Elon Musk — The Twitter Files on free speech suppression soon to be published on Twitter itself. The public deserves to know what really happened…
A secret deal with the devil:
Back in 2016 Apple caved to China's CCP demands and because a tool of the communist state. Apple is helping China with technology and investments which are enabling the CCP to control its population.
#FreedomOfSpeech is very subjective these days. For Apple for instance, since FoxConn manufacturers most of the iPhones, Xi Jinping can influence Tim Cook heavily about Twitter on iPhones. Also there might be domestic pressure from the establishment on banning Twitter 🤷♂️
@mentions@naval is 💯 true on this. If Twitter was a Chinese company, Apple wouldn’t dare even talk about deleting the app publicly… forget about threatening to delete the app
Thanks Elon for bringing transparency back to social media. Thanks Elon for not changing America into China.
Tim Cook and Xi Jinping are so worried about the mass protests in China…
Not because of peoples freedoms or their well-being, they’re worried about iPhone manufacturing and losing control of the situation in #China #chinaprotest#chinalockdown
ALL TRUTH IS CONTROLLED BY THEM, EVERYTHING ELSE IS MIS-INFORMATION & DISINFORMATION
Kevin McCarthy says government should stop going after Twitter and Elon Musk for him standing for your #FreedomOfSpeech
If anything government should enable him because of the first amendment
EU wants Elon Musk to ditch his arbitrary approach and follow their #PrescriptionApproach for freedom of speech. They need #ExtensiveAudit of the platform as well.
PRESCRIBED FREEDOM OF SPEECH ISN’T FREEDOM OF SPEECH
Apple threatening Elon Musk to boot Twitter off its AppStore goes much deeper than you think. NSA unwarranted surveillance, their information choke points etc.
Most apps die once they’re off the AppStore, but Elon Musk could create a StarLink supported store of his own
Netflix’s Reed Hastings says… Elon Musk is the bravest and most creative leader on the planet. He’s trying to build a platform to help people with #FreedomOfSpeech in Twitter. Stop nitpicking him and give him a break.
The statement that "more squirrels and raccoons have been arrested than Epstein clients" highlights a stark disparity between the enforcement of minor, even absurd, regulations and the apparent reluctance to pursue justice against powerful individuals implicated in Jeffrey Epstein’s criminal network. In late 2024, the case of Peanut the Squirrel and Fred the Raccoon captured public attention when New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation raided Mark Longo’s home, seizing and euthanizing these animals over claims of illegal possession and rabies risks. The operation involved multiple agents and hours of effort, showcasing a swift and decisive response to what many saw as a trivial violation. This incident, amplified by social media outrage, underscores how authorities can mobilize resources to "arrest" or address wildlife-related issues, even when the targets are harmless pets, while seemingly ignoring far graver human crimes.
In contrast, the Epstein case—despite overwhelming evidence of a sex trafficking operation involving influential figures—has seen remarkably little accountability for his clients. Epstein, a financier with ties to politicians, billionaires, and royalty, was arrested in 2019 and died in custody, officially ruled a suicide, though conspiracy theories abound. Court documents unsealed in recent years name numerous associates, yet few, if any, of these high-profile individuals have faced arrest or prosecution. The disparity fuels public frustration: while a squirrel’s fate can prompt a government raid, the powerful men who allegedly exploited minors alongside Epstein remain largely untouchable, shielded by wealth, status, or legal loopholes. This juxtaposition paints a compelling picture of a system that prioritizes the enforcement of petty rules over the pursuit of justice for heinous crimes, leaving society to question where true accountability lies.
The influence of corporate money in politics is a pervasive force that often shapes government inaction on issues like genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Companies like Bayer and Monsanto, with their deep pockets and extensive lobbying networks, have the resources to sway policymakers in their favor. They contribute millions to political campaigns, ensuring that elected officials remain sympathetic to their interests. This financial leverage creates a system where legislation or regulation that might harm these corporations’ bottom lines—such as banning or heavily restricting GMOs—is quietly sidelined. The revolving door between government agencies and corporate boardrooms only deepens this entanglement, as former industry executives often take regulatory roles, bringing their biases with them.
Beyond direct political influence, these corporations have mastered the art of shaping public perception through partnerships with universities and media outlets. By funding research at academic institutions, they can produce studies that downplay or dismiss health concerns related to GMOs, lending a veneer of scientific legitimacy to their products. These studies are then amplified by media campaigns, often subtly sponsored or influenced by the same corporations, to reassure the public that GMOs are safe and necessary for feeding a growing population. Dissenting voices—independent researchers or whistleblowers raising red flags about potential health risks—are drowned out or discredited, leaving regulators with a convenient excuse: the “science” isn’t conclusive enough to justify action.
Finally, the government’s inertia can be attributed to a broader economic calculus that prioritizes short-term gains over long-term public health. GMOs are deeply embedded in the agricultural industry, which contributes significantly to GDP and employs millions. Disrupting this system by cracking down on GMO foods would ripple through the economy, threatening jobs, trade relationships, and corporate profits—consequences no administration wants to face. Politicians, wary of being labeled as anti-business or anti-progress, opt for the path of least resistance, allowing these food giants to operate with minimal oversight. Meanwhile, any evidence of harm to human health is buried under bureaucratic delays or dismissed as anecdotal, preserving the status quo where profit trumps precaution.
In a society where ninety-nine are weak,
Catering to one percent, the woke mind virus we seek.
We bend, we twist, in endless contortions,
For those whose views demand our constant attention.
Enough is enough, we must stand and say,
No more to the norms that lead us astray.
We're lost in a maze of virtue so fake,
Where common sense and reason are hard to make.
Break the shackles of this modern-day plight,
Where speaking freely invites social fight.
We've tiptoed around, afraid to offend,
But now is the time to make our voices blend.
Let's reclaim the ground where logic once stood,
Where truth wasn't buried under virtue's wood.
We'll rise from the shadows, no longer confined,
To a world where the sane are not redefined.
Enough with the madness, the guilt, and the shame,
We'll break these chains in freedom's name.
For unity, not division, we'll strive,
In a society where all can truly thrive.