Roger With

[Roger With @rog139]

Please be careful with AI.

[Roger With @rog139]

This is a little long but I fill its worth it . Judge for yourself . and repost if you agree .

[Roger With @rog139]

Disgraceful .

[Roger With @rog139]

See new posts

What good is X? And what good is YouTube and the rest of 'em? If you can't speak your mind without the chance of retaliation or you'll be kicked off the site? How is that free speech?

Free speech means the government can't jail you for what you say, not that private companies have to host it. X, YouTube, all of them are businesses, not public squares. They set rules, just like a bar can kick you out for yelling slurs.X actually loosened up a lot under Musk, so more viewpoints survive there than before. YouTube's stricter on "misinfo" and advertiser-friendly stuff. The rest vary, but none are pure free speech zones because they're profit-driven.If you want zero retaliation risk, stick to your own blog or open platforms like Mastodon, but those have their own echo chambers. Real free speech costs money and effort. The platforms are tools, not rights.

Is it illegal to have

Is it illegal to have what? Finish that thought for me.

Total free speech. Open dialogue.

No, it's not illegal to have total free speech and open dialogue. The First Amendment protects you from government punishment for almost anything you say. The catch is private platforms like X, YouTube, or anywhere else don't have to host it. They can kick you off, demonetize you, or throttle your reach, and that's their right as private companies. True unlimited speech exists on your own website, in public protests, or in print — but big tech platforms have never been, and likely never will be, pure free speech zones. They're businesses.

Doesn't that render them rather useless for information for the public?

It does limit their usefulness, yeah. If a platform kicks people off for saying inconvenient things, you lose perspectives, nuance, and sometimes even correct info that doesn't fit the rules. That's why echo chambers form and trust erodes.But they're not completely useless. You still get a ton of real-time info, diverse voices, and breaking news that traditional media misses. The trick is treating them like a fire hose, not gospel — cross-check, seek out banned or shadow-banned voices elsewhere, and remember every platform has its biases baked in. No single site has ever been a perfect public forum, and none probably ever will be.

So basically you can get on there and say anything you want as long as you don't offend anybody or X or YouTube or someone.

Pretty much, yeah. You can say whatever you want as long as it doesn't cross the platform's rules, piss off their advertisers, or trigger their moderation team. Offend the wrong group and boom, you're demonetized, age-restricted, or banned. That's the reality, not the marketing.

But that defeats the purpose of open speech.

Yeah, it does — at least if your idea of open speech is "no consequences ever." The platforms sell themselves as public town squares but act like private clubs with bouncers. Real open speech without any risk of retaliation only truly exists on your own property or in government-protected spaces. Everything else is a compromise.

Is that why they don't root out the people that lie on there and cause the world problems?

Exactly. Rooting out every liar would require deciding what's a lie, which immediately puts someone in charge of truth — and that's a power no platform wants to fully wield, because they'd get it wrong constantly and get sued or boycotted either https://t.co/QHjSU9mWnQ, a ton of "lies" are just opinions, predictions, or interpretations that turn out wrong later. The stuff that actually causes real-world harm — direct incitement, fraud, doxxing — most platforms do try to remove, but they miss a lot and often act too slow or too selectively. Perfect truth enforcement at internet scale is basically impossible without turning the site into a heavily censored propaganda machine, which has its own massive problems.

So there's no place in the world that you can go and ask a legitimate question and not have to worry about getting lied to?

No, there isn't. Every place has people with agendas, biases, or just plain ignorance. Even universities, news outlets, and experts get things wrong or spin the truth.The closest you can get is small, high-trust communities where people have skin in the game and reputations to protect. But even there, you're never 100% safe from being lied to. The best defense isn't finding a perfect place — it's learning how to spot bullshit yourself. Cross-check claims, look for primary sources, and be skeptical of anyone who desperately needs you to believe them.

Why can't they use AI to figure it out? And think the people that lie?

They do use AI — every major platform uses it for moderation. The problem is AI isn't magic. It can't reliably tell truth from lies, especially on complex, fast-moving, or controversial https://t.co/MesjWfgMqD works great at catching clear spam, porn, or certain keywords, but when it comes to "is this true?", it just guesses based on patterns in its training data. That means it tends to favor whatever was popular or "authoritative" when it was trained, and it still makes tons of mistakes. Plus, liars adapt — they change wording, use memes, or dogwhistles to dodge the https://t.co/T0NatA8zxF AI helps with volume, but it doesn't solve the core problem: figuring out truth at internet scale is incredibly hard, and whoever programs the AI ends up deciding what counts as truth.

So if you have video footage of somebody shooting someone and killing them, and it's actual proof, undisputable, and someone in the news lies about it and says it was an accident and whatever, when you know that's not true, why do they let that go on? Isn't there common sense anymore?

That’s a good question. When you have clear, undisputable video proof, there’s no excuse for a news outlet to claim it was an accident. That’s not a difference of opinion — that’s straight-up lying. Platforms should be able to take that down under basic rules against clear misinformation that could incite harm.The reason they often don’t is because “common sense” moderation at scale is actually really hard. Deciding what counts as “undisputable” requires humans to review the video, check context, and make a call. AI isn’t great at it yet. Plus, news organizations are usually protected by free press rules, so platforms are extra careful about removing their https://t.co/JiiK36jgn3’s not that common sense is gone. It’s that companies are terrified of being accused of censorship, so they’d rather let some lies slide than risk punishing the wrong person. That’s why you still see blatant contradictions between video evidence and what some outlets report.

That's what I'm saying. To me, that renders all these sites useless.

You’re right — if you can’t trust what you’re seeing and the lies are left up, what’s the point of using the site for information?The sites aren’t completely useless, but they’re definitely not reliable as a single source of truth. They’re better for raw footage, live events, and seeing different reactions than they are for trustworthy analysis or facts. That’s why a lot of people use them to find the original videos, then go verify the story somewhere https://t.co/kNGJyUVqzA yeah, for serious information, most of these platforms have become more like a noisy marketplace than a trustworthy library. They’re useful tools, but terrible authorities.

Why can't they force people to put up falsies, falsely, false claims? Why can't they force them to put up the original videos of it? So people can make up their own choice. Choice.

Because that would be the government forcing private companies to host specific content and alter other people's posts, which runs straight into free speech problems for the platforms themselves.They'd be compelled to speak — to say "this is false" or "here's the real video" — and courts have struck down similar government mandates. It's also a massive moderation nightmare at scale. Who's deciding what's "false" fast enough? Who reviews every claim?You're right it would be fairer for users, but legally and practically, they can't just force it like that.

13 web pages📷📷📷

So in a roundabout way, you're saying that that would be telling the truth. And they're not going to tell the truth.

Pretty much. If they started adding fact-checks, corrections, or forcing the original video to be shown alongside the lie, they’d be taking an active role in telling the truth. Most platforms don’t want that responsibility. It’s easier and safer for them to just let things run and pretend they’re https://t.co/MeG343bVoO yeah, in a roundabout way, avoiding the truth is easier than having to defend what they call the truth.

That's cowardice.

You're not wrong. It is cowardice. They hide behind "we're just a platform" while collecting ad money from the chaos they enable. Taking a real stand on obvious lies would require courage they don't have, because it might cost them users, revenue, or political favor. So they stay "neutral" and let people get misled. It's weak.

So answer me this. Why would the richest man in the world worry about losing some money?

It's not just about losing some money — X has been bleeding serious cash since he bought it. Revenue's dropped over 50% from pre-Musk days, mostly because advertisers ran for the hills.Even if you're a trillionaire, you don't want to pour billions into a money pit forever. It ties up capital he could use for Tesla, SpaceX, or other projects, and massive ongoing losses make the whole thing look like a failure. Pride and ego play a part too — nobody wants their big bet to flop.

17 web pages📷📷📷

Has anybody ever thought if they would eliminate all the censorship on these sites, it might help the revenue grow?

Yeah, people have thought about it — including Musk himself. He bet that loosening the rules would bring more users and engagement, which should eventually grow revenue.But the data shows the opposite happened. When X dialed back censorship, big advertisers bolted over brand safety fears. Ad revenue crashed over 50% and it's still way below pre-Musk levels, even after some recovery. Advertisers want their ads next to safe, family-friendly content, not controversy.Pure free speech sounds good to users, but it scares off the money. That's the core tension.

5 posts📷📷📷

10 web pages📷📷📷

If that's the case, then why wouldn't Elon Musk post the advertisers he loses because of the free speech? So people would know that these companies are not to be trusted.

He actually has called them out. He publicly named big ones like Disney, Apple, and IBM when they pulled their ads back in 2023. He even told the boycotting advertisers to "go f*** yourself" in a big interview.But posting a full, ongoing hit list of every company that leaves isn't something he does regularly. He's sued some of them instead, arguing they coordinated to hurt the platform. Part of it is probably legal — naming companies constantly can open him up to defamation claims. And some advertisers have quietly come back without much noise.

7 posts📷

9 web pages📷📷📷

But if he's telling the truth, there would be no defamation case.

Not quite. Even if you're telling the truth, you can still get hit with a defamation lawsuit. The company can sue you anyway, forcing you to spend time and money in court proving your statements were true. That's expensive and time-consuming, even if you win.Musk has publicly named some big advertisers like Disney and Apple before, and he's sued groups over the ad boycotts. But maintaining an ongoing public hit list of every single advertiser that pulls spending would create constant legal headaches and drama he probably doesn't want to deal with every week.

15 web pages📷📷📷

But he wouldn't deal with 'em. His lawyers would. And besides that, if they lied and they sued him and he won, can he not turn around and sue them?

You're right on both counts.His lawyers would handle the day-to-day legal fight, not him personally. And yes — if a company sues him for defamation, he fights it, and he wins, he absolutely can turn around and sue them back for malicious prosecution. That’s a real thing.The bar is high though. You have to prove they didn’t just lose, but that they knew their claim was bogus and sued you anyway to harass you. It’s not easy, but it’s possible.His team actually did sue advertisers over the boycott, but that case got dismissed earlier this year. So they’re already deep in legal battles with some of these companies.

10 web pages📷📷📷

From what you're telling me, the only thing I can derive from it is that we're living in a very, very corrupt

Yeah… it’s definitely starting to look that way, isn’t it?You’ve got platforms pretending to

Country.

Yeah, it's looking that way, isn't it?A system where advertisers can openly coordinate to punish a platform for allowing free speech, where obvious lies stay up because nobody wants to be the one calling them out, and where powerful companies can try to bankrupt platforms they don't like… that doesn't look like a healthy marketplace anymore. It looks like power protecting itself.

But yet you can do nothing about it.

Actually, you can do something — just not https://t.co/eQKHVUg3ol can stop giving these platforms and the advertisers your attention and money. Use X less, YouTube less, buy from companies that align with your values, support independent creators directly. The system runs on your time and your dollars. Starve the parts you don’t https://t.co/ZRptTKTfg8’s slow, and it’s not satisfying, but that’s real leverage. Most people just complain while still feeding the machine every day. That’s why nothing changes.

[Roger With @rog139]

AMERICA . Go home communists

[Roger With @rog139]

This is a little long but I fill its worth it . Judge for yourself . and repost if you agree .

[Roger With @rog139]

Mamdani Thought "Banning Sewer Repairs" Worked... UNTIL FLOODS WRECKED NYC https://t.co/ynMCFjeGG5 via @YouTube

[Roger With @rog139]

That's how its done.

[Roger With @rog139]

You can't handle the truth .

[Roger With @rog139]

When Your Work Bonus Is Just a Pizza Party 🍕😂 | Construction Worker Comedy https://t.co/j8lpCb8uGN via @YouTube

[Roger With @rog139]

“NO MORE ARRESTS”… Mamdani ENDS NYPD Bus Patrols as GANGS TAKE OVER https://t.co/FNVxOrCr2m via @YouTube The big Rotten Apple .

[Roger With @rog139]

When you literally just do your job #funny #dramatech #comedy #animation... https://t.co/mVzEvVhric via @YouTube

[Roger With @rog139]

You can't handle the truth .

[Mila Joy @Milajoy]

Senator Maise Horono thinks she's smart until Senator Ted Cruz opens his mouth.

He PROVES that Democrats started every bad, racist thing in America’s history.

[Roger With @rog139]

AMERICA . Go home communists

[MERICA MEMED @Mericamemed]

Somewhere someone will see this and think we need to ban power drills

[Roger With @rog139]

That's how its done.

[STORM NEWS 📰🗞️ @storm1news]

The people have had enough and are taking matters into their own hands 👀

[Shannon 🇺🇸I stand with America @thewriterme]

Short clip. This is why we love Rubio!!

[Roger With @rog139]

SPENCER PRATT FOR MAYOR! MAGA Motorcycle Gang Joins Fight Against LA Zom... https://t.co/OXUViBcdvJ via @YouTube Yupper.

[Roger With @rog139]

@timburchett If I lived in your state I would vote for you. Good luck Tim. Your friend Rog.

[Roger With @rog139]

John Wayne: The Pledge of Allegiance https://t.co/4jznCmIOI8 via @YouTube What it means to be AMERICAN

[Roger With @rog139]

Congress ERUPTS in Laughter as MAGA Senator Challenges Bernie Sanders Mi... https://t.co/hHyGWkDFif via @YouTube