the right acted like Twitter was the end-all-be-all of "free speech" because they kept getting suspended for being bigots

h3h3production did get banned and had a parody disclaimer? Why did they get permanently banned?

Maybe cus the post was so offensive a certain person didnt like it

Ban all gimmick accounts

This why @Kenig

Not very free speechy

VERY funny that those who were against all social media suspensions are now “well ackshully”ing trying to justify why jokes should be permabanned

I think you have to have "parody" in your username in addition to your bio or some s***.