Puuuurrrlease
The fine line between parody and impersonation is stealing someone’s identity to deceive others, which she clearly wasn’t doing as was a joke and everyone knew was Kathy Griffin
He suspended a whole string of high profile people doing the same. He then increased the punishment for it, as the whole site was doing it.
Nobody believes it, and I seriously don’t believe you think people didn’t know it wasn’t Kathy Griffin.
He also blocked and suspended others for just laughing at him.
When people fragrantly break site rules, of course you have to put your foot down.
Such as…?
Yes something is quite fragrant about your reasoning
I’m surprised a guy who single handed creates so much technology and works 30 hours a day has so much time for playing bullshit on Twitter.
They said the same thing about Jesus Christ.
Confusing “r” and “l”…looks like I’ve been in Taiwan too long. 
Which technologies? Multiplying loaves and fishes? 
Yeah it seems like people are basically mocking and criticising him all the time. The most cursory look shows this for example with wide reach
Right, but some are wondering if polls like “should we bring back Donald Trump?” aren’t serving a secondary purpose, like testing for bots, his tweets seem to suggest they were.
Certain medical tech
My feed is full of people mocking Musk…all still around.
I’m not insinuating anything, Sir.
I’m telling you that it’s verified fact that child abuse images and videos were shared publicly on Twitter, and watched repeatedly.
There are dozens of articles on the subject. The case has gone to court.
Twitter was asked to take the content down. They did not. It got over a million views, IIRC. EDIT: Closer to 150,000.
This was on Jack Dorsey’s watch. He, among others, are legally responsible for their inaction.
Child abuse, and the huge database of incriminating PMs, is one of the reasons Musk bought the platform. He seems to be making an effort to clear out suspect hashtags.
That’s why, I guess, why they had to lock everyone out of the building, and revoke access in one fell swoop. They didn’t want anyone destroying evidence.
The case will unfold over the next few months, I guess.
That’s quite a jump.
Hence the qualifier ‘I guess’, denoting speculation and uncertainty.
Tech companies are famous for walking you straight out the door once you are fired, or quit. My cousin was in good standing as a hardware engineer at Apple. Once he quit, he had 30 minutes to clear his desk.
If you tell a sysadmin, or any serverside staff, they are on four weeks notice, they have untold opportunities to copy data, insert back doors, and commit all kinds of subtle, or overt vandalism. A couple of hours is all it needs.
The stakes were very high for Musk, as a new CEO. I reckon preventing anyone destroying evidence, or vandalizing servers, was one of the reasons he took drastic action, like locking everyone out.
More popcorn. The big tech wars are heating up.
That’s fine and good, but you’re saying that the reason they were locked out is because Elon wants to snuff out child pornographers?
That’s the leap I am talking about.
I mean this is quite an insinuation
If Twitter had an issue stopping child porn being shared on the platform, then that is something. If musk can resolve this, he should be congratulated
But you seem to be suggesting that there was intentional nefarious actions on the part of Dorsey
I’m waiting for Jeffery Epstein connection.
Twitter was knowingly hosting child porn. Didn’t take it down when asked. Case went to court.
Standard practice to walk people of of tech jobs when fired, or they quit.
Some Twitter employees must have been complicit, to an extent, as they did nothing to take the videos down. That is, at the very least, negligence.
Musk’s move may have been an effort to lock out engineers who were negligent regarding the child porn issue, or worse.
The case will unfold over months. No point in me making the same point over and over.
Negligent.
Was asked to take down child porn.
Did not take it down.
Left it on the platform.
Criminally negligent.
That is not an insinuation. Im stating he was a negligent CEO. So have many people. Let the court sand media decide.
Regarding the R + D money… no one’s even half interested in what they were spending that cash on? At the very least it’s an accounting black hole.
When I say nefarious, I don’t necessarily mean anything abuse related.
The money could have been wasted, or spent on secret projects that do not benefit the public.