Twitter said it will no longer enforce its longstanding Covid misinformation policy, yet another sign of how Elon Musk plans to transform the social media company he bought a month ago.

Twitter owner Elon Musk confirmed Tuesday evening he will step down as the company’s CEO, but only when he identifies a successor, directly addressing for the first time a Twitter poll he created this week in which millions of users voted for his ouster.

The announcement comes after more than a day of silence about the poll following its outcome. On Monday, after more than 17 million users had voted — 57.5% of whom said Musk should resign — the billionaire executive addressed the results only indirectly. He suggested that future Twitter polls could be restricted to paid users of Twitter Blue, the company’s subscription service.

Musk’s poll asking users whether he should resign as CEO came after a massive backlash to Twitter’s abrupt suspension of several journalists who cover him, as well as Twitter’s decision to ban, and then un-ban, links to other social media platforms including Facebook, Instagram and Mastodon, a fast-growing Twitter rival that has octupled in size since October.

LOL... Musk did not "slaughter" James Clayton.

Rather, the inept Clayton hadn't prepared himself for the interview.

As per his usual interview tactics, Musk simply deflects answering
questions by just asking one of his own as a response.  It's really
difficult interviewing someone like Musk—who's learned to be adept
at this tactic in order to cover his own lack of broader knowledge.

The format is a tried and true one.

Interviewer:  "Would you say hate speech has become endemic?"

Interviewee:  "What do you define as 'hate' speech?"

            

LOL... Musk did not "slaughter" James Clayton.

Rather, the inept Clayton hadn't prepared himself for the interview.

As per his usual interview tactics, Musk simply deflects answering
questions by just asking one of his own as a response.  It's really
difficult interviewing someone like Musk—who's learned to be adept
at this tactic in order to cover his own lack of broader knowledge.

The format is a tried and true one.

Interviewer:  "Would you say hate speech has become endemic?"

Interviewee:  "What do you define as 'hate' speech?"

            

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 13^th, 2023 at 1:03pm:


I did a quick search, and there are many reports on the side effects.  Here are just a few examples:

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-60468900

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-60653946

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55932832

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/health-56437270

Refuse to report and comment?  No.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 13^th, 2023 at 1:36pm:


They're reporting on medical studies that say there are no serious effects.

You want them to report on something that doesn't exist.

"A major study of vaccine side-effects in the US found no link between two Covid jabs and the number of deaths recorded after vaccination.

"The Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said 92% of reported side-effects after the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were mild."   BBC

First, it's: "They are reporting on side-effects".

Then, when that's shown to be an outright 100% lie the tune changes to: "The reports aren't saying what I want to hear".

It's hilarious watching you guys trying to justify your anti-science stance.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 13^th, 2023 at 2:06pm:


Oh, so now they DO report and comment on serious side-effects.

You need to make up your mind.

"They don't report or comment on serious side-effects".

Nek minnit!

"The BBC reported on a serious side-effect".


Lol, hilarious.