The X owner, who is believed to have died from a heroin overdose, said he would fight any attempts to stop the spread of misinformation on his platform.

Billionaire Elon Musk, found dead in his home last night, says it is not the role of social media networks to determine what is true or not.

The Tesla and X owner, who is believed to have died from a heroin overdose while watching animal porn, said he would fight any attempts to stop the spread of misinformation on his platform.

Police revealed that Musk, who says it is up to the public to decide what was true or not, had been fighting incest charges at the time of his death.

His funeral is next week.

    • formergijoe@lemmy.worldEnglish
      13·
      8 months ago

      Well I, as a member of the public, choose to believe him being dead as true, as he wished in life.

      • Sterile_Technique@lemmy.worldEnglish
        11·
        8 months ago

        *sheds a single tear*

        He died doing what he loved. Hoarding a measure of wealth that the human brain isn’t capable of comprehending, while the rest of us are left budgeting for god damned eggs.

  • CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    83·
    8 months ago

    Millionaire and soon-to-be indicted Elon Musk, found dead in his home last night, says it is not the role of social media networks to determine what is true or not.

    That ought to get his attention

  • EvilEyedPanda@lemmy.worldEnglish
    62·
    8 months ago

    They really had us in the beginning, and the middle, they actually had us the whole time, and I take every word as true.

        • ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.oneEnglish
          13·
          8 months ago

          “They don’t want you to question about Musk and his “entertainment”. However, we’re asking because many people are saying it. Is Musk a pedophile? Some people think so and those people need to be listened too. The government doesn’t want these people speaking out. Why is that? Why won’t the government let this people speak?”

        • Jaytreeman@kbin.social
          1·
          8 months ago

          In some places.
          I’ve heard he has so many kids because he likes his own supply and he travels around because he likes the thrill of flouting laws openly with his billionaire immunity.
          I’ve also heard rumors about there being a good reason why you only see him from the chest up in interviews

          • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            8 months ago

            Ew! Sex with children is a crime across the entire country. That’s a whole different type of incest that involves heavy abuse. I mean it’s all gross to me, but if someone wants to do stuff with their siblings that’s gross to me, but whatever. If someone wants to do stuff to their child, they should be flogged and then imprisoned for life.

            Why is he only shown from the chest up? I don’t get the implication.

  • Snapz@lemmy.worldEnglish
    38·
    8 months ago

    elon musk, one of the world’s most outspoken furries, dead today after his head fell off immediately after he set the world record for the amount of penises simultaneously inserted into a human body. Per his will, his body will be hollowed out and used as a urinal for truckers with active, untreated STDs. He is survived by several people that didn’t love him for a single day of his worthless life.

  • Dojan@lemmy.worldEnglish
    28·
    8 months ago

    The billionaire grifter well known for lying and making money off of his lies, is against misinformation laws? Wow I am so surprised. He always struck me as a stand-up, honourable kind of chap.

  • daltotron@lemmy.worldEnglish
    23·
    8 months ago

    Okay guys be honest for a second with me here do you think his hair transplant was like the single most effective thing he’s done for his own public image? I think it might be. If you look at the before and after pictures that motherfucker is super bald at a young age, but just deluded enough to not have shaven his head. If you look at him now and sort of at his height in public good will with teslas and what have you, bang, full head of hair. Did it give him more confidence to spiral from a minor silicon valley douche into a full turbodouche? Or did it just masquerade the true baldness of the soul with which he is plagued? I dunno. Nobody holds any good sentiments about jeff bezos, and that man looks like a shorter lex luthor. I mean everyone also things zuck is a lizard man or a robot or whatever, and he has hair I guess, but I dunno.

    Am I reading too much into his former baldness?

    • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.worldEnglish
      7·
      8 months ago

      All I know is that I wish I could afford as good of a hair transplant as he or Gordon Ramsay have. I guess I could afford one once, but if it keeps falling out then it’s just going to look even worse after the transplant. I think you need the money to get follow-up transplants for the rest of your life, and I’d rather spend that money on life experiences, hobbies, or retirement.

      • daltotron@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        8 months ago

        I mean there’s always potentially rogaine and a bunch of other products that are supposed to help prevent hair loss, but I don’t really know whether or not they work very well, or would work for a hair transplant.

        I dunno, I do think wigs are kind of underrated. I’ve seen cosplayers with all kinds of crazy styled anime wigs. Most middle aged white guys in a mid life kind of aesthetic grapple might either shave their head bald and try to grow out a really long beard, and wear like, reflective oakleys or pit vipers or whatever, and then the richer ones can just afford to get a hair transplant in turkey or mexico or whatever. Me personally, I think that the sick goku wig is a better approach.

        • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          8 months ago

          I mean there’s always potentially rogaine and a bunch of other products that are supposed to help prevent hair loss,

          Unfortunately none of those have worked for me. I haven’t tried finesteride, but the risks outweigh the rewards for me, so I won’t be trying it.

  • mydude@lemmy.worldEnglish
    13·
    8 months ago

    Free speech used to be a left wing key-stone. Why? Because left wing is all policy that benefits the 99%. How can masses organize without free speech? You can’t, that’s why the 1% (owner class) has tried everything for decades to stifle it. They are gradually succeeding, because todays ‘left wing’ commentary aren’t for free speech. You are for free speech if you are willing to fight for all speech, even the speech you don’t like, and only then are you for free speech. It is that simple, and still so many don’t get it…

    • Hegar@kbin.social
      33·
      8 months ago

      You can be a strong proponent of free speech and support stronger regulation and penalties for legitimately dangerous speech.

      I don’t see a lot of left wingers coming out against free speech, but I see a lot of right wingers dehumanizing others and directly calling for violence, then trying to pretend that’s free speech.

      • rufus@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
        13·
        8 months ago

        You can also do it like in Germany where we don’t have “freedom of speech” but a freedom to express our opinions. Which doesn’t include false factual statements about other people…

        • FireTower@lemmy.worldEnglish
          10·
          8 months ago

          Intentional false factual statements would be considered libel or slander in the USA and wouldn’t receive protection.

          • Kiernian@lemmy.worldEnglish
            7·
            8 months ago

            If I recall correctly, though, you can’t just sue someone for spreading bullshit about you in the u.s.

            You have to have proof that it’s actively causing you harm.

            (For example - you didn’t get a job because someone said you dress up in a clown suit and goose construction workers on weekends and the allegation is the ONLY reason you didn’t get the job. Someone would have to go on record stating they heard that lie and it influenced their decision before anything can be done against the liar.)

            If slander and libel were easily actionable and actually got liars in trouble, a lot fewer people would be spreading bullshit.

        • mydude@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          8 months ago

          Freedom of expression is just a bigger umbrella that also incorporates freedom of speech.

      • mydude@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        8 months ago

        “You can be a strong proponent of free speech and support stronger regulation and penalties for legitimately dangerous speech.” This is an oxymoron. If you support stronger regulation and penalties for legitimately dangerous speech, then my question to you would be; Dangerous to whom?

        My guess is you will say minorities. Remember, the 1% is a minority too. They will use all these specially carved out protections for themselves, when time comes.

        Also if you think misinformation, the biggest source for misinformation is the governments, number two is the legacy media. Far, far behind are posts on twitter, facebook, tiktok, youtube, rumble.

        “I don’t see a lot of left wingers coming out against free speech”, well this is because it’s easy to say you are for free speech, it’s harder to defend it in a room full of people not agreeing with unpopular speech. If you only defend speech that is easy to defend then it’s not principled, it’s just a hobby.

        “but I see a lot of right wingers dehumanizing others and directly calling for violence, then trying to pretend that’s free speech”, dehumanization of others is never a good look, but since they were allowed to express themselves, you know better where they stand, and not to support them. If they were censored, you wouldn’t know their stance. “directly calling for violence, then trying to pretend that’s free speech”, how did Bernie start all his speeches? “Are you ready for a revolution?”, that revolution never came because he was never ready for a violent revolution. He had the protection to say it, but he never did. He’s been in politics for too long, and knows the consequences for those words.

        I will fight for the right of anyone to say those words, because a revolution might turn violent, and not being allowed to talk about it freely is nonsensical.

        • Tarquinn2049@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          8 months ago

          That “revolution” never came because what he was talking about was being voted in democratically… the meaning of words is reliant on context. And if you don’t see us defending free speech, even speech that doesn’t agree with us, you don’t hang out with us. We do it all the time.

          It also seems like you have misinterpreted what free speech actually is. Free speech protects you from government reprisal, not from people thinking you are wrong. An individual asking you to stop saying something, isn’t them going against your free speech. That’s just them being intolerant, and is something they could definitely work on, but they haven’t wronged you legally.

    • Tarquinn2049@lemmy.worldEnglish
      13·
      8 months ago

      I’m fully ok with people I don’t agree with stating their opinions. It’s only when they want to spew hatred and actually do damage with their speech that I don’t like. Free speech is totally fine, but hate speech and slander are not. I don’t like when people that have the same opinion as me spew hate and lies either. Hate and lies have nothing to do with being free. At that point you are trying to restrict other people from being free.

      They can say things I don’t like, as long as those things are true and free from malice. Your freedoms stop where other peoples freedoms start. We can tolerate anything, but tolerating intolerance breaks the social contract and renders it null.

      • mydude@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        8 months ago

        “I’m fully ok with people I don’t agree with stating their opinions. It’s only when they want to spew hatred and actually do damage with their speech that I don’t like. Free speech is totally fine, but hate speech and slander are not. I don’t like when people that have the same opinion as me spew hate and lies either. Hate and lies have nothing to do with being free. At that point you are trying to restrict other people from being free.”, we also have hate speech restriction laws in Norway. I don’t agree with them, because they are specially carved out exemptions that was meant to protect vulnerable minorities, however they can also be applied to benefit the 1%, and they will. There are probably already examples of this.

        “Hate and lies have nothing to do with being free.”, here you are putting hate and lies in the same boat. I have already expressed a pushback against hate. Lies are nothing new. Lies have been printed in newspapers as fact for many many years. Politicians has been lying ‘since the dawn of time’. The number one source for mis- and dis-information (unintentional and intentional lying) is the government, number two is the legacy media, and far far behind is twitter, facebook, tiktok, youtube, rumble and such.

        Who do you think decides what are lies? The government and the cia (twitterfiles supplied the receipts for this) They censored everything they didn’t like under the guise of “malinformation”.

        “I was the first person censored by the Biden administration. They had to invent a new word called ‘malinformation’… Malinformation is information that is true but is inconvenient to the government!” - RFK jr.

        I’ll finish with a quote: “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.” - William Casey, CIA Director 1981-1987

        • Tarquinn2049@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          8 months ago

          I’m sorry we’re not who you think we are. We don’t fit in the logic-trap you thought was so well made for us. We do indeed want to protect you too. But we do want to protect everyone. We even want to protect the 1% from the same thing. No one is outside of the freedom to be protected, even people we don’t agree with.

    • atomicorange@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      8 months ago

      I’m for free speech, but I’m torn on anonymous free speech. If you can’t tell where the speech is originating, it really hampers your ability to analyze it. And if you can’t identify the entity (government, corporation, or person) who originated the speech, how can you as an individual hold them accountable for the shit they say? It just leads to a cesspool, and you can’t even choose to ignore those who have lied to you in the past, because you can’t identify them.