VakAttack

This is just repeating back the things Elon claims to be true as truth. In practice, he's censoring more than the previous regime, including in other countries where he is censoring wildly where the previous regime used to fight the censorship demands in the courts. In his time at Twitter he has had multiple scandals surrounding his alleged "free speech absolutism" (the aforementioned demands from governments like India and Turkey; the banning of multiple independent journalists for discussing his other banning of the "Elon Jet" account, his current campaign against the term "cis" which he has unilaterally decided is a slur, etc.) As to what Twitter was censoring before Musk took over, "legit science and information" is your interpretation of it, but the wide, wide majority of the scientific and medical community disagree with you (presuming you're talking about the vaccines, if not please specify what you're talking about). You feel it's "less political" because the new guy conforms more with your political alignment. Ask the people in India or Turkey how open they find it. And to be clear on ALL of the above: that's his right. It's a private company that he owns. But the rest of that is, as the Big Guy says, malarkey.

Laughing at the failure plus hubris of another is as American as apple pie. Hell, every four years, most members of the losing party in the presidency pretend that they're rooting for the winning party to succeed, but they all revel in the failures of that winning party.

A classic example of you insisting something is true, thus making it true. A tautology of ridiculousness that you are just hurling around with a link to a 57 page document that you provide no context as to where in the document you're citing to or how what the sources of the data are coming from, all from a questionable source that libertarian website reason.com describes as 'one of the biggest purveyors of bad statistics dressed up as "human trafficking awareness"'. https://reason.com/2020/01/10/super-bowl-sex-trafficking-myths-return/

People use some wild ass language when they're being ridiculous, lol.

The Dominion settlement is, by orders of magnitude, the biggest payout for this type of lawsuit in American history. The only bigger award was from a jury against Alex Jones. There is no feasible argument that this was good for Fox other than it prevented them from having to put some of their stuff more firmly and un-plausible-deniabilty-ly in the public eye. The standard for the plaintiff's to prove in this case was EXTREMELY high, so much so that most cases like this are dismissed out of hand....and Fox still paid that much money. I can buy the "it's cheaper to settle this case than to try it" in a lot of situations. That doesn't fly when you're paying THE LARGEST SUCH SETTLEMENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY.

Unless the owner is extremely unlucky, surveillance video is unlikely to implicate anybody. The foot traffic is going to be too high, the incident they're looking for too fine a detail. Unless the person literally goes into a panic as they're coming to the cubby and pulls out the bag to stare at it disbelievingly. Surveillance footage of high population/traffic areas isn't designed for that it's designed to be able to help identify the presence of people and any obvious actions, not figure out every small movement.

All reporting (and Biden's statements) I've read describes what we're sending now as clusterbombs. I'm not an ordinance expert, but is that incorrect? Why are they using that language?

I agree, it doesn't have to be true. It's my opinion, so obviously it could be wrong.

...are you an expert on everything you have an opinion on?

You're just like making things up to fulfill your image of what you think a liberal is (which is weird, since we've met each other), and my point is that people were using teh initial number as a prop up for how much better Tucker was going to do on Twitter vs. Fox News, and the numbers were fake then and, still fake, but much worse now as his time away from the controversy of his leaving has grown. My point is that Tucker's success was a product of Fox News, not of anything special about Tucker. Those numbers up there aren't real, and we have no ide what the numbers are, but we know they can't be great because they aren't going out of their way to tell us the actual numbers. Tucker failed at CNN. He failed at MSNBC. He's nobody special, he's just the guy who got the slot that O'Reilly lost. He will fade to obscurity unless he finds a broadcast job. He's not Rogan who has the charisma to build his own media empire. He appeals primarily to an older demographic that was served to him on a platter by the shambling, dying hulk of a cable news giant. And where have I been an "armchair QB on all things national news shows"?

First of all, calm down buddy. You're going to blow a gasket. Second of all, these aren't real numbers. As mentioned, these are just the numbers of people who have seen the Tweet that had the video. Thirdly, you can keep screaming about MSM all you want, but again, I don't consume any cable news directly, unless a video clip is cited in an article I'm reading and then I'll watch it for the context the writer is going for.

I don't know who Sunni Hostin is I know what the View is but have never watched it. I don't watch any news, I read my news. If I watch anything, it's for opinion/analysis and it's a variety of YouTube shows.

Wrong. I don't watch any "MSM", I don't even have cable. My news is primarily garnered through reading multiple articles on a subject from multiple sources and forming my opinion from that. The only time I personally see anything from Fox, MSNBC, or CNN is if a clip makes it into an article I'm reading. As to your questions re: Tucker, the answer to all is "yes." The modern day Republican party and conservative movement is much older than it was, and Tucker's popularity was propped up by the place that broadcast him. Just like Bill O'Reilly before him. Whomever they replace him with will get similar numbers to what Tucker got, and Tucker will fade to obscurity because older people primarily get their news from the cable news sources. He's overrated in the sense that it was never about him. It was a combination of Fox News and the current political moment when he got big. You can tell that by the way he brutally failed at the other two mainstream media networks in MSNBC and CNN.

As mentioned previously, these numbers don't actually represent the number of people who watch the videos, just the ones who scroll by the Tweet. The actual number of people watching the videos is much lower, but Twitter has removed the stats for video views.

First blush: cool aesthetics, not digging the functions so far. Need a chronological option.

Zuckerberg's newest creation is put. Is it a viable threat to Elon's Frankenstein? I don't know, but it's the first one I've signed up for.

Totally.

This is just classic political debate. If Nancy Pelosi said anything left-leaning, people who agree with your apparent political leanings would either ignore it or blast it. Because she agrees with your pre-existing opinion, her words now have value? EDIT: I'm not even sayin that you're the only person or that conservatives are the only ones who do this. I'm just talking about the value of this type of discussion without something of substance beyond their statements. She also issued this (also valueless) statement after the decision: https://pelosi.house.gov/news/press-releases/pelosi-statement-on-supreme-court-decision-on-president-biden-s-student-loan

The Biden angle of this is really simple and y'all are trying to make it complicated. It was a campaign promise, he tried very publicly to deliver on it and Republicans killed it. Straight-forward politics.

Well it's the thought that counts.

If it makes you feel any better, this opinion pre-dates my leftward shift, back to when I was a hardcore Republican.

A classic in the "this terrible thing that happened to me is ACTUALLY good!" genre.

I do not known the specifics in this case, but the court absolutely has the power to order them not to have any contact st all.

"My political opposition are all foolish pawns, unlike the independent thinkers on my side of the aisle."