Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Elon Musk Threatens to SUE Anti-Defamation League, Says Anti-Semitism SMEAR Is KILLING AD Sales" video.

She didn't say ADL was credible. She said Musk himself has alienated advertisers, and if he really supports free speech, he may have to eat the financial loss that comes with it.
18
You're missing the point because you don't listen to arguments. You want to take sides as fast as possible.
10
 @threeofeight197 Exactly! Why do they? They can, of course, but they shouldn't. They should do their own due diligence.
9
She isn't rejecting that premise. The way no one ever listens to the least degree of complexity is scary.
6
She didn't say ADL was credible or correct. She said Musk himself has alienated advertisers, and if he really supports free speech, he may have to eat the financial loss that comes with it.
5
@justingrimm6642 I have an idea: try ANSWERING the rational arguments presented, instead of name-calling. Over your poor little head? Of course I say the same thing with respect to the same issues. Ask yourself why you can't address the point.
5
@nox5555 This isn't a matter of criminal law, or even antitrust law. Once you have exhausted other options, then yes, you can bring a civil suit for money damages. Or go for lawsuits and money as a first resort, fine, but don't tell me it's about free speech. It's about money.
5
@emerpus01 Advertisers do, however, use ADL as one source among many to decide where to allocate resources to maximize their profits. Glenn Greenwald will be discussing this tonight. I'm interested in what he has to say. I hope he will be even-handed.
4
You're missing the point because you don't listen to arguments. You want to take sides as fast as possible.
4
False. She is the realist here. It's all about the money, all the time. Try facing the fact.
3
Cancel her contract? LOL
3
@justingrimm6642 Well, this is terrible because your original post has been shadowed. I can no longer make it reappear. We can agree that should never happen. I agree with your point about having a rational discussion. Looks like we were blocked from that.
3
@sirtra So he says. He may be right. Or they may be lying to him.
3
@justingrimm6642 Sane people never joined either one. I'm here with a pseudonym (based on my real name) only to save videos, and only since the pandemic nonsense.
2
Wait a second. Massive advertising on social media platforms must be defended? Why is loss of advertising a bad thing? Advertising is always manipulation.
2
Oh, this billionaire has a platform at his full disposal, and STILL needs the courts to help him. Turning to Daddy Government so quickly? Why not start with opposing unfair speech with more speech, not threats of lawsuits? Defamation suits are always anti-free speech. See R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul.
1
If Musk himself has alienated advertisers, and if he really supports free speech, then he may have to eat the financial loss that comes with it. These are the facts. Musk owns a platform and he can start by opposing unfair speech with more speech, not threats of lawsuits. Defamation suits are always anti-free speech. Anyone who threatens a suit is claiming the person or group they are suing has no free speech right in the matter. That would be Musk in this case, turning to Daddy Government and its courts. This is about the money for Musk, not free speech.
1
She didn't defend advertisers or the ADL, for that matter. She said Musk himself has alienated advertisers, and if he really supports free speech, he may have to eat the financial loss that comes with it. That's reality.
1
You're missing the point because you don't listen to arguments. You want to take sides as fast as possible. She never said ADL was credible. She said Musk himself has alienated advertisers, and if he really supports free speech, he may have to eat the financial loss that comes with it. Facts.
1
Why not start with opposing unfair speech with more speech, not threats of lawsuits? Defamation suits are always anti-free speech. See R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul. Anyone who threatens a suit is claiming the person or group they are suing has no free speech right in the matter. That would be Musk in this case, turning to Daddy Government and its courts. If Musk himself has alienated advertisers, and if he really supports free speech, then he may have to eat the financial loss that comes with it.
1
@threeofeight197 It is soothing to hear your rational argument at this point. Thank you.
1
@emerpus01 Exactly my point. Go back and look.
1
@justingrimm6642 Well, I am sorry to see they did that. How could your post be shadowed, but you were able to see my reply? That is gross and unfair.
1
@OffbeatsMusic Of course, thank you.
1
@Snipergoat1 Oh, advertisers are amoral! And they do damage! Not only that, but lobbies and pressure groups lie and bribe to get their way. Fancy that, it never occurred to me. If the only damage they do is to the revenues of a multi-billionaire, that would be one thing. In fact, such groups have been behind every sort of manipulation and atrocity. The "science" of shaping attitudes and behavior has reached dizzying heights. If a small group of well-placed masters of propaganda wanted a world war before this decade is over, the chances are far from negligible that we would have one. And everyone who mouthed their slogans would think they were coming up with something original. I assure you, they would. I know you think you've "got me" or something, but I don't even get your point. Suppose Musk sued and won. Would a court order ADL to cease and desist? Would advertisers be obligated in any way to come back to X/Twitter? (Would they do it of their own volition, based only on the outcome of a lawsuit? Ha.) No. Money would change hands. Money. If you see some higher principle at work here, please be clearer. I actually don't understand. I'm not being pigheaded, I actually don't.
1
You don't understand her argument. Defamation suits are always anti-free speech. See R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul. Anyone who threatens a suit is claiming the person or group they are suing has no free speech right in the matter.
1
Brie said Musk himself has alienated advertisers, and if he really supports free speech, he may have to eat the financial loss that comes with it. It's only money that is at stake for Musk. These are the facts.
1
@Froward_Thinker Defamation is not a crime. It is a tort. No one is ever prosecuted for pure defamation. Are you thinking of extortion?
1
@Froward_Thinker Of course you have a right to lie. Only certain lies can lead to successful lawsuits. Otherwise, to be an actual crime, a lie has to be under oath, or to law enforcement so that it constitutes obstruction of justice, or in furtherance of an antitrust violation, or securities fraud, or other fraud. The general rule is that you can lie. All the rest are exceptions to the rule. Where did you get that lying was illegal? Weird.
1
@Froward_Thinker Someone can sue you for it and recover damages if it's defamatory, sure. No prosecutor goes after ordinary defamation.
1
Oh, this billionaire has a platform at his full disposal, and STILL needs the courts to help him. Turning to Daddy Government so quickly? Why not start with opposing unfair speech with more speech, not threats of lawsuits? Defamation suits are always anti-free speech. See R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul. 6:41 These are simple facts; "advertisers don't care about free speech." This is a financial decision. This is always a financial decision.
1
Why not start with opposing unfair speech with more speech, not threats of lawsuits? Defamation suits are always anti-free speech. See R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul. Anyone who threatens a suit is claiming the person or group they are suing has no free speech right in the matter.
1
No. This dispute is about money, and people with money (in this case, advertisers) get to decide where to spend it. Brie said Musk himself has alienated advertisers, and if he really supports free speech, he may have to eat the financial loss that comes with it. Musk is a billionaire and has a platform at his full disposal, and he STILL needs the courts to help him. Turning to Daddy Government so quickly? Why not start with opposing unfair speech with more speech, not threats of lawsuits? Defamation suits are always anti-free speech. See R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul. Anyone who threatens a suit is claiming the person or group they are suing has no free speech right in the matter.
1
False. This is about MONEY, and nothing more. Defamation suits are always anti-free speech. See R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul. Anyone who threatens a suit is claiming the person or group they are suing has no free speech right in the matter. That would be Musk in this case, turning to Daddy Government and its courts. If Musk himself has alienated advertisers, and if he really supports free speech, then he may have to eat the financial loss that comes with it.
1
This is about MONEY, and you can't handle the truth. Why not start with opposing unfair speech with more speech, not threats of lawsuits? Defamation suits are always anti-free speech. See R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul. Anyone who threatens a suit is claiming the person or group they are suing has no free speech right in the matter. That would be Musk in this case, turning to Daddy Government and its courts. If Musk himself has alienated advertisers, and if he really supports free speech, then he may have to eat the financial loss that comes with it.
1
It has zero to do with censorship but with money. She said Musk himself has alienated advertisers, and if he really supports free speech, he may have to eat the financial loss that comes with it. So a billionaire has a platform at his full disposal, and STILL needs the courts to help him, because money. Turning to Daddy Government so quickly? LOL Why not start with opposing unfair speech with more speech, not threats of lawsuits? Defamation suits are always anti-free speech. See R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul.
1