From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

In article <10upkpq$1gp7v$1@dont-email.me>,
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

Maybe so, but having core infrastructure at the mercy of and
dependent on someone as immoral as Musk is a risk not worth taking
in my book.

Do enlighten me why he's immoral? I'm unaware of why you might have
that opinion.

Bob.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

On 2026-05-25 10:10, Bob Latham wrote:

In article <10upkpq$1gp7v$1@dont-email.me>,
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

Maybe so, but having core infrastructure at the mercy of and
dependent on someone as immoral as Musk is a risk not worth taking
in my book.

Do enlighten me why he's immoral? I'm unaware of why you might have
that opinion.

Examples abound. These are some of the ones that most immediately occur
to me ...

Changing X's algorithms to favour a convicted felon in the presidential
race, because that felon promised him lower taxes on his fortune.

Early on in the Ukraine war during a Ukrainian sea drone raid on Crimea,
he colluded with the Russians to disable the Starlink receivers being
used in the raid, with the result that substantially it failed.

It took three years for Ukraine to persuade him to take actions against
the Starlink receivers being used illegitimately by Russians, only
taking action when it was pointed out to him that they were being used
to target Shahed drones onto civilian targets, and thus were being used
to commit war crimes.

As head of DOGE, he was responsible for emasculating the US government's ability to control itself and keep within constitutional law at home,
and project 'soft power' abroad. An example of the former, which also benefited Musk and/or his companies directly, is here ...

https://www.epi.org/blog/corruption-in-plain-sight-how-elon-musk-has-benefited-from-the-first-100-days-of-the-trump-administration/

... while for a soft power example you need look no further than the
infamous "US supplies condoms to Gaza!!!" debacle, with Musk trumpeting
this alleged 'finding' of DOGE, while failing to mention that the Gaza
in question was in Africa, and the condoms being supplied were the
cheapest way to help control the spread of AIDS.

And of course, with the usual caveats, there's always AI ...

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-e&q=why+is+Elon+Musk+immoral

Etc, etc, etc.
--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website: www.macfh.co.uk

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

In article <10upkpq$1gp7v$1@dont-email.me>,
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

Maybe so, but having core infrastructure at the mercy of and
dependent on someone as immoral as Musk is a risk not worth taking
in my book.

Do enlighten me why he's immoral? I'm unaware of why you might have
that opinion.

Sorry to be rude, but have you been living under a rock over the last five years?

He called a british rescuer a paedophile on twitter - on what seems like a
whim - who had to take him up court to get him to stop.

He turned twitter into a ring-wing echo chamber making it an unsafe place
for women and any minorities to be present. He refuses to remove any
content nor accounts regardless of how horrendous it is. Only very
reluctantly stopped Grok being used to undress female celebrities.

He tore through the US government with his DOGE team which randomly fired thousands of people for little reason and no notice (yay, us labour laws). Claimed he would save $1tn, only $12bn or so can be accounted for. No improvements in efficiencies have been identified.

These are just off the top of my head, and if that's not enough he has
publicly attacked his own child for being trans. BTW he has at least 14 children with 4 or 5 different mothers.

I'm also increasingly of the opinion that all billionaires are immoral by definition.



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

On 27/05/2026 in message <10v698s$2ke7l$1@dont-email.me> Chris wrote:

Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

In article <10upkpq$1gp7v$1@dont-email.me>,
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

Maybe so, but having core infrastructure at the mercy of and
dependent on someone as immoral as Musk is a risk not worth taking
in my book.

Do enlighten me why he's immoral? I'm unaware of why you might have
that opinion.

Sorry to be rude, but have you been living under a rock over the last five >years?

He called a british rescuer a paedophile on twitter - on what seems like a >whim - who had to take him up court to get him to stop.

He turned twitter into a ring-wing echo chamber making it an unsafe place
for women and any minorities to be present. He refuses to remove any
content nor accounts regardless of how horrendous it is. Only very >reluctantly stopped Grok being used to undress female celebrities.

He tore through the US government with his DOGE team which randomly fired >thousands of people for little reason and no notice (yay, us labour laws). >Claimed he would save $1tn, only $12bn or so can be accounted for. No >improvements in efficiencies have been identified.

These are just off the top of my head, and if that's not enough he has >publicly attacked his own child for being trans. BTW he has at least 14 >children with 4 or 5 different mothers.

Those may be reasons for you to consider him immoral but everybody is
entitled to their own opinion which may well be different to yours.

I'm also increasingly of the opinion that all billionaires are immoral by >definition.

That's just socialist dogma, they hate successful people, no prole, no
votes.

Anyway this sort of political stuff is way OTT for this group so no more
from me.
--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Roses are #FF0000, violets are #0000FF
if you can read this, you're a nerd 10.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

In article <10v698s$2ke7l$1@dont-email.me>,
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

In article <10upkpq$1gp7v$1@dont-email.me>,

Do enlighten me why he's immoral? I'm unaware of why you might
have that opinion.

Sorry to be rude, but have you been living under a rock over the
last five years?

He called a british rescuer a paedophile on twitter - on what seems
like a whim - who had to take him up court to get him to stop.

He turned twitter into a ring-wing echo chamber

making it an unsafe place for women and any minorities to be
present.

He refuses to remove any content nor accounts regardless of how
horrendous it is.

Only very reluctantly stopped Grok being used to undress female
celebrities.

He tore through the US government with his DOGE team which randomly
fired thousands of people for little reason and no notice (yay, us
labour laws). Claimed he would save $1tn, only $12bn or so can be
accounted for. No improvements in efficiencies have been
identified.

These are just off the top of my head, and if that's not enough he
has publicly attacked his own child for being trans. BTW he has at
least 14 children with 4 or 5 different mothers.

I'm also increasingly of the opinion that all billionaires are
immoral by definition.

Okay, I get it now. So the majority of this boils down to - he's
immoral because he doesn't hold left wing views.

I'm increasingly of the opinion that the problem with left wing
people starts from the fundamental delusion that if you hold left
wing views you are morally superior.

Thanks for answering the question.

Bob.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

In article <10v698s$2ke7l$1@dont-email.me>,
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

In article <10upkpq$1gp7v$1@dont-email.me>,

Do enlighten me why he's immoral? I'm unaware of why you might
have that opinion.

Sorry to be rude, but have you been living under a rock over the
last five years?

He called a british rescuer a paedophile on twitter - on what seems
like a whim - who had to take him up court to get him to stop.

He turned twitter into a ring-wing echo chamber

making it an unsafe place for women and any minorities to be
present.

He refuses to remove any content nor accounts regardless of how
horrendous it is.

Only very reluctantly stopped Grok being used to undress female
celebrities.

He tore through the US government with his DOGE team which randomly
fired thousands of people for little reason and no notice (yay, us
labour laws). Claimed he would save $1tn, only $12bn or so can be
accounted for. No improvements in efficiencies have been
identified.

These are just off the top of my head, and if that's not enough he
has publicly attacked his own child for being trans. BTW he has at
least 14 children with 4 or 5 different mothers.

I'm also increasingly of the opinion that all billionaires are
immoral by definition.

Okay, I get it now. So the majority of this boils down to - he's
immoral because he doesn't hold left wing views.

He's immoral by any definition. People not accepting that says more about
them then anything else.

I'm increasingly of the opinion that the problem with left wing
people starts from the fundamental delusion that if you hold left
wing views you are morally superior.

Asking people to be decent and not abuse their position is not a
superiority complex.

Thanks for answering the question.

Bob.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:

On 27/05/2026 in message <10v698s$2ke7l$1@dont-email.me> Chris wrote:

Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

In article <10upkpq$1gp7v$1@dont-email.me>,
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

Maybe so, but having core infrastructure at the mercy of and
dependent on someone as immoral as Musk is a risk not worth taking
in my book.

Do enlighten me why he's immoral? I'm unaware of why you might have
that opinion.

Sorry to be rude, but have you been living under a rock over the last five >> years?

He called a british rescuer a paedophile on twitter - on what seems like a >> whim - who had to take him up court to get him to stop.

He turned twitter into a ring-wing echo chamber making it an unsafe place
for women and any minorities to be present. He refuses to remove any
content nor accounts regardless of how horrendous it is. Only very
reluctantly stopped Grok being used to undress female celebrities.

He tore through the US government with his DOGE team which randomly fired
thousands of people for little reason and no notice (yay, us labour laws). >> Claimed he would save $1tn, only $12bn or so can be accounted for. No
improvements in efficiencies have been identified.

These are just off the top of my head, and if that's not enough he has
publicly attacked his own child for being trans. BTW he has at least 14
children with 4 or 5 different mothers.

Those may be reasons for you to consider him immoral but everybody is entitled to their own opinion which may well be different to yours.

I'm also increasingly of the opinion that all billionaires are immoral by
definition.

That's just socialist dogma, they hate successful people, no prole, no votes.

Plenty of evidence in support of this argument. Not dogma.

Anyway this sort of political stuff is way OTT for this group so no more from me.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote

[rCa]

I'm increasingly of the opinion that the problem with left wing
people starts from the fundamental delusion that if you hold left
wing views you are morally superior.

The problem with left-wingers is their trope of rCYsee the world as you wish
it to be, rather than as it really isrCY, which accounts for most of the stupidity of things like rCOnut zerorCO.
--
Spike
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

On 2026-05-27 10:20, Bob Latham wrote:

In article <10v698s$2ke7l$1@dont-email.me>,
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

In article <10upkpq$1gp7v$1@dont-email.me>,

Do enlighten me why he's immoral? I'm unaware of why you might
have that opinion.

Sorry to be rude, but have you been living under a rock over the
last five years?

He called a british rescuer a paedophile on twitter - on what seems
like a whim - who had to take him up court to get him to stop.

He turned twitter into a ring-wing echo chamber

making it an unsafe place for women and any minorities to be
present.

He refuses to remove any content nor accounts regardless of how
horrendous it is.

Only very reluctantly stopped Grok being used to undress female
celebrities.

He tore through the US government with his DOGE team which randomly
fired thousands of people for little reason and no notice (yay, us
labour laws). Claimed he would save $1tn, only $12bn or so can be
accounted for. No improvements in efficiencies have been
identified.

These are just off the top of my head, and if that's not enough he
has publicly attacked his own child for being trans. BTW he has at
least 14 children with 4 or 5 different mothers.

I'm also increasingly of the opinion that all billionaires are
immoral by definition.

Okay, I get it now. So the majority of this boils down to - he's
immoral because he doesn't hold left wing views.

I'm increasingly of the opinion that the problem with left wing
people starts from the fundamental delusion that if you hold left
wing views you are morally superior.

Thanks for answering the question.

As the examples given by both of us show, left-wing right-wing has
nothing to do with it. He's immoral because he treats the rest of the
world apart from himself as either put there for his own selfish use regardless of considerations of other people, or else as shit.
--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website: www.macfh.co.uk

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

In article <10v6phk$2or22$1@dont-email.me>,
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

In article <10v698s$2ke7l$1@dont-email.me>,

Okay, I get it now. So the majority of this boils down to - he's
immoral because he doesn't hold left wing views.

He's immoral by any definition. People not accepting that says more
about them then anything else.

I note the subtle ad hominem put in place there on only the second
sentence. The left wing playbook.

But I'm more than happy to accept that I don't hold left wing views.

Okay I'll tell you what I find deeply immoral.

Taking the heating allowance off pensioners when Labour's own think
tank advised how many thousands this would kill but they did it
anyway until there was a fuss the next year. Their excuse was that it
would cause 'a run on the pound'. This, a week after giving u11.5B of
UK tax payer money to Africa to help with 'climate change'.

Taking the right of trial by jury away from many trials to allow
activist judges to jail people with 'wrong think' more easily.

Trying to allow abortion up to the day before birth.

Letting off people who commit serious sexual offences but jailing
people for hurty words.

Lying to the public continuously about their intentions on..

- Lowering fuel prices.

- Pretending they're protecting children on the internet when in
reality they're removing the right of anonymity and forcing digital
ID.

- Not dragging us back into the EU.


Betraying farmers, waspi-women.
Appointing the twice sacked "Prince of darkness" to high office yet
again. The clue is in the name.

Allowing large marches through London each weekend for months calling
for the extermination of a nation state "from the River to the sea"
and the globalisation of the intifada. Policing minimal, it's fine.


VAT on private schools
105 independent schools closed.
Average 550 pupils and 200 staff
21,000 adults out of work.
57,750 pupils now in state education
u430M additional cost to the state.
Over u1B in lost taxes and revenue.
Absolute peak socialist stupidity.


And the worst of all!

Doing everything they possibly can to make sure the people
responsible for the rape and cover up of nearly 250,000 UK girls
never get dealt with. Refusing an enquiry and then dragged kicking
and screaming to agree to an enquiry only to drag it and destroy the
thing on scope and other issues. Protecting their own more important
than our girls.

That alone is top trumps, not just immoral, more evil.

Now that's what I call immoral and I've hardly scratched the surface.

Asking people to be decent and not abuse their position is not a
superiority complex.

Oh indeed but the current government fails spectacularly on that.

Bob.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

Is there any point in labelling things as left or right? That will only
mean being opposed to things because they are left or right. A better
question is what works best, a private telephone network or a public
one? The private water company doesn't seem to be a good idea to me as I
cannot change water companies, so where is the competition?

Digital ID is definately a bad idea. Civil Liberties used to be
considered left wing, but now is considered right wing.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

In article <10v6phk$2or22$1@dont-email.me>,
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

In article <10v698s$2ke7l$1@dont-email.me>,

Okay, I get it now. So the majority of this boils down to - he's
immoral because he doesn't hold left wing views.

He's immoral by any definition. People not accepting that says more
about them then anything else.

I note the subtle ad hominem put in place there on only the second
sentence. The left wing playbook.

But I'm more than happy to accept that I don't hold left wing views.

Okay I'll tell you what I find deeply immoral.

<snip>

Nice attempt at whataboutism. You refuse to acknowledge anything I raised
and simply palmed it off as left-wing dogma.

Now you what me to engage with your political rant that no-one asked for.
lol.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

In article <10v6phk$2or22$1@dont-email.me>,
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

In article <10v698s$2ke7l$1@dont-email.me>,

Okay, I get it now. So the majority of this boils down to - he's
immoral because he doesn't hold left wing views.

He's immoral by any definition. People not accepting that says more
about them then anything else.

I note the subtle ad hominem put in place there on only the second
sentence. The left wing playbook.

But I'm more than happy to accept that I don't hold left wing views.

Okay I'll tell you what I find deeply immoral.

<snip>

Nice attempt at whataboutism. You refuse to acknowledge anything I raised
and simply palmed it off as left-wing dogma.

Now you what me to engage with your political rant that no-one asked for. lol.

AmazonrCOs LEO system will be along towards the end of the year.
PS Anyone objecting to Amazon had better give up using the Internet now
given that a very significant chunk of the worldrCOs computing infrastructure is hosted by Amazon. Around a third.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

In article <10v6phk$2or22$1@dont-email.me>,
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

In article <10v698s$2ke7l$1@dont-email.me>,

Okay, I get it now. So the majority of this boils down to - he's
immoral because he doesn't hold left wing views.

He's immoral by any definition. People not accepting that says more
about them then anything else.

I note the subtle ad hominem put in place there on only the second
sentence. The left wing playbook.

But I'm more than happy to accept that I don't hold left wing views.

Okay I'll tell you what I find deeply immoral.

<snip>

Nice attempt at whataboutism. You refuse to acknowledge anything I raised
and simply palmed it off as left-wing dogma.

Now you what me to engage with your political rant that no-one asked for. lol.

You gave Bob an example of what you find to be immoral, and he responded in kind. ItrCOs nothing to do with rCOwhatabouteryrCO, itrCOs merely an exchange of
views.
--
Spike
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

On 2026-05-27 19:31, Bob Latham wrote:

In article <10v6phk$2or22$1@dont-email.me>,
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> [but hypocritically the worst spammer of them all] wrote:

Okay, I get it now. So the majority of this boils down to - he's
immoral because he doesn't hold left wing views.

He's immoral by any definition. People not accepting that says more
about them then anything else.

+1

I note ...

[The usual OT, and irrelevant to your own original point about Elon
Musk, right-wing diarrhoea snipped!]

IOW: You can't win the Elon Musk argument so you attempt to move the goalposts. When are you going to learn to debate like an adult?
--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website: www.macfh.co.uk

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

On Wed, 27 May 2026 08:16:29 -0000 (UTC)
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Broadband Over Mobile Network
Date: Wed, 27 May 2026 08:16:29 -0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.6.3 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
Newsgroups: uk.telecom.broadband
Organisation: A noiseless patient Spider

Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

In article <10upkpq$1gp7v$1@dont-email.me>,
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

Maybe so, but having core infrastructure at the mercy of and
dependent on someone as immoral as Musk is a risk not worth taking
in my book.

Do enlighten me why he's immoral? I'm unaware of why you might have
that opinion.

Sorry to be rude, but have you been living under a rock over the last
five years?

He called a british rescuer a paedophile on twitter - on what seems
like a whim - who had to take him up court to get him to stop.

The recent TV series The Elon Musk Show, which I believe was filmed in
2022, said that Musk had already apologised, but Unsworth felt
that he had to sue Musk to defend his reputation. I don't know which
version is correct, although I see confirmation that the offending
tweet was delete, but the idea of tackling someone as rich as Musk on a
point of view seemed rather risky.
--
Davey.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

In article <10v6phk$2or22$1@dont-email.me>,
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

In article <10v698s$2ke7l$1@dont-email.me>,

Okay, I get it now. So the majority of this boils down to - he's
immoral because he doesn't hold left wing views.

He's immoral by any definition. People not accepting that says more
about them then anything else.

I note the subtle ad hominem put in place there on only the second
sentence. The left wing playbook.

But I'm more than happy to accept that I don't hold left wing views.

Okay I'll tell you what I find deeply immoral.

<snip>

Nice attempt at whataboutism. You refuse to acknowledge anything I raised
and simply palmed it off as left-wing dogma.

Now you what me to engage with your political rant that no-one asked for.
lol.

You gave Bob an example of what you find to be immoral, and he responded in kind. ItrCOs nothing to do with rCOwhatabouteryrCO, itrCOs merely an exchange of
views.

He asked specifically about Elon Musk, which is what I responded to. He's broadened this to right vs left political rhetoric without engaging with
any point I raised. Disingenuous at best.

This is now massively OT and not worth continuing.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

In article <10v698s$2ke7l$1@dont-email.me>,
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

He turned twitter into a ring-wing echo chamber making it an unsafe
place for women and any minorities to be present.

I do apologise, I should have addressed this at the time.

How the blazes can you be "unsafe" reading & writing on your phone?

Do people fear their phones will explode?

Up to the point where Mr. Musk took charge of twitter it was heavily
filtered in favour of the woke left. Posts not with left views were
blocked. It was a left wing echo chamber, you've admitted as much
yourself.

When musk took over he stopped the filtering and bias and allowed
people from the right to speak, he did NOT filter out the left, no
right wing echo chanber. How unreasonable of him, free speech for all
how awful. The light of reality shone in the sacred hall of leftism
like dracula's castle at dawn.

This is why you think people felt unsafe afterwards isn't it? Because
left wing ideology could be called out, challenged, and dismantled by
reality and the world of fantasy collapses. Then all the Snowflakes
ran off to another platform. If they had a decent arguments that
wouldn't happen.

Bob.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

Social media can be used to influence election outcomes. Google must
have known this when they tried to take over usenet. They tried to take
it over, and then make everyone identify with a google account so they
could be tracked. This was perhaps the most important reason for
resisting, not the spam, the garbage and the HTML.

Social media can be unsafe for the vulnerable, just as vulnerable
software can be unsafe.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-facebooks-systems-promoted-violence-against-rohingya-meta-owes-reparations-new-report/
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

On 2026-06-01 09:49, Bob Latham wrote:

In article <10v698s$2ke7l$1@dont-email.me>,
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

He turned twitter into a ring-wing echo chamber making it an unsafe
place for women and any minorities to be present.

I do apologise, I should have addressed this at the time.

How the blazes can you be "unsafe" reading & writing on your phone?

Do people fear their phones will explode?

Up to the point where Mr. Musk took charge of twitter it was heavily
filtered in favour of the woke left. Posts not with left views were
blocked. It was a left wing echo chamber, you've admitted as much
yourself.

False opinion stated as if it were fact.

When musk took over he stopped the filtering and bias and allowed
people from the right to speak, he did NOT filter out the left, no
right wing echo chanber. How unreasonable of him, free speech for all
how awful. The light of reality shone in the sacred hall of leftism
like dracula's castle at dawn.

False opinion stated as if it were fact. The actual facts are believed
to be as follows:

https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/elon-musk-trump-x-algorithm-bias-b2640976.html

"Analysis of the social media platform rCo which the tech billionaire
acquired in 2022 rCo showed that Mr MuskrCOs posts saw a sudden increase in views and engagement shortly after he began endorsing Donald Trump for
US president.

[...]

rCLThe analysis of Elon MuskrCOs engagement metrics on X (formerly Twitter) reveals that MuskrCOs account exhibited distinct and elevated engagement patterns compared to other accounts, particularly around a key
structural change on 13 July, 2024,rCY the researchers wrote in a study detailing their analysis.

rCLThese findings underscore a distinct pattern that may indicate an algorithmic shift that disproportionately favoured MuskrCOs account, contributing to a considerable engagement advantage.rCY

The researchers studied more than 56,000 posts on X from a selection of Democrat-leaning and Republican-leaning accounts in order to provide a
basis of comparison for Mr MuskrCOs political posts.

Examining three engagement metrics rCo view counts, retweets and
favourites rCo the study found that the potential of algorithmic bias rCLfavoured [his] content in terms of visibility or recommendationrCY from
13 July onwards.

After this date, view counts of the billionairerCOs posts shot up by 138
per cent, while retweets rose by 238 per cent, suggesting that he
benefited from rCLan enhanced increase in visibility post-change relative
to other accountsrCY.

The results raise important questions about the potential impact of algorithmic adjustments on public discourse and the rCyneutralityrCO of
social media platforms, according to the researchers."

Note the 138% percent figure.

This is why you think people felt unsafe afterwards isn't it? Because
left wing ideology could be called out, challenged, and dismantled by
reality and the world of fantasy collapses. Then all the Snowflakes
ran off to another platform. If they had a decent arguments that
wouldn't happen.

The effects of the changes outlined above were to help a presidential candidate who by then was certainly a convicted felon and already widely suspected to be a Russian asset, suspicions that since have been
confirmed by his disastrous second term, as appended in detail below.

In summary, everything Trump does on the international stage either
favours Putin, for example the Iran war pushing up oil prices, or else
falls within "spheres of three superpower influence" (where Trump gets
to do what he likes in the Americas like Venezuela and Cuba, Putin gets
to do what he likes in Europe in general and Ukraine in particular, and
Xi gets to do what he likes in Asia).

If you don't want to wade through the evidence stacked up below, just
ask yourself one simple question: Trump is famous for publicly attacking
his political and other enemies, even including The Pope, so is there
any public figure whom he has never publicly criticised? Yes, his name
is Vladimir Putin.

And all this was enabled largely through Musk's support in biasing
Twitter/X to be a pro-Musk, and therefore pro-Trump, platform, rather
than an independent and unbiased one.

========

Trump's pro-Russian treachery ...

General evidence:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxZAvKlZ7qc
(mainly approximately first 10 mins)

More specifically:

1) As previously widely covered in various media stories, Russian
money and Russian investors in previous Trump ventures mean that he is beholden to them, and one wonders who bought most of the Trump meme coin released around the start of his second term, and how much influence
thereby those buyers have gained over him?


https://www.alternet.org/2017/01/donald-trump-was-bailed-out-bankruptcy-russia-crime-bosses
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsIntuxmXf0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5NWwcgyNZk (8:39 in)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/$Trump#Reception

2) As previously widely covered in various media stories, his early
visits to Russia, for example:


https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-russia-the-hidden-history-of-trumps-first-trip-to-moscow/

3) Famously once remarked that he trusted Putin more than he trusted
his own security services.

4) Appointing known Russian sympathisers to administration positions
at different levels, potentially significantly compromising US security specifically and Western security more generally. The many examples
include ...

J D Vance - Vance's advancement in life has been funded by
Peter Thiel, who, as the Epstein papers have
revealed, had some involvement in Epstein's
Russian connections and is a possible Russian
asset. Unsurprisingly therefore, Vance himself
has often publicly parroted pro-Russian or pro-
Putin propaganda, and led the attempted
humiliation of President Zelensky in the Oval
Office.

Tulsi Gabbard - Probable Russian asset appointed as DNI (Jeez!),
but thankfully has now resigned, but one wonders
how much damage has already been done.

Sergio Gor - Born Sergey Gorokhovsky in Tashkent. Another
probable/possible Russian asset. Formerly he was
Director of the White House Presidential Personnel
Office from Nov 24 to August 25, now US Ambassador
to India. There was much controversy about his
time in the WH because of his murky past and the
fact that he had never had proper security
clearance for the role, yet in that role was
responsible for ensuring that other WH employees
had proper security clearance.

5) Gave badly needed Covid-19 testing equipment to Putin during the
height of the pandemic.

6) Russian style of 'negotiation', as described by Kaja Kallas:
Demand the max, don't give an inch, so that in the end you come away
with something that you've never had before.

7) Russian psychological mixture of self-proclaimed victimhood,
conceit, vengefulness, and cruelty: "They stole the election from me",
"I will stop that war within 24 hours", "Crooked Joe Biden", "You
haven't got the cards!".

8) Posturing over Panama Canal, Greenland, & Canada exactly like
Russia's posturing over former Soviet Block states;

9) Like Russia, breaks existing agreements, for example the current so-called 'tariff wars' breaking previous economic agreements with
formerly well-respected allies, agreements which were working perfectly satisfactorily in the view of most economists and politicians.

10) The tariffs themselves when used in such a widespread way become
a mechanism of a managed rather than a free-market economy, exactly
contrary to traditional Republican and conservative principles and
suggestive of Communism, the well-documented economic failure of which
doesn't seem to deter Trump. Particularly, the intended reduction of imbalance of trade mirrors what the Soviet Union tried to do in
manufacturing everything they needed internally, which was one of the
factors leading to its collapse.

11) Repeats Russian propaganda unquestioningly, such as the 'hundreds
of surrounded Ukrainian fighters' towards the end of the Ukrainian
incursion into Kursk, whom he 'begged Putin to spare', but who were
never surrounded to need anyone's mercy; meanwhile there are countless
videos of Ukrainian PoWs who have surrendered to the Russians being
summarily executed, countless well-documented accounts of children being killed by Russian strikes on civilian infrastructure, countless children abducted for 'Russification' in Russia, and video evidence being posted
online by Russians themselves of Ukrainian civilians in Kherson being
hunted and killed by Russian drones, all of which are blatant war
crimes, and Russia's own soldiers are being brutally sacrificed in a
useless war to the extent that even cripples on crutches are being sent
back to the front to hobble towards Ukrainian positions so that they
will be killed and the state won't have to pay for their medical
treatment, so does anyone really think that Putin would genuinely spare
any Ukrainian unless he happened in a particular case to have a
particular reason for doing so?

12) Russian styles of propaganda: a) Hijack the news to distract
from coverage of adverse events: for example, when there is a NATO
meeting concerning the war, or a meeting in Ukraine's peace process, the Russians often bomb a hospital or a children's playground so that the
news is filled with that rather than the adverse event - it doesn't
matter to them that what they do is a war crime or atrocity, all the
better for hijacking the news, and anyway they'll have no shame about
lying that they were bombing military personnel, regardless of how
publicly and freely available the undeniable evidence to the contrary. Similarly, during the presidential election debate, which most agree was
being and was won by Harris, "They're eating the pets", it didn't matter
that this was a blatant lie, it partially hijacked the news cycle away
from Harris' success.

13) Russian styles of propaganda: b) The Firehose Of Falsehood:
Create so many narratives that people get confused into a sense that
there is no longer any absolute undeniable truth; MAGA generally and
Trump particularly are famous for making multiple false claims at the
same time, often in the same sentence, some of which may even be
mutually contradictory.

14) Russian styles of propaganda: c) Create imagined enemies from
which only the 'great leader' can save the nation, so Putin creates
unfounded fears in Russia regarding NATO etc, while Trump creates fears
in America regarding 'wokeness', the 'deep state', and other
non-existent or non-threatening alleged 'threats', which twats like you believe unquestioningly.

15) Russian styles of propaganda: d) Accuse enemies of exactly
what you are doing or about to do. For example, Russia falsely accuses Ukraine of having bio-warfare labs, yet itself constantly uses chemical weapons in the war. Similarly, Trump constantly accuses political
opponents of having done things he has done himself, as described here:

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/24/opinions/trumps-absurd-projection-reveals-his-anxiety-avlon/index.html

16) Seems to be trying to make come true the unhinged plan of his
uncle outlined in the following video, hence his doomed attempt at re-alignment with Russia, who obviously are using this obsession to play
him like a hooked fish (Trump 31 mins in, but my advice is to watch it
all to gain a better historical perspective):

Top Investigative Journalist EXPOSES TRUMP-MAGA-PUTIN Links https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tBX94b4vCw

17) Defends Sumy strike killing over 30 civilians as a 'mistake' on
no tangible evidence.
--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website: www.macfh.co.uk

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

In article <10vnmh1$36cu1$2@dont-email.me>,
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

Surely, X is only the cesspit it's made out to be if you choose to
follow the political (and other) ranters (such as Messrs Musk,
Trump, etc. [whichever "side" they're on])? More generally, every
person's X feed is, surely, different, depending on who they
follow; mine contains pictures of cats in shops, word games,
pictures of the sea from a Northumberland window, posts from a
rather fun French lady on the ISS, posts from a rather fun lady
historian, things from the office of national statistics, quotes
from A. A. (and sometimes C. R.) Milne, posts from the University
of Warwick campus cat, BBC headlines, and the occasional advert;
the only (arguably) political posts I take are those from the
Moscow Correspondent, and even those are sometimes him playing the
piano instead (which he's very good at). So I don't see any of the
"cesspit" stuff - and I'm sure I'm not alone.

It's the only _modern_ "social media" I take; I take usenet 'groups
(though not currently any political ones unless you count the
Archers!), which is of course social media, just not one most
people have heard of. I don't like Facebook, not for any
political-type reason but because I can't stand how a Facebook page
works technically; I'm not on Instagram or WhatsApp because I fail
to see what they'd do for me that email (and perhaps text
messaging) don't, and don't want to have yet another thing I have
to follow. I'm not sure what being "on" TikTok would mean; AFAICS
it's just a video thing like YouTube (which I do use, and comment
on, though I've never posted a video there).

Yes, I think I can agree with most of that. Not the BBC obviously,
they're too awful, I only see them when people quote their mad woke
output.

If you don't like what someone is saying, switch them off, block them
- whatever, don't go all snowflake because "we are offended" crap is
just controlling the narrative it's false and poor acting.

Though it does help if you have blue hair. ;-)

Bob.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

On 2026-06-03 09:08, Bob Latham wrote:

In article <10vnmh1$36cu1$2@dont-email.me>,
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

[Many big snips in the quote chain]

WHOOSH! Obviously the entire discussion above went way over your head.
--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website: www.macfh.co.uk

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

On 2026/6/3 13:58:48, Java Jive wrote:

On 2026-06-03 09:08, Bob Latham wrote:

In article <10vnmh1$36cu1$2@dont-email.me>,
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

[Many big snips in the quote chain]

I'm not sure what you meant by that; certainly, in any followup I post,
I take quite a lot of care to ensure the attribution lines remain so
that it is clear who said what.

WHOOSH! Obviously the entire discussion above went way over your head.

What, you mean the thread about "Broadband Over Mobile Network" in the newsgroup "uk.telecom.broadband" that had been perverted into a rant
against Twitter/X and its owners (I have no love of them - or, most of
the time, their detractors either), having no relevance to either the
subject or the newsgroup?

I too am not innocent of contributing to thread wander. But at least I
don't criticise others who do so!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Veni, Vidi, Video (I came, I saw, I'll watch it again later)
- Mik from S+AS Limited (mik@saslimited.demon.co.uk), 1998
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

On 2026-06-04 00:06, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2026/6/3 13:58:48, Java Jive wrote:

On 2026-06-03 09:08, Bob Latham wrote:

In article <10vnmh1$36cu1$2@dont-email.me>,
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

[Many big snips in the quote chain]

WHOOSH! Obviously the entire discussion above went way over your head.

[Another snip]

You seem to have missed the fact that I was replying to Bob Lie-To-Them,
not you :-)
--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website: www.macfh.co.uk

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

On 2026/6/4 3:32:18, Java Jive wrote:

On 2026-06-04 00:06, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2026/6/3 13:58:48, Java Jive wrote:

On 2026-06-03 09:08, Bob Latham wrote:

In article <10vnmh1$36cu1$2@dont-email.me>,
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

[Many big snips in the quote chain]

WHOOSH! Obviously the entire discussion above went way over your head.

[Another snip]

You seem to have missed the fact that I was replying to Bob Lie-To-Them,
not you :-)

Ah, sorry about that. Yes, it's easy to get who-said-what wrong!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

When I was young, I was poor. Now, after years of hard work, I am no
longer young.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

(OT for the thread and 'group)

On 2026/6/2 16:44:18, Java Jive wrote:

On 2026-06-01 09:49, Bob Latham wrote:

In article <10v698s$2ke7l$1@dont-email.me>,
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

He turned twitter into a ring-wing echo chamber making it an unsafe
place for women and any minorities to be present.

[]
And much more about Twitter/X.

Surely, X is only the cesspit it's made out to be if you choose to
follow the political (and other) ranters (such as Messrs Musk, Trump,
etc. [whichever "side" they're on])? More generally, every person's X
feed is, surely, different, depending on who they follow; mine contains pictures of cats in shops, word games, pictures of the sea from a Northumberland window, posts from a rather fun French lady on the ISS,
posts from a rather fun lady historian, things from the office of
national statistics, quotes from A. A. (and sometimes C. R.) Milne,
posts from the University of Warwick campus cat, BBC headlines, and the occasional advert; the only (arguably) political posts I take are those
from the Moscow Correspondent, and even those are sometimes him playing
the piano instead (which he's very good at). So I don't see any of the "cesspit" stuff - and I'm sure I'm not alone.

It's the only _modern_ "social media" I take; I take usenet 'groups
(though not currently any political ones unless you count the Archers!),
which is of course social media, just not one most people have heard of.
I don't like Facebook, not for any political-type reason but because I
can't stand how a Facebook page works technically; I'm not on Instagram
or WhatsApp because I fail to see what they'd do for me that email (and
perhaps text messaging) don't, and don't want to have yet another thing
I have to follow. I'm not sure what being "on" TikTok would mean; AFAICS
it's just a video thing like YouTube (which I do use, and comment on,
though I've never posted a video there).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

offensive speech is something to be protected, not celebrated.
- "yoni", 2015-8-5
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2