Musk restores Donald Trump’s Twitter account after Online Poll

Of course you can Google and find articles, especially older ones, and I noticed some of yours are pretty old and it proves my point. I am saying its really not hot news anymore, which is why you don't see it when you go to Google News or MSN.COM, which are sites who provide links to various sources. I just went to MSN.COM since you mentioned it, and they have 31 headline articles and none are about Twitter. So what? Why do you insist its all over the news when its obviously not the case anymore? Its like any other news, - after a while its cools off.

 

They're all on the home pages of those news sites, or at least they were 20 minutes ago.

I will say this about Google News at least (not sure how MSN.com does it): a large portion of their content is personalized, based on past browsing history and tailored to your interests. So, for you, perhaps Musk hasn't been a topic of interest and thus Google buries articles about him. When I went to Google News just now, there were four separate Musk articles on the homepage.

And when I hit MSN just now, this Politico article was the first item in their big news ticker at the top: Musk draws GOP support after claiming Apple threatened to ban Twitter (msn.com). That story is only 5 hours old. Again, not sure if they operate like Google News where they tailor the feed based on the individual's browser history or not, but Musk and Twitter are definitely still "in the news".

ETA: here's a Google News query of the last 24 hours, for "Musk": musk - Google Search
You'll find articles there from Politico, the NYT, CNN, BBC, Yahoo Finance, WaPo, Forbes, Vox, LA Times, and that's just the first page. I'd be surprised if there's another individual about whom more ink has been spilled than Musk in that same time period.

 

He is monitizing in a multitude of ways. And from yahoo to msnbc, to cnn still talking bout him.

 

Exactly lol. This is why I don’t do peoples research for them. It’s never genuine that they don’t know something.

 

Look at the dates, which are around Nov 21.

As I said, I saw an article about him complaining about Apple. It was a sidebar article, so I guess we saw the same article.

Why is this important to you? Twitter had a quiet week. So what?

And I AM interested in what Musk will do with Twitter, so if Google personalizes, then I should be seeing more. So far its a mystery how he will generate income, especially now that top advertisers are leaving in droves. Can he make it up in membership fees? Typically people don't pay to post.

If you search, you will find, - obviously. Just checked CNN and its not on the front page. Iran, China, Ukraine-Russia, AZ elections and Hawaii volcano dominate.

Maybe Twitter will be back in the news soon, and you'll be happy again.

 

Did you look at the dates for the NYT and & WaPo articles I posted first? They're both today, November 28th (at least it's still 11/28 where I am). They were both featured on their respective company's home pages today. You appear to be being very selective about where you look to not see Musk in the news.

 

They were written today hahahaha, I’m simply pointing out the reality that Musk is still on everyone’s minds, especially the MSM, as has been evidenced by the articles that were featured on the front page. You failed to do the research, that’s on you.

 

~ Let the show begin ...

 

I explained to you already why it wasn't a good example. However I've no expectation that you'll ever get it if you have not gotten it by this point.

 

It explains my point just fine. It might not explain the strawman point which you invented, which no one cares about.

The point, which flew a mile over your head, is about 1st amendment, which restricts the Congress, not private corporations be they newspapers, social media, movies, operas, or whatever else.

 

I didn't invent a strawman; you mentioned the newspaper example in your post, and I explained the legal difference between it and social media sites. I don't expect people leaning left to understand nuances regarding the First Amendment and free speech, let alone Section 230 however, so I won't expect you to understand it.

 

Why one do you think is bound by the 1st Amendment? Which one of prohibited from deciding what is seen in their platform?

Well, that must be why you're not getting it then. IMO its no excuse, but if you think that justifies your ignorance, it then so be it.

 

I tried to explain it to you and you refused to listen. It's OK. I didn't expect you to understand it.

 

Thats is a lame dodge

Let me ask again: Which one do you think is bound by the 1st Amendment, and is required by law to allow people to use their platform without having any say in what is posted? Which one of prohibited from deciding what is seen in their platform? THAT is the point. No one gives a rats all about the difference between the two, because neither is mandated to do such thing. See you did NOT get the point, and started talking about things which have nothing to do with what was being discussed. And at this point I don't expect you to understand it either.

 

I thought we were done? I've already explained this to you in posts #623 and #634 and you never addressed those comments, simply ignored them to repeat yourself. Since you've already refused to reply in a substantive way, why should I continue to try to explain anything to you when, as you've demonstrated, you'll simply dismiss my comments and repeat your mantra again? If you actually care, I've given you enough clues for you to research this on your own, but I doubt you do in fact care. After all, it's the First Amendment.

 

There is nothing to address, since you never understood what the conversation was about. You came in clueless, and made clueless comments and now you are whining about people not addressing your off-topic / clueless posts, and now that I ask you questions about the actual topic, you refuse to answer, because you know you stepped in it.

Maybe you can open a thread to discuss your concerns.

So long.

 

Weird, - Trump is still suing Twitter for his ban even thought they have a new owner and his account has been reinstated. Will Musk be forced to pay?

 

~ Trump-O has not made a Tweet in over a year — has more followers than before. Amazing ... "

​

 

DeSantis: Congress Should Target Apple Over Alleged Threats To Block Twitter



'Apple is acting as a “vassal of the CCP” while using “corporate power in the United States... to suffocate Americans"...'

''Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and other Republicans this week said that Apple’s alleged threat to remove Twitter from its App Store warrants congressional investigation.'

“That would be a huge, huge mistake, and it would be a really raw exercise of monopolistic power that I think would merit a response from the United States Congress,” DeSantis told an audience in Duval County, Florida, on Tuesday.'

'Apple blocked some features of its popular AirDrop service for only Chinese users prior to widespread protests against the regime’s “zero COVID” policies.'

'Apple and Google have too much control over the internet via their respective app-downloading stores. Removing Twitter from both would mean that the social media app would be heavily limited in its growth and usage.'

Monopolistic

'Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), who co-sponsored a Senate measure targeting app stores, added that “Apple and Google currently have a stranglehold on companies and have used their leverage to bully businesses.”'

Break them up.

 

Freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeedom! Go Musk!