[gonzo]

Originally Posted by Patton250

Yeah, I know how some people don’t like an equal playing field when it comes to speech. I imagine some hate him pretty good. One-sided control at Twitter is over. Same thing needs to happen with YouTube, Instagram, and every other one-sided speech controlled social media outlet.

I'd hold this thought for a bit. New CEO is a WEF soldier and former honch at Nothing But Crap Universal. Yikes.

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by gonzo

I'd hold this thought for a bit. New CEO is a WEF soldier and former honch at Nothing But Crap Universal. Yikes.

I promise I don’t know what you mean. Perhaps try again?

[gonzo]

'Prior to being tapped as the upcoming Twitter CEO, Yaccarino was the Chairman of Global Advertising and Partnerships at NBCUniversal. She has previously served as NBCUniversal’s Chairman of Advertising & Client Partnership and President of Cable Entertainment & Digital Advertising Sales during her almost 12-year tenure with the company. She also has several ties to the World Economic Forum (WEF), a global group that consistently advocates for the censorship of “misinformation” and supports mass data collection.'

99% positive she's a chair holder at The WEF.
Plenty of clips of her talking crazy.
Klaus...eww.

[RichF90M5C]

Originally Posted by Patton250

Perhaps, if you had read a few postings before mine, sarcasm wouldn’t have been the first thing to pop in your mind as a rebuttal. It’s not your strong suit by the way. Hopefully you have other social attributes.

Brilliant retort!

[BGM-M3COMP]

::ghostbusters theme::

Doe!!!! Rayyyyyyy!!!! ELONNNNNN!!!!

Lmaooooo I love elon

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by gonzo

'Prior to being tapped as the upcoming Twitter CEO, Yaccarino was the Chairman of Global Advertising and Partnerships at NBCUniversal. She has previously served as NBCUniversal’s Chairman of Advertising & Client Partnership and President of Cable Entertainment & Digital Advertising Sales during her almost 12-year tenure with the company. She also has several ties to the World Economic Forum (WEF), a global group that consistently advocates for the censorship of “misinformation” and supports mass data collection.'

99% positive she's a chair holder at The WEF.
Plenty of clips of her talking crazy.
Klaus...eww.

I think I understand you now. Are you saying you’re concerned this person will bring Twitter back to the old ways where only one type of thought is allowed?

[gonzo]

^
I don't know what to think. He's a calculated guy so I need to give her time. I would hope their powwow included FREE SPEECH before hiring.

Then there are her publicly made positions. If they come out regarding influence to Twitter...ugh. Really awakened mindset. Ugh dos.

The whole depopulate, WEF, thing is 180° from Musks philosophy.

Very strange match, but we'll see.

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by gonzo

^
I don't know what to think. He's a calculated guy so I need to give her time. I would hope their powwow included FREE SPEECH before hiring.

Then there are her publicly made positions. If they come out regarding influence to Twitter...ugh. Really awakened mindset. Ugh dos.

The whole depopulate, WEF, thing is 180° from Musks philosophy.

Very strange match, but we'll see.

I’ve been watching the man in many different interviews over the past couple months and I just don’t see him letting Twitter go back to the one-sided cesspool it was before. I mean I don’t really go there anyway but I listen to people that talk about what’s happening over there. It’s been moving in an extremely positive direction since he took over.

[BGM-M3COMP]

Originally Posted by Mason Hatcher

We? You got a mouse in your pocket?

Lmaooooooooooooooo

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Patton250

I have been watching the man in many different interviews over the past couple months and I just don’t see him letting Twitter go back to the one-sided cesspool it was before. I mean I don’t really go there anyway but I listen to people that talk about what’s happening over there. It’s been moving in an extremely positive direction since he took over.

I find it quite disheartening when an immigrant from South Africa recognizes the significance of an AMERICAN company, which provides a worldwide PUBLIC platform for discussion on topics of the day, bans an American President from using the platform to promote direct communication with the citizens of the US. That immigrant from South Africa finds it so repulsive he buys said AMERICAN company so it will include speech from all users of the platform. Why anyone would find that problematic is not comprehensible.

It would be interesting to see the reactions back in the day, say in 1965, if Frederick Kappel created a device that monitored telephone calls and disconnected a call just because he found the topic of discussion offensive and not to his liking, and would not let those two telephones connect ever again.

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I find it quite disheartening when an immigrant from South Africa recognizes the significance of an AMERICAN company, which provides a worldwide PUBLIC platform for discussion on topics of the day, bans an American President from using the platform to promote direct communication with the citizens of the US. That immigrant from South Africa finds it so repulsive he buys said AMERICAN company so it will include speech from all users of the platform. Why anyone would find that problematic is not comprehensible.

It would be interesting to see the reactions back in the day, say in 1965, if Frederick Kapple created a device that monitored telephone calls and disconnected a call just because he found the topic of discussion offensive and not to his liking, and would not let those two telephones connect ever again.

What an excellent example and comparison. However, I can tell you with extreme confidence that a good 30% of our population, all coming from one type of thought of course, would be perfectly fine with speech they don’t like being cut off from phone conversations as well as prevented from using that platform ever again in the future.

[Murf the Surf]

Originally Posted by Patton250

What an excellent example and comparison. However, I can tell you with extreme confidence that a good 30% of our population, all coming from one type of thought of course, would be perfectly fine with speech they don’t like being cut off from phone conversations as well as prevented from using that platform ever again in the future.

As long as the speech being censored wasn't theirs.

Careful now this is getting political and we all know what happens then.

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by Murf the Surf

As long as the speech being censored wasn't theirs.

Careful now this is getting political and we all know what happens then.

Nothing political here. As far as I was concerned, we were all admiring Elon Musk, including the threads troll.

Are you telling me that our speech might get banned for discussing the negatives of banning speech?

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Murf the Surf

As long as the speech being censored wasn't theirs.

Careful now this is getting political and we all know what happens then.

Yeah, ironically, I am concerned I'm going to get booted just for what I wrote. LOL.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Patton250

Nothing political here. As far as I was concerned, we were all admiring Elon Musk, including the threads troll.

Are you telling me that our speech might get banned for discussing the negatives of banning speech?

EV's are political. No way around it.

[Murf the Surf]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

EV's are political. No way around it.

I'm on a forum for retired police officers, the guy running the forum often cautions about making political statements. I've pointed out numerous times that just about everything is political now a days. Interesting time to be alive.

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

EV's are political. No way around it.

Ironic. Of course you’re correct. There would be no such thing as electric vehicles if it wasn’t for politics. Maybe we should stop posting here? At the end of the day getting helpful information and passing on what I know about M5’s is the main reason I’m here. But then again, we aren’t talking about political parties or politicians and haven’t this entire thread that I’ve seen. Also, everyone’s been quite reasonable and civil, including, for the most part, the threads token troll.

Have any of you seen any rules violations? If you have let me know if I’m doing it and I’ll stop. I don’t think I have. I certainly haven’t done it on purpose.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Patton250

Ironic. Of course you’re correct. There would be no such thing as electric vehicles if it wasn’t for politics. Maybe we should stop posting here? At the end of the day getting helpful information and passing on what I know about M5’s is the main reason I’m here. But then again, we aren’t talking about political parties or politicians and haven’t this entire thread that I’ve seen. Also, everyone’s been quite reasonable and civil, including, for the most part, the threads token troll.

Have any of you seen any rules violations? If you have let me know if I’m doing it and I’ll stop. I don’t think I have. I certainly haven’t done it on purpose.

I'm sticking right here. No new cards

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

EV's are political. No way around it.

It's only politi cal because the gubments are subsidising EV makers and forcefully pushing agenda's through without a democratic referendum.

[dreamingat30fps]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

EV's are political. No way around it.

No. You all choose to talk about the political aspect of EV's but you could just talk about the cars if you wanted to. You don't though, ya'll like the politics. I will admit without the politics this thread probably wouldn't be 100 pages long.

[BGM-M3COMP]

Man our future is bright with ev!

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by dreamingat30fps

No. You all choose to talk about the political aspect of EV's but you could just talk about the cars if you wanted to. You don't though, ya'll like the politics. I will admit without the politics this thread probably wouldn't be 100 pages long.

Patton250 and M5Rick both stated it well, without the government forcing component, there would be no market for EV. If the EV market grew organically as a new fuel source say because of hydrocarbon depletion, then the discussion would be focused more on the cars, but that is not the case. And the concerns regarding EV range, recharge rates, convenience, total environmental impact and cost are legitimate issues, all which do not match any ICE equivalent.

This Forum is full of discussion regarding ICE vehicles and members posting their opinions on what vehicle is best. And the design of ICE vehicles is as much dictated by government standards for emissions, fuel consumption, and safety, all of which I have personally discussed over my tenure on E90 Post.

My other argument against ICE banning mandates are they limit advancement in development and adoption of other fuel efficient technologies, such has pure series hybrids, which I post about all the time on car forums. My background in engineering and science tells me BEV are limited by physics and chemistry to reach equivalency to ICE at the same price point. Essentially mandating BEV severely limits other technologies that maybe and are (IMO) better solutions. Series hybrid EV and parallel hybrids EV are very good solutions as alternates to BEV.

Why should none of those such discussions be had on an automotive internet forum? Why should such discussions not be had, which may get others to think more about the leadership they choose through the electoral process. As long as the discussions remain civil, I see no issue with it and rather encourage it.