Community Notes Is Great Until It Challenges Elon, And Then It’s Being ‘Manipulated’ By State Actors
from the amazing-that-state-actors-only-target-elon dept
Oh Elon. As we’ve discussed, Elon is infatuated with Community Notes as a sort of crowdsourced alternative to actually funding a trust & safety staff and tooling. And while we actually like Community Notes and think more social media should use similar tools, it’s simply not a full trust & safety replacement.
But, over the past year, we’ve seen that Elon loves to point out when Community Notes supports his priors, and repeatedly claims victory when Community Notes debunks (or even quibbles with) content that Musk doesn’t like. If you look, you can find him cheering on Community Notes time and time again.
Not too long ago, ExTwitter changed the terms of its creator payout system such that creators who regularly get fact-checked via Community Notes will no longer get payouts.
But… how does the man in charge feel about things when he gets fact checked via Community Notes? Well, it appears that his tune quickly changes. While there have been a few times he’s been Community Noted in the past, and he’ll sometimes brush it off with a “yes, even I’m open to having such notes placed on my account,” when it’s a higher profile thing he seems to freak out.
Over the weekend, Tucker Carlson started pushing a very misleading story regarding YouTube sensationalist Gonzalo Lira who made his name as one of those jackass “dating coaches,” (i.e., “pickup artists”) who became a pro-Russia propagandist once the invasion of Ukraine began. Carlson’s version of the story pitched Lira as a “journalist” who was “imprisoned in Ukraine” for “criticizing Zelensky.”
Lira was arrested earlier this year for violations of Ukraine’s criminal code. There are many legitimate questions that can be asked regarding the nature of Ukraine’s laws regarding propaganda and free speech. But, the underlying accusations against Lira seem more focused on how he was revealing the identity and location of both Ukrainian soldiers and western journalists covering the war.
Either way, Musk picked up on Carlson’s story, falsely claimed Lira had been imprisoned for 5 years, and trying to demand answers as to what was happening with him. Community Notes quickly stepped in to first point out that Carlson’s description of Lira’s situation was misleading, and then that Elon’s tweets were also misleading.
After discovering that his own posts were being Community Noted (will he lose access to monetization?), he started claiming that “state actors” were “gaming” Community Notes. And then, hilariously, claimed that this was really a “honey pot” to catch those gaming the system.
The Community Notes folks quickly hit back:
They pointed out that:
Community Notes requires agreement from contributors of differing perspectives, as such is highly resistant to gaming. The entire Community Notes algorithm and data is open source, and can be reviewed by anyone…
Community Notes ftw.
Soon after that, the Community Notes on Elon’s post disappeared. Funny that.
And… soon after that, a different Community Note appeared on Elon’s tweet again pushing back on the idea that Community Notes was easy to game:
So, yes, any such system of crowdsourcing things can be gamed, though ExTwitter’s implementation of Community Notes (a modification of the tool Polis) is done in a way that, at the very least, makes it resistant to such gaming. It’s not impossible to game, but it’s also not easy given the way it’s set up.
But, still, given how often Elon acts like Community Notes is an infallible system that solves most of his trust & safety issues, it’s interesting to note that apparently it’s only “gamed” by “state actors” when its calling out his own false tweets. The rest of the time Community Notes is so accurate that the company can base payment information on it. So, when Community Notes supports Elon’s views, it’s a key part of ExTwitter’s platform strategy. When it goes against Elon’s views, it’s being abused by state actors.
What an astounding coincidence.
Filed Under: community notes, crowdsourcing, elon musk, fact checking, gonzalo lira, state actors, tucker carlson
Companies: twitter, x
Comments on “Community Notes Is Great Until It Challenges Elon, And Then It’s Being ‘Manipulated’ By State Actors”
What?! A narcissistic, free speech hypocrite and control freak cheers when an information system supports him, but throws a fit when it doesn’t?? I never would have thought!
Are you sure Elon isn’t the one being “manipulated” by state actors?
Re:
Given several states have started legal action in support of him, he may well be.
Monetization
Hasn’t he already?
Next big topic: AI
Musk is lowering the threshold for the Turing test. Like, “a real human could not be that stupid”.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Still pining for that sweet, sweet private-actor left-wing censorship that X took away from you, I see. You’re not getting it back.
Re:
There’s no such thing as “private-actor…censorship”. If a private social media company removes your post or kicks you off their platform, that’s their First Amendment right. To say that they must host your content is a violation of the First Amendment. Note how nowhere in this reply did I mention one side of the political aisle or the other. That’s because this principle is not dependent on anyone’s political views! But go on, try to tell me that exposing the hypocrisy Elon is displaying by blaming community notes on his content on state actors is not justifiable…
Re:
…hallucinated nobody mentally competent, ever.
Re: really?
Private actor?
Left wing censorship?
How about right wing conservative capitalists?
Which has as much meaning.
Twitter is "Free!"
Not free as in free speech (no matter how much Elon tries to claim it is). Nor is it free as in free beer. It’s free as in “Free to be me”, even when that means acting like an entitled jerk to anyone who doesn’t agree with you.
Re:
Wait a couple years, and you will be able to call it “free” as in “can purchase for $0.
Actually, I am guessing that it will be “purchase for the low, low cost of $a-crapton-of-debt, but gain a toxic but very well known brand which might be worth something to someone willing to invest in content moderation when rebuilding nearly everything from scratch.”
Re: Re:
Quite optimistic of you to assume it will still exist in a few years.
It’s time to replace these boring Community Notes with his great xAI, the only solution that could match the same level of stupidity by creating the perfect echo chamber.
Musk’s notion of “freedom” is like the supervillain in The Pumaman: “Yes, indeed you are free. You are free to obey me!”
Re:
I’ll use that definition when I want the flavor of bacon in a dip…
…which will probably be when I fly like a moron.
For everything said.
There are no Smart people, that dont have people around them, that assist them in thinking things out.
Its easier to blame others if you have A FEW around you.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Remember when you said the suit against Media Matters didn't claim defamation?
….and then I read through the complaint itself and the entire thing alleges and details defamation in great detail, including the essential elements of false statement of fact, malice, and damages? And was summarized in the Cause of Actions? Meaning you just straight lied?
…Pepperidge Farms remembers.
But Community Notes is absolutely great but of course it can be gamed. “Resistant” is not “Immune”. Yes of course something like Ukraine or Singapore is likely to see “state actors” with fairly famous hacker armies come to play.
The old system obviously got “gamed” by the FBI and CDC so I think Community Notes is doing pretty well by that metric.
I don’t think he ever said that but mischaracterizing thing is like, your whole deal.
Re:
What I’m getting from this is that you don’t know what “claim” means in the context of a lawsuit.
Re:
Except none of the causes of action claim defamation, even though they keep mentioning it over and over again. They only claim “business disparagement”, and no, that’s not the same thing. If you think it is, that’s because you’re as dumb as Musk’s lawyers.
Stop pretending that you can read, Matty.
Re: Re:
*[…]keep mentioning it over and over again throughout the filing.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Yes it is the same thing, actually, and much more importantly the Cause of Action go ahead and allege defamation (summarized from previous 11 pages).
You realize there’s nothing special about the word itself, “defamation” (usually separated out into libel and slander). It’s not a magic keyword you have to evoke. If you list all the parts of defamation in request for redress you have in fact alleged defamation (mostly libel, here, actually). (Both “Defame” and “Defamatory” occur many times in the document, still not a keyword)
You’ve repeatedly shown yourself an idiot, so I suspect you really think it has to be used as a keyword– but it doesn’t. Masnick I suspect knows all that — he’s just lying.
Re: Re: Re:
Matt, Matt, Matt. Stop trying to law when you have no idea what you’re talking about. Yes, you have to allege defamation in actual cause of action to win a defamation claim.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Mike, stop pretending to be able to read when you cannot. I was saying you can allege defamation without using the actual word, which yes, you can.
I see now that you’re just making an overly technical distinction between “disparagement” and “defamation” which yes, are pretty much the same thing, actually.
So you’re just lying in a different way than I thought, at first? Yay for you, I guess?
Re: Re: Re:3
I see now that you’re just making an overly technical distinction between “disparagement” and “defamation” which yes, are pretty much the same thing, actually.
Not according to the law that you seem to think you know so much about. But that’s just an inconvenient fact that you choose to ignore, isn’t it?
Because ‘defamation’ is so difficult to write, while ‘disparagement’ just flies off the keyboard, and it’s easier for lawyers to not allege defamation, when that’s what they actually mean.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Except they are.
Have you ever heard the term “disparagement lawsuit” in the popular media? No, of course you haven’t. It’s not the length of the word that matters.
It actually requires defamation so I have no idea what distinction you’re trying to make here.
Re: Re: Re:5
Except they are.
Except, they aren’t. Read and learn. This is a legal definition, where you can’t just arbitrarily change the meaning of the word (like censorship).
https://www.findlaw.com/smallbusiness/business-laws-and-regulations/commercial-disparagement.html
Have you ever heard the term “disparagement lawsuit” in the popular media?
Yeah, I saw it when I read about Elmo’s latest venture in public self-humiliation.
No, of course you haven’t. It’s not the length of the word that matters.
It seems to matter when explaining it to ignorant people like you.
It actually requires defamation so I have no idea what distinction you’re trying to make here.
That’s what everyone’s trying to explain to you. That you don’t see the distinction is exactly your fucking problem. Now go fix it. We did the hard part for you.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
Are you trying to say slander and libel aren’t the same thing? Cuz those have different legal definitions, too.
They’re still the same thing.
No, you haven’t.
But jesus you’re foaming at the mouth.
Re: Re: Re:7
Are you trying to say slander and libel aren’t the same thing?
Not at all. Can’t you fucking read? I never wrote ‘slander’ or ‘libel’ at all, you illerate shitstain. Fucking idiot.
Here: https://www.usa.gov/learn-english
Don’t say I never helped the handicapped.
They’re still the same thing.
To someone ignorant of the two terms, I’m sure they are.
No, you haven’t.
That’s just fucking pathetic, but not unexpected given how busy you’ve been proving that some village is missing its idiot.
Exhausted your supply of dung for the day?
Re: Re: Re:7
Ah, right, things are “the same” if you feel strongly enough about it. I’m sure that your emotions and preferences are going to go a long way in shaping the judge’s mind on what he thinks about your case.
It just probably won’t be in the way you prefer but that’s what you get when pounding the table forms the crux of your legal strategy.
Re: Re: Re:
Cite a source or stop lying.
Let me quote the cause of action to you in its entirety:
Where’s the allegation, Matty? The entire cause doesn’t even contain the word you keep claiming it alleges.
Just be a big boy for once and accept that you’re wrong.
If you’re making causes of action, you have to actually allege the thing. You can’t just keep saying “defamation” in all its variants over and over again throughout a filing, and then skip the word in the causes of action.
Fucking hell, I’m neither a lawyer nor an American, and I have a better grasp on this from 5 minutes of googling than you do.
Not to mention that you have been told by an actual lawyer that you’re wrong. But no, bratty Matty is the real legal expert here! It’d be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad and pathetic.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Masnick tends to sit on outside links for a day, I’ll link it in a reply to this comment.
You actually can, I’m not sure what part of “It’s not a magic keyword” you don’t get. But as Masnick is somehow making a stink about this is technically a “disparagement” claim, which….yeah, is actually pretty much the same as defamation but for businesses.
You also keep on saying defamation suits are “censorship” because it’s decided by a judge, despite my continually pointing out it’s decided by a jury….and you keep on saying “judge”. So I’m gonna hold on off on my amazement with your learning capacity.
Re: Re: Re:3
So…not defamation, since defamation is for people. Thank you for finally admitting that you’re wrong.
It’s incredible how you keep coming up with these weird fantasies about what people say. I have never said that, and if you think I have, then quote me. Until then, you’re just lying, which is quite hypocritical.
Re:
Yes. Because it does not. There are three claims in the complaint. None of them are defamation.
Reading your comments now on the other post, I see you thought that “paragraphs” are “claims” and, holy shit, dude. That’s embarrassing.
There are three claims. The “causes of action” are the claims. That’s how it works, but you’re so out of your depth you don’t know that, and don’t even know to stop digging.
And, no, “business disparagement” is not “defamation.” It has some similarities to it, and some of the elements overlap, but not all of them, and it serves a different purpose than defamation.
Elon did not claim defamation in the lawsuit no matter how many times you misread the document through your own legal ignorance and stupidity.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
It does, the Second action lists out the required parts of defamation.
The claims are summarizing information given in the paragraphs, you moron.
So you’re lying here, but just through an artificially technical definition….especially since to engage in “commercial disparagement” you first have to defame. They are basically the same thing and both are absolutely “defamation” as almost anyone would speak of it.
Remember how you wrote a big long article calling Musk’s lawyers idiots? Well it turns out the alleged damages do fit better under “disparagement”, which again, requires defamatory statements and anyone would commonly call defamation
This is the equivalent of you pointing and laughing and somehow claiming someone else lied when they said “my house was burned down by magma”, by saying “No, that was lava!” Technically true but spectacularly unimportant, changes none of the relevant bits, and doesn’t really make the person crying about their house a liar.
Rereading your original article, I see you make this distinction (Problem #6)….and you were just attempting to mislead. Because they’re not “kind of the same thing”, they’re pretty much exactly the same thing except that disparagement has more of a focus on businesses and financial loses (perfectly appropriate here). Also, btw, “Actual Malice” IS detailed in the complaint and moreover seems really easy to prove here.
You also mischaracterized the complaint in about a hundred other ways, cuz of course you did, you’re a partisan actor with MDS.
So great, you’re lying, with extra steps. “Disparagement” is the same as “defamation”, requires defamatory statements, and if he’d said “We’re filing a disparagement lawsuit” no one would even know what he was talking about. He filed a defamation lawsuit.
https://www.tbr-law.com/blog/2022/july/what-is-the-difference-between-business-defamati/
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Since it will probably take about a day for you to approve my more involved response with links: Yeah, disparagement and defamation are pretty much the same thing, actually, just the former is for businesses. It even requires defamatory statements. If he had said he was filing a “disparagement lawsuit” no one would have know what he meant.
It’s equivalent to you laughing about someone filing a “Magma” lawsuit instead of a “Lava” lawsuit….yeah, they’re the same fffing thing. Worse you’re pretending this is some grave legal error when the “magma” lawsuit was even underground.
You’re just lying with extra steps.
Re: Re: Re:
Except not legally, which is what matters here.
The cause of action literally says “business disparagement”. Are you high right now?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Look man, you are not smart, so I don’t why I’m diving in here, but:
Legally it was filed correctly, which Masnick then ridiculed them over.
Legally, “Libel” and “Slander” are different things….they are also the same fffing thing, just one written and the other spoken.
Disparagement and Defamation are also the same thing.
Yeah, which is the same thing. Are you high? Do you not get how “no one would have known what he meant” matters? One does not usually say “Monday morning I’m filing a business disparagement lawsuit”, they just say “defamation lawsuit”. A distinction Masnick mocked them over. Very stupidly.
Re: Re: Re:3
It was filed “correctly” in the sense that it’s an actual, real lawsuit, sure.
But it wasn’t filed as a defamation lawsuit, which is what Masnick is making fun of them for.
So not the same. Thank you for admitting that.
No.
Lawyers and court officials would know. You know, the people reading these things. Stop projecting your stupidity onto other people with actual knowledge on the subject.
And they’d be wrong for conflating the two. Just like you are.
Re: Re: Re:3
Do you not get how “no one would have known what he meant” matters?
No, because we can fucking read. Again, you not knowing the difference is a you problem, dumbass.
Use the link I provided for some remedial English. Illiteracy isn’t something you should be proud of.
Re: Re: Re:3
Yes you do if you want to rile up the dumbasses. You seem pretty riled up btw.
Because saying stupid shit to fool the stupid, you included, is one of core tenets of performance suits and that’s why people mock them. It’s entirely understandable that you don’t get this.
Re: Re: Re:
Since it will probably take about a day for you to approve my more involved response with links
And when faced with the reality that he’s wrong, Matty is now a ‘victim.’ He doesn’t understand why no one believes him, and since he’s so confident in his wrongness, it’s Mike’s fault that we all don’t get the bullshit Matty’s trying to pass off as ‘fact.’
Yeah, disparagement and defamation are pretty much the same thing, actually, just the former is for businesses. It even requires defamatory statements.
Are you implying he can’t file for defamation since Shitter’s a business? Because ‘business defamation’ is a real legal thing too. It’s a strange move, and not surprisingly confuses people like you who don’t know what ‘disparagement’ means.
If he had said he was filing a “disparagement lawsuit” no one would have know what he meant.
And BTW…just because your 3rd grade education precludes you from understanding the legal difference between ‘defamation’ and ‘disparagement’ doesn’t mean the rest of us are as soft in the head as you.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Yeah, Masnick makes a big deal of having an open forum but some comments take like 18 hours to post, some never post. Whether that’s malice or just a really shitty spam filter is hard to tell.
It’s mostly “Disparagement” because there’s real calculable loses.
A sixth grader could probably tell you those words are synonyms, but you’re being disingenuous af here cuz I know that you have never seen a news article titled “blah to file ‘Business Disparagement’ lawsuit”. They just say “defamation lawsuit”.
And then if you’re masnick you write a big article “Hah! It was actually disparagement instead! Whast idiots!”
Re: Re: Re:3
Why is it only the fucking idiots like you who end up fighting a spam bot and constantly losing?!?!?!
Re: Re: Re:3
💩
Re: Re: Re:3
Yeah, Masnick makes a big deal of having an open forum but some comments take like 18 hours to post, some never post.
Awwww. Poor Matty. He can’t get his bullshit to post fast enough. It must be a conspiracy. You poor, censored, ignorant, twatwaddle. Cry harder.
I know that you have never seen a news article titled “blah to file ‘Business Disparagement’ lawsuit”. They just say “defamation lawsuit”.
So they’re dumbing it down for people like you…we get what you’re saying, dumbass. And if you think the ‘explanation’ makes you look any smarter, that’s just the Dunning-Krueger talking.
Re: Re: Re:2
Gracious of you to assume that bratty Matty even made it to the third grade.
Re: Lazy lies
I seem to recall Mike Masnick specifically mentioning that the filing accused MM4A of defamation, but didn’t legally claim defamation, which is a massive difference from a legal standpoint. Remember, truth is an absolute defense, and while it claims that Media Matters was dishonest, it failed to point to any false claim. What Media Matters did was go to known Nazi content to find advertising from major brands. The fact that they found it was the story. Of course they wouldn’t have seen ads on Nazi content if they didn’t look at Nazi content, but that’s completly besides the point.
For someone so quick to accuse people of antisemitism in recent months, you seem quite eager to defend Elon Musk, known antisemite.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
The specific lie was when Media Matters wrote articles claiming that people would come across such a result organically. They would not.
The complaint listed MANY false claims, actually. Are you lying on purpose, or just an idiot who didn’t read it?
I mean, he’s not, but I’m really looking forward to you trying to equivocate criticizing Soros and advocating for real, actual genocide.
Go ahead, call me an anti-semite too, I think Soros is a piece of shit.
Re: Re: Re:
“I want more hate speech”
Re: Re: Re:
I was referring to his endorsement of the great replacement/white genocide conspiracy theory, which is the basis for contemporary Neo-Nazi ideology.
Re: Re: Re:
Bull Fucking Shit.
Read the goddam article: https://www.mediamatters.org/twitter/musk-endorses-antisemitic-conspiracy-theory-x-has-been-placing-ads-apple-bravo-ibm-oracle
Read the text:
“During all of this Musk-induced chaos, corporate advertisements have also been appearing on pro-Hitler, Holocaust denial, white nationalist, pro-violence, and neo-Nazi accounts. Yaccarino has attempted to placate companies by claiming that “brands are now ‘protected from the risk of being next to’ potentially toxic content.””
“But that certainly isn’t the case for at least five major brands: We recently found ads for Apple, Bravo, Oracle, Xfinity, and IBM next to posts that tout Hitler and his Nazi Party on X.”
Where is the statement that people would come across the such a result organically?
They said the ads appeared alongside pro-Hitler and pro-Nazi content. They literally did and Media Matters provided the screenshots to prove it. You had to invent a claim they didn’t make in order to pretend they lied. That’s fucking telling, not just about how stupid Musk is, but about how you have no integrity, or even the ability to google a topic for five seconds.
The funniest thing to me though is that we’re arguing about whether or not the pro-Nazi posts appeared next to corporate ads rather than discussing why pro-Nazi posts are even allowed on a private social media platform. Except we know why, because Musk is an antisemite.
Re: Re: Re:
Media Matters never said it would happen organically. So… is a lie that no one said even a lie? Hmmm…
But yeah, the article by Media Matters never said anything about it happening organically or anything. As such, the lie is something never said, meaning it can’t be the basis for a lawsuit of any kind.
Nothing it alleged to be false was anything Media Matters actually said. If you want to be taken seriously, I suggest you actually, y’know, point to something actually in the MM article that the complaint claims to be false, rather than just saying, “The complaint listed many false claims,” with no specificity or evidence whatsoever.
Re:
Ah the stupid.
Could you learn to fucking read you dipshit?
Re:
On what page were you able to find the word ‘defamation’ you lying sack of pig shit?
Wasn’t the lawyers telling you business disparagement and business defamation not being the same thing in the other thread enough for you to stop repeating the same bullshit?
Of course not! Because one thing you cocksure dumbfucks do consistently is stick to your positions (except when it comes to being wrong about horse dewormer or aquarium cleaner as an effective treatment for COVID – then you’re fine being a burden to those needing a hospital bed or ventilator, despite how ‘wrong’ they are).
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/12/11/free-speech-absolutist-elon-musk-is-also-libel-tourist-vexatious-slapper-elon-musk/#comment-3473376
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/12/11/free-speech-absolutist-elon-musk-is-also-libel-tourist-vexatious-slapper-elon-musk/#comment-3473452
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/12/11/free-speech-absolutist-elon-musk-is-also-libel-tourist-vexatious-slapper-elon-musk/#comment-3473600
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/12/11/free-speech-absolutist-elon-musk-is-also-libel-tourist-vexatious-slapper-elon-musk/#comment-3473690
(Need more examples, fool? Or are you just going to clutter this article with the same shit that you posted on the other one? Kindly let us know when you get some new material, you ignorant fucktard.)
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
What the fuck are you talking about? The actual complaint says “Defame” and “Defamatory” maybe a dozen times each.
Why are you linking TD articles? What does that have to do with ANYTHING?!?
The “actual lawyer” was wrong. In common english they very much are the same thing, legally, they’re about as different as slander and libel.
Jesus, are you OK?
BTW, just because this is fun: That the covid vaccine had a negligible effect on transmission is scientifically proven at this point. (I’m not a lawyer, but I was trained as a scientist) Also, btw, a whole LOT (most, maybe) of antiparasitic drugs seem to have a mild antiviral effect. This has been known for like…a century? No one knows why.
“aquarium cleaner” is a funny way to say “chlorine” but do liberals even know what a joke is?
Re: Re: Re:
Why are you linking TD articles?
I’m linking to your COMMENTS, fuckface. Is a ‘comment’ an ‘article’ now?
What does that have to do with ANYTHING?!?
Who the fuck cares? I’ve got free speech, so suck it.
In common english they very much are the same thing, legally, they’re about as different as slander and libel.
In legal documents, they are not.
That the covid vaccine had a negligible effect on transmission is scientifically proven at this point.
Tell that to the 1.1M dead Americans. I’m sure they’ll appreciate your expertise.
(I’m not a lawyer, but I was trained as a scientist)
‘Trained’ is not the same thing as ‘competent.’ And its clear as hell that you’re not a lawyer. You’ve proven that many times over.
“aquarium cleaner” is a funny way to say “chlorine” but do liberals even know what a joke is?
Apart from the idiot who drank and died from it? Not for nothing, but he had problems with words just like you do.
Re:
Fucking fuck man, you are exhausting.
You’ve been here for a year spouting your ignorant bullshit and have been demonstratively wrong about…well, everything. All your arguments are transparently cribbed from right wing loony toons without more than a cursory understanding, which is why your arguments collapse under even the slightest examination. You argue the law with lawyers despite your lack of education or experience, you create your own definitions of words contrary to any existing use or art or formal definition, you regularly post evidence that directly contradicts your claims, and not once have you acknowledged even the most basic error amongst your numerous failures.
Which is quite a feet of dedication and self flagellation all for the benefit of Elon Musk. Who appears to be suffering a narcissistic break in full view of the world while burning down what remains of a 44 billion dollar investment.
And, now that you’re not getting enough attention in the other threads, you’re now posting in random threads to demonstrate your stupidity.
Like, what’s the end plan here? You’re hostile, dumb, and prolific. Everyone, and I mean everyone, knows that you’re a complete toolshed. If at any point you had some credibility it’s long since evaporated. People reflexively, and correctly, flag your posts as spam instantly.
Is the negative attention fulfilling in your empty life? Are you so emotionally stunted that you think you’re actually influencing people?
The only poster who’s more obnoxious than you, is the twerp who impersonates you. And even that’s pretty marginal.
Also. You’re just a shitty person, and you should just fuck right off.
Re: Re:
Harassment.
The entire Republican online harassment army only has one end goal: to silence dissent through repeated harassment.
Re: Re:
“Like, what’s the end plan here? ”
Same thing we do every night, try to take over the world of course.
State actors?
Na, more like manipulated by reality.
Re:
Reality also notes that Elon has complied with Indian and Turkish demands to take down “offensive” tweets.
Reality would also like to remind you that he has written puff pieces for the Chinese Communist Party as well.
Any sane person would look at the evidence thus far, and conclude that Elon fucking loves authoritarian regimes more than America or his birthplace, South Africa.
The poster child for schizophrenia.
I think a new word needs to be used here.
AutoOwnage: When your statements are fact checked as false in real time by a bot or service.
Right wing logic 101:
if works for not_me:
LEFT WING JEWISH SPACE HACKERS
If works for me:
perfect.
Popular examples include the job report from Trump’s own administration.
'Fact checking is for other people, not me!'
Elon to Community Notes: How could you?! You were like a brother to me! You were supposed to bring legitimacy to my claims, not destroy them!
The “state actor” here is the Missouri AG, who is acting as Musk’s enforcement arm.