Elon Musk / Tesla / SpaceX / Twitter

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 455
  • Views: 10K
  • Politics 
www.mediaite.com

Elon Musk Claims on Rogan There Is ‘No Way’ X Will Be Allowed To ‘Exist’ Under Harris: ‘They Can Sic the DOJ’

Elon Musk claimed on The Joe Rogan Experience podcast that his social media platform X will be allowed to "exist" if Kamala Harris wins the presidency.
www.mediaite.com www.mediaite.com

Elon Musk Claims on Rogan There Is ‘No Way’ X Will Be Allowed To ‘Exist’ Under Harris: ‘They Can Sic the DOJ’​


"... Musk pointed to organizations like the nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate — which he argued gives itself away with its Orwellian name — have pushed advertisers to boycott X and he expects more negative attention from the government if Trump loses.

Musk called the Center for Countering Digital Hate a “censorship organization.” Musk’s X Corp. previously sued the Center for Countering Digital Hate, claiming they exaggerated harmful content on the social media platform to turn away advertisers.

“I think if Trump wins, we’ll see, you know, probably most of the boycott will lift,” Musk predicted. “But if Kamala wins, we’ll see that boycott gets stronger and they’ll friggin’ shut [X] down. There’s no way that a Kamala puppet regime would allow X to exist.”


Rogan pushed Musk on this, asking whether he thinks this is an actual potential scenario and Musk claimed the Department of Justice would eventually come after him over what is deemed harmful “misinformation” or “hate speech.”

“They can sic the DOJ on you know, and say, like, you know, they’ve got this whole thing about like hate speech, misinformation or whatever, except that they’re the ones pushing the misinformation, but that doesn’t stop them from filing massive, you know, lawsuits and using the DOJ,” he said. ..."
 
rodoheel said:
Hearing in the case over Elon’s million-dollar giveaways today. What a shocker - turns out Elon was totally lying before when he said the winners would be chosen at random, or his lawyer is lying now when he says they’re not:

Click to expand...

This assertion from Musk's lawyer is astonishing.

"Gober argued there's a difference between "randomly" and "by chance," which is why he argued that this isn't an illegal lottery under PA gaming laws."

Now, I'm a guy who doesn't mind splitting hairs. Sometimes I like it. I certainly like to be precise with language, and often I'm the guy in the conversation saying, "A and B are similar, but not exactly the same."

And I can't for the life of me discern any significant difference between randomly and by chance. They are exactly the same.
 
nycfan said:


I do wish media would rediscover “alleged” to qualify prosecutorial (and other) allegations
Click to expand...

I disagree entirely. The media has come to broadcast any number of verifiable lies without such qualifications. If we allow the media to write "Mr. Trump claims that [craziness]" then we should allow "Prosecutors claim that [ ]" and we don't need the word alleged to show up in a tiny subset of possible vectors of misinformation.
 
lawtig02 said:
I swear to God, Elon's decision to associate with Trump is going to land his ass in prison.
Click to expand...
One can hope. But I said the same thing about Elon's various violations of securities laws, and then his nose-thumbing at the SEC consent decree, and nothing happened to him for reasons I don't understand.
 
nycfan said:
www.mediaite.com

Elon Musk Claims on Rogan There Is ‘No Way’ X Will Be Allowed To ‘Exist’ Under Harris: ‘They Can Sic the DOJ’

Elon Musk claimed on The Joe Rogan Experience podcast that his social media platform X will be allowed to "exist" if Kamala Harris wins the presidency.
www.mediaite.com www.mediaite.com

Elon Musk Claims on Rogan There Is ‘No Way’ X Will Be Allowed To ‘Exist’ Under Harris: ‘They Can Sic the DOJ’​


"... Musk pointed to organizations like the nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate — which he argued gives itself away with its Orwellian name — have pushed advertisers to boycott X and he expects more negative attention from the government if Trump loses.

Musk called the Center for Countering Digital Hate a “censorship organization.” Musk’s X Corp. previously sued the Center for Countering Digital Hate, claiming they exaggerated harmful content on the social media platform to turn away advertisers.

“I think if Trump wins, we’ll see, you know, probably most of the boycott will lift,” Musk predicted. “But if Kamala wins, we’ll see that boycott gets stronger and they’ll friggin’ shut [X] down. There’s no way that a Kamala puppet regime would allow X to exist.”


Rogan pushed Musk on this, asking whether he thinks this is an actual potential scenario and Musk claimed the Department of Justice would eventually come after him over what is deemed harmful “misinformation” or “hate speech.”

“They can sic the DOJ on you know, and say, like, you know, they’ve got this whole thing about like hate speech, misinformation or whatever, except that they’re the ones pushing the misinformation, but that doesn’t stop them from filing massive, you know, lawsuits and using the DOJ,” he said. ..."
Click to expand...
Elon whining that he might lose his hate speech / disinformation toy :rolleyes:
 
superrific said:
This assertion from Musk's lawyer is astonishing.

"Gober argued there's a difference between "randomly" and "by chance," which is why he argued that this isn't an illegal lottery under PA gaming laws."

Now, I'm a guy who doesn't mind splitting hairs. Sometimes I like it. I certainly like to be precise with language, and often I'm the guy in the conversation saying, "A and B are similar, but not exactly the same."

And I can't for the life of me discern any significant difference between randomly and by chance. They are exactly the same.
Click to expand...
In theory I could weight the results so that one person had a much higher chance of winning (every one gets one ping pong ball, except my chosen candidate who gets 1 million ping pong balls, and then draw one). I might be able to claim that the result was determined "by chance" but not "randomly".
 
Ddseddse said:
In theory I could weight the results so that one person had a much higher chance of winning (every one gets one ping pong ball, except my chosen candidate who gets 1 million ping pong balls, and then draw one). I might be able to claim that the result was determined "by chance" but not "randomly".
Click to expand...
Yep.

"Randomly" would mean that every entrant had an equal likelihood of winning. "By Chance" would mean that there is some sort of non-pre-determined mechanism for choosing the winner, but allows for weighting so that not every entrant has an equal chance.
 
Ddseddse said:
In theory I could weight the results so that one person had a much higher chance of winning (every one gets one ping pong ball, except my chosen candidate who gets 1 million ping pong balls, and then draw one). I might be able to claim that the result was determined "by chance" but not "randomly".
Click to expand...
This is a good try but I don't think it holds up, for several reasons:

1. "Random" does not mean "uniform and equal chance." If you roll a six sided die, the result is random and it's also uniform and equal. But if you roll two six sided dice, you will get more 7s than 2s. So are we saying that rolling one die is random but two dice are not? I don't think that's how we understand the word random.

2. Consider an ordinary lottery like powerball. That's random, right? But not everyone has an equal chance to win. When you buy a powerball ticket, you're buying a random chance to win a jackpot. You are not buying an equal chance to win a jackpot. Maybe you're buying a pro rata per ticket equal chance, but that's not really what we mean and even that isn't necessarily true. Suppose there were two classes of lottery ticket: one costs $5 and it gives you 50 balls in the drawing; another costs $1 and it gives you 9 balls. It's still random, yes?

3. Coming from the other side, does your argument ask us to believe that as long as it's not 100% guaranteed outcome, it's by chance? If we put a million balls in a hopper for one person and one for another, is that really a game of chance? As we would ordinarily use the word, or as we would use it in gaming regulations? Because nothing in this world is 100% guaranteed. Everything has some chance to it.
 
SnoopRob said:
"Randomly" would mean that every entrant had an equal likelihood of winning.
Click to expand...
If you open a book without looking and point at a specific passage, is that selecting text at random? There's not a uniform probability distribution. For one thing, longer paragraphs have greater chance of being selected. Also, imagine yourself doing that at home right now. Are you going to really open randomly to page 2? And you're also likely to use your finger to point at something in the middle of the page, not marginalia.

I think most people would consider this to be random.
 
superrific said:
This is a good try but I don't think it holds up, for several reasons:

1. "Random" does not mean "uniform and equal chance." If you roll a six sided die, the result is random and it's also uniform and equal. But if you roll two six sided dice, you will get more 7s than 2s. So are we saying that rolling one die is random but two dice are not? I don't think that's how we understand the word random.

2. Consider an ordinary lottery like powerball. That's random, right? But not everyone has an equal chance to win. When you buy a powerball ticket, you're buying a random chance to win a jackpot. You are not buying an equal chance to win a jackpot. Maybe you're buying a pro rata per ticket equal chance, but that's not really what we mean and even that isn't necessarily true. Suppose there were two classes of lottery ticket: one costs $5 and it gives you 50 balls in the drawing; another costs $1 and it gives you 9 balls. It's still random, yes?

3. Coming from the other side, does your argument ask us to believe that as long as it's not 100% guaranteed outcome, it's by chance? If we put a million balls in a hopper for one person and one for another, is that really a game of chance? As we would ordinarily use the word, or as we would use it in gaming regulations? Because nothing in this world is 100% guaranteed. Everything has some chance to it.
Click to expand...
We may be getting twisted up between legal and mathematical definitions here, but I do not see the outcome of 2D6 as random, but rather as the product of two separate random events. The quintessential randomness is in the roll of each singular die, not in any output you compute by combining several die rolls. I would however say that that output is determined "by chance".

Like I say, have no idea about how the meaning of those words would be adjudicated in a court of law by any given judge, but that is the plain meaning of those words to me.
 
superrific said:
If you open a book without looking and point at a specific passage, is that selecting text at random? There's not a uniform probability distribution. For one thing, longer paragraphs have greater chance of being selected. Also, imagine yourself doing that at home right now. Are you going to really open randomly to page 2? And you're also likely to use your finger to point at something in the middle of the page, not marginalia.

I think most people would consider this to be random.
Click to expand...
A drawing shouldn't have various sized entries (like paragraphs) nor should a drawing have entries that are intentionally designed to be on the margins rather than in the center of where the drawing occurs.

For a drawing, I would say that "random" implies an equal chance and that "by chance" does not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top