He gives you that option. If you only want to see posts from people you follow….thats easily achievable. Odd you didn’t know that considering you probably invented the IPhone
Is this bad? It seems bad. I thought Elon was fixing this.
- Thread starter BelemNole
- Start date
Do you have any idea how much work that entails? You have to first position your fingertip over your phone screen at the “Following” tab and then press it like you’re some kind of circus elephant being forced to erect the tent.
No - he labeled them "state-affiliated media" so they left. He later changed it to "government-funded media".
Always amusing watching you twist and spin and fail.
Which still isn’t even close to banning them, which is what JP keeps claiming Musk did.
In fact, not only did Musk not ban NPR, they didn’t even leave X as you claim they did. They don’t post new articles anymore, but they still have an open account that you can view right now.
They use it to encourage readers to download their NPR app and subscribe to their Up First newsletter and sign up for push notifications to their mobile devices. They also use it to provide links to all their other social media accounts and to encourage people to sign up for their various topical newsletters covering politics, breaking news, education, and health.
So aggrieved as they may have been about Musk’s label, they certainly aren’t averse to continuing to use X for a little self-promotion.
Meanwhile, you guys still have provided zero examples of news organizations that no longer post stories on X because they were banned by Musk.
It seems like it would be a whole lot easier for you to simply acknowledge that JP made shit up.
Elon just got a $45B pay package approved by the Tesla shareholders...
Just throwing this out there....
'We're starting a new book': Elon Musk runs victory lap after shareholders approve $45b pay package, move to Texas
Shareholders approved a record CEO pay package as well as moving Tesla to Texas from Delaware.fortune.com
That is insane, I remember reading the Forbes richest articles growing up and thinking how incredible it was when Gates was worth 10 billion.
You posted yourself he suspended accounts; which he can do whenever he feels like if he doesn't like stories they produce.
You seem to underestimate how detrimental that is to agencies living on shoestring budgets.
Quite a lot, every time Elno changes his website to "work around" people not wanting Nazi posts and ads...
This does not support your original claim. Why are words so difficult for you?
It’s the internet. There are ads everywhere. Get used to it.
Switch for “For You” to “Following”. It’s fvcking simple. If Elon changes it at some point in the future to stymie your browsing experience, tag me and I’ll be glad to help you out again.
All this to avoid simply admitting that you lied.
This was your verbatim response to a poster asking why anyone would consider Twitter a news source:
“Because news organizations used to routinely post their stories on it…Until Elno banned some of their accounts…”
I’m gonna make this as simple for you as I know how - name some examples.
Yes, it does
He banned accounts.
Then he un-banned some of them.
The ones he refuses to ban are child porn perps, Nazis and racists.
I’ve given you multiple opportunities to defend your original claim and you haven’t done it, mostly because it can’t be done.
All you’ve done is throw up half a dozen different smokescreens about ads and suggested tweets that annoy you and individual journalists whose accounts were suspended for a few hours.
Your original claim that some news organizations no longer post stories on X because Elon banned them is a blatant lie.
You lied, plain and simple. And I’ve grown tired of watching you try to dance your way out of it.
If you choose the option of only
Seeing accounts you follow, you don’t see anything he pushes. You know that
I couldn't care less if it's nothing more that a Truth Social lite. Ban whoever he wants as far as I'm concerned. I quit using Twitter/X years ago.
Sounds like you really give a shit with your BS first paragraph. That's fine. He's obviously banning folks you don't align with, so why would we assume you care?
You can interpret anyway you want. Like most things we find ourselves in the middle. I don't find any evidence of full organizations being banned but I also see people being censored that were writing negative things about Elon. It's never as black and white as we all hope, mostly grey
I’m not defending Elon at all. I’m pointing out that you lied. I’m calling you a liar because you lied. I haven’t expressed an opinion about Elon nor have I defended his actions. None of that is or would be relevant to the fact that you lied.
You claimed that some news organizations no longer post stories on X because Elon banned them. Name some of those organizations for us. List them here, next to these bullet points I’ve provided for you:
•
•
•
•
•
Lol. That’s absolute best you can come up with? You should probably sit this out if that’s the only arrow in your quiver.
“Elno listed one of them as ‘government sponsored’”
— Joes Place
“He erroneously labeled NPR as government funded media.”
— TJ8869
Again, regardless of the precise wording of the label Musk placed on NPR, he didn’t ban them.
You’re such a pathetic #teamblue sychophant, Riley.
So again, you were wrong but still too insecure to admit it. TJ being TJ once again.
You're so easy to expose. You just can't help yourself.
It’s a little bit sad that you think this is a ‘gotcha’. I can’t imagine being so full of pride over such a meaningless triviality.
It's not a gotcha of any sort. It's another demonstration of you being wrong and then spinning, twisting and dancing in an effort to avoid admitting you were wrong. I have no pride in your failures - I do find it amusing.
You're certainly right about that.
And yet not a single peep out of you about the fact that JP used almost exactly the same phrase before I did. What you don't seem to understand (or simply choose not to acknowledge) is that it doesn't make any difference. My point is still 100% valid. Regardless of the exact phrasing of the label Musk used, he did not ban NPR. They didn't like the label he put on them so they decided to stop posting news stories on their X feed. It doesn't fundamentally matter if that label was "government-sponsored" or "government-funded" or "state-affiliated". The exact verbiage means nothing unless you're desperate for a 'gotcha'. It's one of the lamest "you lied" claims I've ever seen.
The bottom line remains that JP blatantly lied when he claimed that some news organizations no longer post stories on X because Musk banned them. But you choose to disregard his lie and focus on rummaging for any scrap or nugget of anything that you can use against me.
It means you were wrong and if Joe lied, you lied. But you are far too insecure to admit that.
Musk labeled NPR as "state-affiliated media". Following this, NPR stopped tweeting from its main account and its affiliate accounts. The label was later changed by Musk to "government-funded media," but by then, NPR had already made the decision to stop posting on there.
Your defense of Musk makes a lot of sense as well. Birds of a feather, so they say.
Doesn't seem to be the experience of most Twitter users these days.
Elno keeps changing shit up to override it.
I explained facts to you.
Whether you choose to accept those facts over Elno's narrative is a you problem.
Lol. You explained different, other facts that do nothing to support your original claim. But you’ve still provided zero examples of news organizations that no longer post stories on X on account of Elon banning them. That’s most likely because there aren’t any.
All you had to do from the beginning was just admit you were exaggerating and that no news organizations actually got banned. But your pride won’t let you do that. You’d rather look like an idiot.
I would ask for some examples, but asking you for examples to support a claim is usually a fruitless endeavor.
I posted examples for you.
Need more?
Gee, Guess What Twitter Just Did to Accounts Critical of Elon Musk?
Elon Musk is at it again.
newrepublic.com
X / Twitter purges then reinstates journalists, podcasters, and leftist accounts critical of Elon Musk
Why? Who knows.
mashable.com
Here's a link to Ryan Mac's X feed. He's still actively posting.I posted examples for you.
Need more?
Gee, Guess What Twitter Just Did to Accounts Critical of Elon Musk?
Elon Musk is at it again.X / Twitter purges then reinstates journalists, podcasters, and leftist accounts critical of Elon Musk
Why? Who knows.
Here's a link to Aaron Rupar's X feed. He's still actively posting.
Here's a link to Donie O'Sullivan's X feed. He's still actively posting.
Here's a link to Matt Binder's X feed. He's still actively posting.
Here's a link to Keith Olbermann's X feed. He's still actively posting.
Here's a link to Steve Herman's X feed. He's still actively posting.
Here's a link to Steve Monacelli's X feed. He's still actively posting.
Here's a link to Ken Klippenstein's X feed. He's still actively posting.
Here's a link to Alan MacLeod's X feed. He's still actively posting.
Here's a link to Rob Rousseau's X feed. He's still actively posting.
Here's a link to "Zei_Squirrel"s X feed. He's still actively posting.
Here's a link to "Liam Nissan"s X feed. He's still actively posting.
Here's a link to The True Anon's X feed. They're still actively posting.
Here's a link to Tony Webster's X feed. He's still actively posting.
Here's a link to Jack Sweeney's X feed. He's still actively posting.
I think/hope that covers everyone.
Of all the various journalists, podcasters, and authors listed in your various links, just two no longer actively post on X. Micah Lee is one. He no longer actively posts on X, although he still keeps his X account open to promote his new book. That probably takes on a new sense of urgency for him now that he has been laid off by The Intercept.
The other one is Drew Harwell. He's a tech reporter for the Washington Post. He stopped posting articles personally last November. But his employer, the Washington Post's Tech Team, maintains an active X account.
I feel like this might be a good time to review the criteria that you established yourself at the beginning of this thread. Because so far every single example you've provided fails to meet these criteria.
1. News organizations. Not individual journalists. None of the above people are news organizations by themselves.
2. No longer acfively posts on X. As you can see, all but two of these examples still maintain active accounts.
3. Stopped posting because Elon banned them. This eliminates NPR, which frankly was the closest you came to actually providing a valid example.
Awesome. You, in desperation, spend all this time and effort to come up with even more spin to avoid saying "I was wrong". LOL
Now that you've spent the entire day up my ass about the most insignificant distinction in the history of message board arguments, it's time to set the record straight. Your timeline of events is wrong.
Here's your claim:
Musk labeled NPR as "state-affiliated media". Following this, NPR stopped tweeting from its main account and its affiliate accounts. The label was later changed by Musk to "government-funded media," but by then, NPR had already made the decision to stop posting on there.
That's not the correct sequence of events. Musk changed their label from "US state-affiliated media" to "government funded" before NPR made the decision to stop posting new stories. Musk labeled them "state-affiliated on 4/4/23. He then changed their label to "government funded" on 4/8/23. NPR continued posting content on multiple Twitter accounts through 4/11/23 and then announced on 4/12/23 that they were going to stop posting new content.
I have not read any of this pissing contest but I am amused that this is how you spent your Sunday evening.
Never change.
There are two options at the top of the screen on X. One says “For you” and the other says Following. If you opt for the Following setting you will only see posts from accounts you follow. Period. Nothing else.
If you select the For you setting you will get all kinds of stuff. For example, I get a ton of posts from the Krass… brothers that I don’t follow. I also see a ton of comments about Clark .
After reading the article, I don't think anything should be surprising about that.
Honestly, for anyone trying to get news from any social platform, the % of people who have seen something inaccurate should be more like 100%, not 86%. They don't say what the % was for other social platforms.
Can you think of any cable news network you've not seen inaccurate information on (you can't)? And those sources claim to be there for news.
Honestly, for anyone trying to get news from any social platform, the % of people who have seen something inaccurate should be more like 100%, not 86%. They don't say what the % was for other social platforms.
Can you think of any cable news network you've not seen inaccurate information on (you can't)? And those sources claim to be there for news.
