I participated in a Twitter space hosted by @katienotopoulos w/a lot of journalists
When I joined @Jason, one of Musk's apparatchiks, was badgering @drewharwell, a suspended reporter, and Jack Sweeney, the guy behind the accounts that tracked jets
🧵
@katienotopoulos@Jason@drewharwell 2. Jason was making the point that everyone was upset about the suspension, but we need to focus on the real point: IF YOU POSTED SOMEONE'S REAL TIME LOCATION AND SOMEONE DIED WOULD YOU FEEL BAD?
Drew made the point that this was a dumb question
3. Jason kept on asking it over and over again.
I think he thought this was a great way of redirecting the conversation and making Musk seem reasonable.
IS THIS THE KIND OF SOCIETY WE WANT TO LIVE IN? WHERE PEOPLE ARE PUT IN DANGER FROM BEING UNDER CONSTANT SURVEILLANCE?
4. I finally had enough. @katienotopoulos invited me to be a speaker so I interrupted
My point was: THE ENTIRE PREMISE OF THE QUESTION WAS A LIE.
The suspended journalists had not reported on Musk's real-time location!
They covered the fact that he suspended Sweeny's accounts
5. I said the bigger question is whether WE WANT TO LIVE IN A SOCIETY WHERE POWERFUL PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO LIE AGAIN AND AGAIN WITH IMPUNITY AND THEN USE THESE LIES TO JUSTIFY OTHERWISE INDEFENSIBLE ACTIONS
6. My other point was we can say we are concerned about the impact of social media use on people's safety BUT THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE LIMITED TO PRIVATE JETS.
MUSK HIMSELF WAS PUTTING PEOPLE AT RISK BY MAKING WILD ACCUSATIONS, INCLUDING THAT THEY WERE PEDOPHILES
7. I didn't realize it but, in the middle of my rant, Musk himself entered the room
8. Once I realized this, I shut up so Katie and Drew could ask him questions. Musk basically ignored the questions and kept repeating, "no doxxing" and "no special rules for journalists"
When Drew pressed him, he quickly bolted.
He does not like to be challenged or questioned.
9. Shortly after Musk left, THE SPACE WAS SHUT DOWN.
In fact, ALL SPACES WERE SHUT DOWN.
They weren't fully restored until tonight.
10. What was missing from @Jason's defense of Musk, and Musk's own position is CONTEXT.
Musk says he's for free speech but when people are saying things he doesn't like, he tries to shut them up.
We saw this a few weeks ago with the Musk parody accounts
11. Comedy was legal on Twitter until people started making fun of him. Then @DavidSacks another Musk buddy redefined parody as "fraud" and insisted Musk was doing us all a favor.
BUT IT GOES MUCH DEEPER THAN THIS.
12. You need to fully understand Musk's LONG history of saying he is for free speech but harshly cracking down on anyone who dares to criticize him.
13. In China, Tesla reportedly sought to leverage the power of China's authoritarian regime to silence critics.
Tesla reportedly "asked Beijing to use its censorship powers to block" critical posts
But after reporter Linette Lopez wrote critical stories about Tesla Musk accusing Lopez of conspiring with short sellers to trade on insider information, which is a crime
Musk had no proof but an army of minions to harass Lopez
15. The right to talk about joining a union is a key part of free speech rights for workers.
Musk, however, has sought to aggressively discourage unionization at Tesla. In a 2018 tweet, Musk threatened to rescind employee stock options at Tesla if workers decided to join a union
16. The Tesla NDA instructed employees that "they were not allowed to speak w/media w/o explicit written permission." But it did not say that labor law "protects employees when they speak with the media about working conditions [and[ labor disputes"
17. In 2018, pseudo-anonymous investor, Montana Skeptic, wrote extensively about Tesla stock
But in July 2018, Montana Skeptic shut down his Twitter account and stopped writing about Tesla. Why? Musk allegedly found out the identity of Montana Skeptic and alerted their employer
18. So yes, let's talk about free speech and let's talk about safety. But Twitter is a platform that is used by hundreds of millions of people.
THE SITE'S RULES SHOULD NOT BE DRIVEN BY THE QUIXOTIC INTERESTS OF ONE BILLIONAIRE
HE BOUGHT IT, BUT HE ALSO NEEDS USERS TO BUY IN
19. And Musk and his minions should stop gaslighting people about Musk being a champion of free speech.
He is not.
He is wealthy, and he bought the site.
That's it.
20. Everyone's safety is important. And it should go without saying but the people whose personal safety is most at risk on this site are not billionaires who can afford private jets and private security.
21. If this is my last thread on this site you can always find me here: popular.info/subscribe
22. If you think I’m exaggerating, these tweets are a good summary of @Jason’s argument in the Twitter Space
3. America PAC also used Musk's extreme wealth to manipulate people, giving them the impression that they could "win" $1 million by signing a petition when it was not a lottery and the people who received the money were predetermined
1. Trump is not a policy wonk and is not eager to talk about what specific policies he would pursue if he returns to the White House.
But in the closing hours of the campaign things are coming into focus.
Follow this thread for details
🧵
2. One point of contention is Project 2025, the 922-page blueprint written by members of the first Trump administration under the auspices of Heritage.
3. Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts, told the Financial Times that he is "personally close" with Trump and talks to him "often." Roberts says that "based on conversations with President Trump and his associates… some large percentage of these recommendations will be in the mix for implementation."
He chose, despite his conflicts, to intervene in the paper's editorial decisions & spike an endorsement of Harris
Bezos claims people who care about journalism have no choice but to accept his decisions — and trust his benevolent leadership
2. The only alternative giving him a pass, according to Bezos, is to rely on "off-the-cuff podcasts, inaccurate social media posts and other unverified news sources."
But it is possible to do meaningful journalism without being under the thumb of a conflicted billionaire
Independent outlets like @ProPublica, @404mediaco, @MarshallProj, the @TexasTribune, @MotherJones, the @TheProspect, @BulwarkOnline and, yes, Popular Information do it every day
1. @ElonMusk is spending 9-figures to elect Trump, appears alongside Trump at rallies, and his Super PAC is coordinating w/the Trump campaign
Musk just produced the most misogynistic ad in the history of politics
Coverage of the ad has ranged from muted to non-existent
2. "America really can't afford a 'C-Word' in the White House right now," America PAC posted, adding a laughing emoji. "Kamala Harris is a ‘C word,’" the narrator of the ad says. "You heard that right. A big ole ‘C word.’"
3. The "joke" of the ad is that Harris is a "communist." Of course, Harris is not a communist. And the ad makes no effort to show she is a communist. The line is only included as a pretext to repeatedly use a crass, misogynistic slur against Harris.
1. Three GOP state senators in North Carolina have demanded an investigation of state Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs
They claim that Riggs has "blatantly violated" the Code of Judicial Conduct
Riggs' transgression? She mentioned reproductive rights in a campaign ad.
2. In a TV ad, Riggs says that "women should be in charge of our own reproductive health care"
She notes that the GOP nominee for Governor, Mark Robinson, supported a total abortion ban and her opponent "could decide if [Robinson's] ban becomes law"
3. In a letter to colleagues announcing their request for an investigation, the Republican Senators claim that the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct "prohibits any judicial candidate, regardless of the office they seek, from taking a position on any issue that may appear before the court."
This is false.
The North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct states that judges "should abstain from public comment about the merits of a pending proceeding in any state or federal court dealing with a case or controversy arising in North Carolina." Riggs’ ad does not comment on any pending court proceeding.