Oh look at that...the government really illegally spied on Americans...

How else are they going to know who to round up? If I get one charge for every anti-biden meme I have made I will get out when I am 6003

Seal of Approval - 4z05qo.jpg (click to show) Upvoted!

I'm amazed that he is still above ground.

Lots of unasked and unanswered questions. Like

Was this access the result of legitimate investigations and through a court order—the same kind of thing that happens all the time when agencies are investigating people?

IF this access is outside of the legal bounds of a legitimate investigation and beyond the scope of a court order, how did it work? How often was it utilized? What specific examples can you give us?

Since you can see their access, Elon, does that mean you too have access to all of those private DMs? This also implies that there were no internal protections to that information, what policies have you put in place to protect that information?

What concrete steps have you taken to protect user data and information from government overreach?

I think if one had been paying attention, they wouldn't need to ask all those questions.

1. no.

2. IF yes, then the rest of the questions do not matter; clear govt over-reach / denial of its citizens' rights.

3. seeing access does not necessarily = seeing specific data. anyone who has worked with user privileges / access levels for any type of significant software app knows that, but even if it did, Elon is not the one who should be on trial here (he's done nothing to indicate he's also abusing rights and being co-opted by the govt like the previous regime at the Tweeter)

4. WHERE WAS A QUESTION LIKE THIS FROM THE LEFT when the Tweeter was running wild, cancelling accounts for political ideological differences, etc.???

He implies, from the lack of information he supplies, that it's outside of legal bounds.

But he never says so explicitly.

Which, if they were actively doing so, he would have said because he'd have caught the government violating some privacy.

And that seems like a really big deal that Fox would enjoy running with.

But if it is overreach, it's important to know the means by which they had access to this information. How often they engaged in it.

Where was this question? Did the previous runners of the Tweeters imply that the government had unfettered access to users data?

No.

So that's why there wasn't a question like that.

Who is the "he" you're referring to, Musk or the OP?

Regardless, if you believe that the govt being involved in a conspiracy with a private company to deny people freedom of speech is not outside of legal bounds, then you and I have very different ideas about what it means to be free.

IF the Tweeter had done that to everyone, for some reason other than differences in political ideology, and without govt involvement, then you could get me on board with the argument that as a private company, they can do what they want.

But what they did with total involvement by the govt was nothing short of election interference at the highest and most egregious level.

The access issue that you seem focused on is irrelevant in this case, imo. Because it's clear that all the govt had to do (and they did it, no denying that) is tell Tweeter which posts and accounts to go after. That is about as un-American as it gets. They didn't need some magical access to Tweeter data to pull this off. Assuming of course, that by access you're talking about data. If by access you mean to people, then look no further than the trove of ex-govt stooges that Tweeter hired, who when they did work for the govt were mostly in the field of intelligence. (an oxymoron for sure!) Why did the Tweeter need so many spies with fresh govt connections working for it?

Dude.

Every thing you're bringing up here is a valid question because of his stupidly vague comment.


What does Musk mean by access?

Was this in or outside the bounds of a court order due to an investigation?

How long did they have this access?

How often did they engage this access?

WHO ELSE has this level of access to user data?

IF this is illegal access, what steps have you, MUSK, taken to protect user's data?

Do you, Elon Musk (or by extension Twitter employees) have access to that data?

Did the interviewer ask those follow up questions? If they didn't has anyone asked them now?

And, honestly, because he's selectively released emails (the twitter files) that amounted to Twitter following its own rules, I suspect it's more of the same.

The government had full access because they had court ordered access due to investigations. He just left that part out. Deliberately.

Well, okay DUDE. If the foundation of the conversation we're attempting to have is as vague as you believe it to be, and I won't put up much of an argument against that point, then what is the point of us trying to have a conversation?

In that spirit, I only skimmed over the rest of what you posted. (sorry...)

However, your last point about the court order is something I had not heard. Where did you hear that?