Can Elon Musk Spur Cybersecurity Innovation At Twitter? (securityweek.com) 138
"Twitter DMs should have end to end encryption like Signal," Elon Musk tweeted Wednesday to his 89 million followers, "so no one can spy on or hack your messages."
And on Monday, Musk also announced hopes to "authenticate all humans."
But now Security Week is wondering if Musk's acquisition of Twitter will ultimately mean not just better security at Twitter but also innovation for the entire cybersecurity industry: Twitter has struggled with consistent security leadership, hiring and firing multiple CISOs even as nation-state adversaries target Twitter's massive user base with computer-generated disinformation campaigns...."Even if you don't like the guy, you have to root for Twitter to beat the bots," said one prominent CISO interviewed by SecurityWeek on Tuesday. "I think we will all benefit from any security features they [Twitter] can create."
Jamie Moles, a senior technical manager at ExtraHop, said the bot-elimination mission could have spinoff benefits for the entire industry. "While this seems like a Sisyphean task, if he's successful, the methods used by Twitter to eliminate bots from the platform may generate new techniques that improve the detection and identification of spam emails, spam posts, and other malicious intrusion attempts," Moles said. If Musk and his team can train AI to be more effective in combating this, it may well be a boon to security practitioners everywhere," Moles added.
"Identity is one area I expect to see movement. In addition to just detecting bots and spam better, I think we will see Twitter do a better job around verifying humans. There are a lot of things to fix there," said one CISO who requested anonymity because his company does security-related business with Twitter. Industry watchers also expect to see the company improve the multi-factor authentication (MFA) adoption numbers among its massive user base....
If Twitter can build a reliably secure platform with a new approach to distinguishing between human and bot traffic and fresh flavors of MFA and encryption, this could be a big win for the entire industry and users around the world.
Thanks to Slashdot reader wiredmikey for sharing the story
And on Monday, Musk also announced hopes to "authenticate all humans."
But now Security Week is wondering if Musk's acquisition of Twitter will ultimately mean not just better security at Twitter but also innovation for the entire cybersecurity industry: Twitter has struggled with consistent security leadership, hiring and firing multiple CISOs even as nation-state adversaries target Twitter's massive user base with computer-generated disinformation campaigns...."Even if you don't like the guy, you have to root for Twitter to beat the bots," said one prominent CISO interviewed by SecurityWeek on Tuesday. "I think we will all benefit from any security features they [Twitter] can create."
Jamie Moles, a senior technical manager at ExtraHop, said the bot-elimination mission could have spinoff benefits for the entire industry. "While this seems like a Sisyphean task, if he's successful, the methods used by Twitter to eliminate bots from the platform may generate new techniques that improve the detection and identification of spam emails, spam posts, and other malicious intrusion attempts," Moles said. If Musk and his team can train AI to be more effective in combating this, it may well be a boon to security practitioners everywhere," Moles added.
"Identity is one area I expect to see movement. In addition to just detecting bots and spam better, I think we will see Twitter do a better job around verifying humans. There are a lot of things to fix there," said one CISO who requested anonymity because his company does security-related business with Twitter. Industry watchers also expect to see the company improve the multi-factor authentication (MFA) adoption numbers among its massive user base....
If Twitter can build a reliably secure platform with a new approach to distinguishing between human and bot traffic and fresh flavors of MFA and encryption, this could be a big win for the entire industry and users around the world.
Thanks to Slashdot reader wiredmikey for sharing the story
More likely Musk will fan more stonks and cryptos (Score:1, Troll)
The best security for practice Twitter: (Score:5, Insightful)
Do NOT use Twitter.
No more robot tests (Score:1)
I hate those damn things, and I'm not a robot. Hell, an insurance company's ad agency [youtube.com] has figured out that most people can't stand "are you human?" checks. Proceed at your own peril, Musk.
I've got my popcorn ready for the exodus to whatever takes Twitter's place.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, instead of an "anti-Turing" test (the "I am not a robot" ones), Musk should implement a better Turing one to defeat the bots.
A small site I use has one of those "I am not a robot" features when an authorised user needs to make changes to the content, although for me it is literally tick the box, rather than jump through the hoops of "tick all the ones with...". Perhaps the background checks (eg time from navigating to a page vs start of any input) mean it is obvious that only a human is doing the inp
Re: (Score:2)
We've gone full circle with computers now asking us if we're not robots.
Be very careful what you answer!
not likely (Score:3, Interesting)
> If Musk and his team can train AI to be more effective in combating this, it may well be a boon to security practitioners everywhere
Good luck with that. The only thing Musk will do is unblock people and make it seems like Twitter has done something about censorship. Musk wants a better tool for himself, nothing more. And Musk will vehemently go after anyone critical of his new toy or the ideas he wants to introduce to it.
I don't use Twitter and I don't care how this turns out, but I don't see how much good can come from Musk owning Twitter, it will only be good for Musk.
Re:not likely (Score:5, Insightful)
If anything, I'd imagine that Musk is going to scare away a lot of the Twitter developers and engineers who could help to better secure the platform.
Re:not likely (Score:4, Interesting)
Musk seems to have a bit of a thing for AI. He consistently underestimates how difficult AI is. Look at Tesla's Full Self Driving, which has been just about to launch since 2016. Or his humanoid robot, which he claimed in February would launch this year, despite the fact that the only "prototype" they have shown off was a man in a spandex costume dancing on stage.
He seems to think he can solve Twitter's fake account problem with AI. Experience tells us that he probably can't.
Re: (Score:2)
>He seems to think he can solve Twitter's fake account problem with AI. Experience tells us that he probably can't.
I think he needs to make a good-faith effort, Twitter has been selling ads based on human views, not spam-bot views which is likely fraud. Considering how many accounts gained and lost 10's and 100's of thousands followers on Tuesday, it's a lot more than round-off error too. Now since their stock prices are based at least in part on revenue, which have the appearances of being fraudulently inflated, Twitter could find itself being raked over the coals by the SEC, it's board and C-levels getting sued for br
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Musk seems to have a bit of a thing for AI. He consistently underestimates how difficult AI is.
I had occasion to do battle with Cora the bank robot recently. This algorithm is a so-called "digital assistant". The interaction with Cora is via a text chat interface, which makes you think that you may be interacting with a human. If that were the case, the human must be stupid to the point of absurdity, addicted to following rules, and wantonly cruel. In other words, somebody has invented an artificial Nazi. After spending hours in the AI torture chamber, my dogged persistence eventually put me in touch
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If anything, I'd imagine that Musk is going to scare away a lot of the Twitter developers and engineers who could help to better secure the platform.
It needs a good shake-up.
The people who leave can move on to other companies/industries/projects and make them better, and Musk can hire new people who won't have the same preconceived notions about how things should work. It is a win-win.
Re: (Score:3)
You're awfully certain about your analysis of his motives and your predictions of his actions. I doubt that you have reasonable grounds for such certainty.
That said, you *could* be right. If there were verifiable metrics, I'd put the chances at a lot less than 50%, but that's a lot better than chance, as there are many possible alternatives.
*That* said, I'm rather certain that "Musk wants a better tool for himself". It's when you tack on "nothing more" that I find out projections extremely dubious. I al
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did someone piss on your Wheaties? Someone bought something and your conclusion is that it will only be good for them. I love the genius level thinking there. Can you do it with my mom and her visit to the grocery store too?
I don't use Twitter and I don't care how this turns out, but I don't see how much good can come from Musk owning Twitter, it will only be good for Musk.
For someone who doesn't care, you sure spew a lot of bile. WTF? Why did you even post your message if you don't care? You absolutely do care and I can't figure out why. Something to do with anger/hate/jealousy or some other negative emotion. Regardless, it is not a good look on you. Have
Re: (Score:2)
I guess Musk's answer for everything is AI. Musk is going to solve any twitter issue with AI. Sounds like a steamy pile of crap to me.
Your Mom didn't buy the grocery store. Your Mom wouldn't consider buying the grocery store, if the store does not suit your Mom then she'll just find another one. Your Mom has not decided that the grocery store needs work and that taking it over herself is the best approach. See the difference?
Its clear that Musk wants to tweak twitter, he clearly will not change twitter in
Re:not likely (Score:5, Insightful)
I think any argument around calling twitter or facebook 'the new town square' is complete crap. Free speech in the US is about the Government not limiting speech, which has nothing to do with how private companies use their private resources. You cannot simply demand that a private company offer you service to carry your speech, no matter what that speech might be. Private companies can make whatever rules they want for their platform and kick you off when you violate them, this is their right. Your right to free speech simply does not extend to a private company and does not over-rule the rights of a private company.
I'm not advocating 'censorship', I could care less how a private company runs its platform. I'm also no fan of our current environment where so many people want to rush to 'do something' in response to any perceived slight or injustice. Stacking up new laws and penalties is not the answer. Promoting blatant lies and conspiracy is not right either. The issue with platforms like Twitter is less about 'censorship' and more about how they solve for popularity - the most outrageous/click-bait/emotion driving things get promoted - and this is where the detriment to society lies. Musk certainly won't fix that.
Re: not likely (Score:2)
But you're wrong. The combination of free speech and private entities is why the concept of common carrier was created. No one wanted telecommunications companies monitoring and censoring people's private communications.
The challenge is figuring out how to adapt common carrier laws to Internet platforms. It's pretty clear that they can and should apply to one-to-one communications, like a private Signal message. But you can create a group and send a message. Or you can send a tweet. Or you can post on a f
Re: (Score:2)
> No one wanted telecommunications companies monitoring and censoring people's private communications.
We are talking about public communications, more like a news paper than a telephone call. Can you demand that the New York Times print your speech, because free speech and they can't censor you?
Re: (Score:2)
I think any argument around calling Twitter or Facebook 'the new town square' is complete crap.
Actually, I think it is a good analogy. A town square is a public place, not owned or run by any private business. The fact that these digital "town squares" are actually run for profit detracts from the ideal, but the ideal itself is sound. The constitutional matter about government not limiting free speech is probably irrelevant. The point is to make am inline product with the intent of being a virtual town square, and not impose arbitrary censorship, or give favour to certain views over others.
It is poss
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Another WTF (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe Musk has already commented on several other ways he wants to improve the platform, including an edit button, so I don't think we need to get pissy just because he mentioned an improvement you personally don't care about.
Honestly it seems to me people are inventing reasons to hate Mr. Musk. It is difficult to detect derangement in oneself in the moment, but some might recognize it if they took a step back, took a deep breath and tried to analyze why an eccentric billionaire buying a company to make its product objectively better fills them with rage.
Re: (Score:2)
There *are* lots of reasons to hate Musk, but yeah, why not stick to the real ones. E.g. he often promises things he can't deliver on.
Re:Another WTF (Score:5, Informative)
he often promises things he can't deliver on.
On the other hand, when he *does* deliver on things, they're often humdingers. I mean, when I saw the video of the Tesla roadster in space, with the Earth as background I felt like I was living in the future again. The same when I saw the synchronized landing of the two Falcon boosters: it was like a science fiction movie in real life. And I recently got an electric car and find I'm enjoying driving in a way I didn't for a long time now, with previous cars. And even though my car is not a Tesla, I still credit Musk with the fact he spurred other manufacturers to switch to electric.
Curious (Score:2)
yeah, why not stick to the real ones. E.g. he often promises things he can't deliver on.
I'll bite, what do you mean?
So far none of the companies he has started have folded, and are rolling out promises he made.
Self driving for example is already working better than most human drivers, and obviously the end goal is in sight at this point.
Just can't think of any examples where he has yet promised soemthing he can't deliver on...
Unless you mean buying Doritos and filling the bags? That was a joke.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is why a Tesla nearly hit me on I-15N today, while the driver was both-hands on their fucking cellphone and not even looking at the road.
Had they had one hand on the steering wheel and also still been on the phone, they would have hit you as countless drivers on phones do every day. Self driving saved you, you just will not admit it.
The very fact there was no accident proves my point nicely, thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
An edit button is a bad idea. If a tweet is that bad, just delete it. If it's a typo, nobody cares that much.
The only reason he wants a edit button is because he keeps getting ratioed. That is, he posts something he thinks is clever and someone replies with an opposing view, and gets more likes than he does. He wants to be able to edit his post to "clarify" whatever BS they called him out on after he realizes what a nincompoop he looks like.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Musk is talking about two things, a least I think/hope he is.
1. Direct Messaging (DMs), user to user, should be encrypted. Basically combining Twitter and WhatsApp. Obviously there is limited utility in E2E encryption for public posts, although you can imagine a WhatsApp group type function for messaging only visible to followers.
2. Verifying posters are humans, to eliminate bots. Well, not eliminate because some legit bots are quite useful. Twitter has had a bot/fake account problem forever, same as Facebo
Summary covered that (Score:1)
Musk is talking about two things, a least I think/hope he is.
The summary actually pretty well laid out they were seperate - just as you said, encryption was about protecting a DM, and then a different effort to verify humans and try to eliminate bots.
The problem with "authenticate all humans" is that anonymity is no longer possible
I disagree, I don't think those two things are totally at odds with each other. Verifying you are A humans is not the same thing as verifying you are a SPECIFIC human.
I'd bet a w
Re: (Score:2)
some legit bots are quite useful.
Really? I would like to see some examples.
Re: (Score:2)
That one that posts details of all Musk's private flights is pretty handy. His environmental credentials are somewhat questionable when you look at it.
Gender Pay Gap Bot responds to corporate press releases with their legally mandated gender pay gap data.
Liminal Spaces is a bot but sometimes posts some interesting photos.
She would be offended (Score:3)
> Maybe he's just distracted by his obsession with AOC to understand what it is he's using here.
Just FYI, it's "aoc", not "AOC".
She doesn't like capitalism.
Re:Another WTF [antisocial network?] (Score:2)
FTFY?
My main reaction to your suggestions is that the character limit isn't the biggest problem of Twitter, though you did diagnose the broader problem in a clever or even insightful way (notwithstanding the lack of recognition from the all-powerful moderators). Most memes can be condensed (notwithstanding my verbosity), and lack of an edit button isn't even a real problem, but rather an edit button is most likely to be abused to make bad discussions worse.
However I think it would be possible to "humanize"
Not in his current state of mind (Score:2)
Elon has everyone's password (Score:2)
He's deflecting from the fact that he is spying on everyone. He puts silicon into monkey brains, are you surprised?
No. See Betteridge's law of headlines (Score:2)
Authentication/authorization is the problem (Score:2)
The basic problem in security today is authentication. Is this packet (and its contents) authorized to access this system?
Passwords, tokens, cookies, etc are basically upper-layer hacks around this fundamental problem...especially since you can do damage at the packet level.
At some point everyone will move to device-based authentication, but hardcore device auth: not just 2FA, but you have to literally register your device and no unregistered devices will be allowed to the primary site at all; you'll be cap
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that would work against well funded targeted attacks. Against undirected attacks there are lots of ways that pretty much work...but are a bother. You've got to figure how valuable avoiding the attack would be, and use that level of security EVERY TIME the information if vulnerable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The basic problem in security today is authentication.
I am not sure how relevant this is to a platform like Twitter, where the intent is to provide publicity, rather than private communication. Stretching it a bit, I suppose that it is a matter of concern that someone should not be able to pretend to be you, for some nefarious ends. I am not what you would call an Important Person, so maybe this is not a concern for me. But I guess if some Important Person says something on a platform like Twitter, it would be good if that were their genuine opinion, and not s
Musk wants to authenticate all humans? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, do you remember when most of those people despised Musk because he ran an electric car company and a solar roofing company?
Social networks don't dare drop fake members (Score:3, Interesting)
What about allowing bot user types? (Score:2)
Wonder if they could make some of this better by allowing some bot created content. Meaning label posts by bots differently, and add an API to allow some bot operations...
They'd need to treat any bot content differently though. As they aren't users. And likely all posts from "Bot" accounts should be penalized on a real user or even group of users (for company accounts).
Guess it depends what the reason for the bots are, and what they're trying to prevent with blocks against bots.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would I want to read bot created content? I guess it is interesting as an academic study, to see how convincing bots can be, but it certainly does not advance useful debate. I do find some Twitter threads quite useful for informal debate on subjects that interest me. I can't imagine a bot contributing anything worthwhile on the topics of a wealth tax or profiteering from energy price rises. I do read some total rubbish, but it is presumably someone's opinion, and worth considering. Does a bot even have
No, he cannot (Score:2)
He can't even stop his own hardware from being hacked. I've already got a couple friends with better self-driving on their own custom firmware (which phones home to itself so Tesla never knows wtf.)
Silicon Valley's already fucked Tesla. If you think they're worth investing in, you're stupid as fuck. Thanks for the money!
Musk is a clown (Score:2)
I'm no Musk fanboi.. (Score:2)
.. but he sent his electric car, which he produced, into orbit on his rocket, which he produced, while probably browsing using his internet satellite constellation, which he produced.
Fucking listen to yourselves. He's accomplished more in 10-15 years than then whole fucking lot of you ever will in multiple lifetimes.
They'll still be talking about this guy in two hundred years time. You'll just be a decaying headstone somewhere.
Re: (Score:3)
Giving Musk credit where it's due doesn't mean that you can't criticize his purchase of Twitter. Now, I don't have actually have much skin in this game. I don't really use Twitter. I certainly don't have an account, though I sometimes read tweets that are referenced elsewhere. To me, they're probably most significant for getting Americans to stop calling "#" the "pound" symbol (which I always found annoying since, even though it probably originated as a pound symbol for the Romans, it's never used that way
Re: (Score:2)
he's not making the kind of solid purchases that he made in the past.
Were those purchases that solid when he made them? Musk has made a great deal of money by putting money into stuff that was far from solid, and then making it work. Some of his ideas are flaky, and go nowhere, but when he backs something that works, that pays for the duds he backed. If everybody stuck to sound investments, we would still be riding around on horses.
Re: (Score:2)
Were those purchases that solid when he made them? Musk has made a great deal of money by putting money into stuff that was far from solid, and then making it work.
I think Tesla was solid enough from a technical point of view for the price. SpaceX was pretty speculative. In hindsight it seems solid because they proved their concept but yeah, there was a fair amount of risk there. To clarify my position though, I'm thinking of these in terms of the initial price vs. the risk of failure. At the time of purchase/founding, Musk could have just walked away from the initial investment and not felt much financial pain. The majority of the money he spent on these businesses w
mod up (Score:2)
Thank you! Best comment on the article. I think you are pretty much spot on.
If I had one wish, it would be that he said 'fuck it' to the risk/cost and simply opened twitter up and turned it into a true open source protocol based system. The whole problem is that someone owns it. Who owns it is mostly irrelevant unless they do something completely radical, as in opening it up.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree completely. I said pretty much exactly that in a recent post on another thread about the twitter purchase here [slashdot.org]. It's a fairly long and maybe a bit rambling. Here's the excerpt that actually deals with this:
The thing is, no-one actually owned Usenet (the AOL users did not quite understand and thought that they actually did and that non-AOL users were just somehow pirating their service, but that's something else entirely) Usenet was a set of protocols and store and and forward servers. You still had to have a newsfeed from your ISP or your school or something, and not everyone carried all the groups, and some servers did moderate even the unmoderated groups, but there was not a central company that owned everything like there are with pretty much all modern forums. All of which pretty much just replicate Usenet. That's one of the reasons all these modern forums are pretty much garbage.
So, if Musk really wanted to do something towards a real online public square, he should have tackled revamping or cloning Usenet. Spend those billions on hiring developers and marketers to create a protocol that can run on a distributed, decentralized, encrypted, customizable private network that no-one controls because it's all about the (open) protocols. Create a non-profit foundation to provide moderation (through ratings on posts, somewhat like Slashdot), but have an open moderation system so that users can pick and choose who does the moderation or choose no moderation. Use marketing people to popularize this new system and to replace those other forums. Musk could promote his client, but there could be dozens of clients for it.
So I agree with you quite strongly. Implementation details might vary, but removing the central control aspect is important. Somehow, at the birth of the World Wide Web, we made a wrong turn. On a related I would also argue that we made a serious wrong turn with accepting the proliferation of Netw
Re: I'm no Musk fanboi.. (Score:3, Insightful)
They all do that. Edison perfected the art.
The point is, without Musk all these things wouldn't be at the stage they are now.
For all his faults he has gotten these things from plans in someones head to actual shit up there flying about.
Re: (Score:2)
The previous president was a New York coastal elite, and he did the same thing to right-wingers. It turns out that both sides of the political aisle are filled with gullible rubes willing to support a charlatan.
How can Musk make Twitter better or worse? (Score:2)
If you have to feed the mindless troll, can't you at least go for a relevant Subject?
But I'm not interested in brain farts. Rather I'd still like to see a substantive discussion of "What could possibly go wrong?" as a result of Musk's intervention in the big, bad idea of Twitter. I even submitted the topic for "Ask Slashdot", but none of the editors wanted to hug the hot potato so closely...
However I can still summarize my reaction to this entire topic. I like solutions and Twitter has become a massive prob
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
"Democrats produce high inflation and poverty for the middle and lower classes."
Looking at the laws passed within the past 20 years that fuck people over, no, those were all written and passed by Republicans.
Try again when you actually bother reading the fucking vote counts.
Re: (Score:2)
Where has he said that? All I have heard him say he wants to turn the platform in to a place for free speech. I have been following this since day one an I have not heard one word about removing Trumps ban.
An so what if he does? Is having Trump on there any worse than any of the other life/right wing kooks out there?
Re: (Score:3)
You can easily make the case that if Trump doesn't use Twitter he doesn't become President. Now that's an entire alternate reality but one can make the argumet that having Trump on Twitter is bad by the outcomes, depending on whether you judge it by his performance as President or his contribution to discourse on Twitter and society in general that comes from that.
The other end is the outcomes don't matter, his right to the platform trumps (heh) any of those concerns. The balance of those is entirely wher
Re: (Score:3)
That depends on your metrics doesn't it, metrics that you so convientently don't mention or back up.
You want me to vote for a Republican? Give me a few that have any good ideas anymore or seemingly care or even acknowledge the obvious problems we have and not just a case of being against everything Democrats do.
Re: (Score:2)
You want me to vote for a Republican?
No we actually want you to vote Libertarian, but we'll meet you halfway for now.
Re: Wasn't his intent the opposite? (Score:2)
I actually was and have voted libertarian in the past. Ron Paul, End the Fed, NAP, the whole works.
Unfortunately the LPUSA is completely dysfunctional and at the mercy of the most extreme ancap elements.
Also what turned me to socdem broadly is I have not been satisfied with the libertarian solutions to the fundamental problems I see, healthcare being the biggest one. The solutions I have been given in the past are either completely politically untenable or in my opinion immoral based on what I see would be
Re: (Score:2)
Some people did have things better under Trump, at least for part of it. Then the pandemic hit, and then only very rich people had things better, because corporations used inflation as an excuse to raise prices more than inflation. Over 50% of inflation in the US right now is just corporate profits, literally. Then Putin invaded Ukraine, having gotten Trump to weaken them, and having tried to get Trump to weaken NATO. I'm leaving a lot of other stuff out, but these are the really low points.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump was the President that sent Ukraine Lethal Military Aid [usnews.com], Trump didn't weaken NATO, he called out NATO members who were skating on their commitments to spend 2% of their GDP on defense, you'll notice they are spending at least 2% after Putin pulled his shit.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Wasn't his intent the opposite? (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wasn't his intent the opposite? (Score:5, Insightful)
Interestingly, the people shouting the loudest about "free speech" are the same ones enacting laws prohibiting teachers and others from using certain words as well as banning discussion of certain topics such as slavery.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
There is no legislation banning certain words. There is legislation banning teachers from discussing sex and sexuality with pre-pubescent children. As it should be. If asked, what does X mean the only acceptable answers from a grade school teacher are "I like Z like your parents like each other" or "ask your parents" or "none of your business".
Re: (Score:2)
"There is no legislation banning certain words"
Carroll ISD in Texas laughs at your sheer ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
And a motion to dismiss in limine would have you kicking rocks.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, an enterprising lawyer would be willing to file the motion for 50-100 bucks so long as that was all you wanted. They'd demand more to actually represent you in a case or to negotiate with the prosecution but just the motion to dismiss would be pretty cheap.
Re: Wasn't his intent the opposite? (Score:2)
At which point the shiny new union contracts being drawn up come in to play where so long as the teacher did not violate the law, the union pays for the lawyer and the school district reimburses the union.
Re: (Score:2)
Interestingly, the people shouting the loudest about "free speech" are the same ones enacting laws
You noticed that too? Interesting. It is almost like it is a pattern that is obvious to see and yet it keeps happening. I wonder if it has anything to do with the educational level of the population. It is almost as if there are no classes teaching critical thinking or something. Nah. It couldn't be that. Hmmmm
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, far left indoctrination like using words like "mum" (well I guess "mom" if you're American) and "dad". No we must hide gender identity from children. Parent #1 and parent #A it is now.
Re: (Score:2)
Parentage has nothing to do with "gender identity". Unless maybe there is some new transoffspring quackery that I've not yet heard about?
Re: (Score:2)
"Mum" and "dad"'are genders. Mentioning them tells you about the gender identity and sexuality of the parents, which to fuckwits like you is "sexualization". You need to get your pervy head out of your pervy ass frankly.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Meanwhile, assholes who are no doubt exactly like you who attempt to diminish free speech have just instituted a MiniTru inside DHS.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Free speech is an ideal born from the Enlightenment. It's key element of modern western democracies. That's why it's protected by the First Amendment and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. People are completely justified in wanting this ideal up held on social media.
"Freeze peach" on the other hand is a pejorative invented by the regressive left that seeks to mock and undermine one of our essential freedoms. Spouted by people who want to censor public debate and suppress voices other than their own.
Re: (Score:2)
What's really funny is how the new commies all seem to identify as right wing.
Communists most certainly do not identify as right wing. That's just you being delusional.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet you all seem to want private property to enter the public domain to benefit you. Smells like communism to me.
What private property are you talking about? No one is asking that twitter be turned over to the government.
Re: (Score:2)
Many people on the right appear to want the government to force companies to use their private property to carry said right winger's speech and for free too. It's also steeped in hypocrisy: the government is evil and all regulation is bad unless it's something which affects me personally in which case the government should step in and make private property for the public good.
Re: (Score:2)
Many people on the right appear to want the government to force companies to use their private property to carry said right winger's speech and for free too. It's also steeped in hypocrisy: the government is evil and all regulation is bad unless it's something which affects me personally in which case the government should step in and make private property for the public good.
I can only assume that you are referring to calls to repeal S230. In which case I would point out that the key word there is repeal. Repealing a law mean less government not more. It would be the government stepping out rather than stepping in. Which is the opposite of what you are claiming.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course you can only assume that because you have an axe to grind.
Also reality isn't really the thing these days for the right.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course you can only assume that because you have an axe to grind.
I assume because you weren't clear on what you were referring to. The fact that you are pouting suggests my assumption was correct.
Also reality isn't really the thing these days for the right.
The battle between left and right was decided 30 years ago. The USSR went bankrupt and imploded. China and Eastern Europe abandoned socialism for capitalism, enabling their people to climb out of poverty. The Democrats had to move to the centre with Clinton's "third way'. The Labour party reinvented itself saying "we're all Thatcherites now". We know right doesn't have a problem
Re: (Score:2)
Meh, me refusing to play whatever stupid game you think you're playing isn't "pouting".
Instead of assuming I was referring to any number of recent events e.g. In Florida, you cherry pick to try and make a point. Though how you think that a ton of lawsuits in government run courts counts as "less government" is a leap of logic I have no desire to hear you try to desperately rationalise.
And as for reality denial: the right wasn't right about carbon, wasn't right about consonants and continues to be wrong abou
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Nope, not security. "Authenticate All Humans" will provide the opposite of security.
Twitter Has a New Owner. Here’s What He Should Do [eff.org]
Anonymous and Pseudonymous Accounts Are Critical for Users
Pseudonymity—the maintenance of an account on Twitter or any other platform by an identity other than the user’s legal name—is an important element of free expression. Based on some of his recent statements, we are concerned that Musk does not fully appreciate the human rights value of pseudonymous speech.
Pseudonymity and anonymity are essential to protecting users who may have opinions, identities, or interests that do not align with those in power. For example, policies that require real names on Facebook have been used to push out Native Americans; people using traditional Irish, Indonesian, and Scottish names; Catholic clergy; transgender people; drag queens; and sex workers. Political dissidents may be in grave danger if those in power are able to discover their true identities.
Furthermore, there’s little evidence that requiring people to post using their “real” names creates a more civil environment—and plenty of evidence that doing so can have disastrous consequences for some of the platform’s most vulnerable users.
Musk has recently been critical of anonymous users on the platform, and suggested that Twitter should “authenticate all real humans.” Separately, he’s talked about changing the verification process by which accounts get blue checkmarks next to their names to indicate they are “verified.” Botnets and trolls have long presented a problem for Twitter, but requiring users to submit identification to prove that they’re “real” goes against the company’s ethos.
There are no easy ways to require verification without wreaking havoc for some users, and for free speech. Any free speech advocate (as Musk appears to view himself) willing to require users to submit ID to access a platform is likely unaware of the crucial importance of pseudonymity and anonymity. Governments in particular may be able to force Twitter and other services to disclose the true identities of users, and in many global legal systems, do so without sufficient respect for human rights.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
a brilliant engineer
lol
Re: (Score:2)
How does Musk struggle with his posts on Twitter? He is hilarious on Twitter just like trump was. They literally use Twitter like it is supposed to be used. Concise messages designed to provoke a response.
The OP probably means something like this [imgur.com]. Then again, Musk is consistent [imgur.com] in his comments.
Also, this sounds very familiar [imgur.com] for some reason.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
So, AOC is trying to date Zuckerberg? Because, based on her previous comments, when someone criticizes you, it's reasonable to assume it's because they want to date you.
Then, when you get burned using your own tactic, try to cover it up with an obvious lie.
Re: (Score:3)
Well Twitter is a garbage fire and I guess musk is the jerry can of polychlorinated biphenyls on top.
Re: (Score:2)