By Filippo Menczer
Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter on Oct. 27, 2022 has triggered renewed debate about what it means for the future of the social media platform, which plays an important role in determining the news and information many people – especially Americans – are exposed to.
In addition to expanding Twitter’s features, Musk has said he wants to make it an arena for free speech. What that means has fueled much speculation and raised concerns about the effect the acquisition will have on the 2022 midterm elections – and use of the platform by politicians more generally going forward. Musk sought to allay fears the day the acquisition closed in a message to advertisers saying he recognized that the platform cannot become “a free-for-all hellscape.”
As a corporation, Twitter can regulate speech on its platform as it chooses. There are bills being considered in the U.S. Congress and by the European Union that address social media regulation, but these are about transparency, accountability, illegal harmful content and protecting users’ rights, rather than regulating speech.
Musk’s calls for free speech on Twitter focus on two allegations: political bias and excessive moderation. As researchers of online misinformation and manipulation, my colleagues and I at the Indiana University Observatory on Social Media study the dynamics and impact of Twitter and its abuse. To make sense of Musk’s statements and the possible outcomes of his acquisition, let’s look at what the research shows.
Political bias
Many conservative politicians and pundits have alleged for years that major social media platforms, including Twitter, have a liberal political bias amounting to censorship of conservative opinions. These claims are based on anecdotal evidence. For example, many partisans whose tweets were labeled as misleading and downranked, or whose accounts were suspended for violating the platform’s terms of service, claim that Twitter targeted them because of their political views.
Unfortunately, Twitter and other platforms often inconsistently enforce their policies, so it is easy to find examples supporting one conspiracy theory or another. A review by the Center for Business and Human Rights at New York University has found no reliable evidence in support of the claim of anti-conservative bias by social media companies, even labeling the claim itself a form of disinformation.
A more direct evaluation of political bias by Twitter is difficult because of the complex interactions between people and algorithms. People, of course, have political biases. For example, our experiments with political social bots revealed that Republican users are more likely to mistake conservative bots for humans, whereas Democratic users are more likely to mistake conservative human users for bots.
To remove human bias from the equation in our experiments, we deployed a bunch of benign social bots on Twitter. Each of these bots started by following one news source, with some bots following a liberal source and others a conservative one. After that initial friend, all bots were left alone to “drift” in the information ecosystem for a few months. They could gain followers. They acted according to an identical algorithmic behavior. This included following or following back random accounts, tweeting meaningless content and retweeting or copying random posts in their feed.
But this behavior was politically neutral, with no understanding of content seen or posted. We tracked the bots to probe political biases emerging from how Twitter works or how users interact.
Filippo Menczer, CC BY-ND
Surprisingly, our research provided evidence that Twitter has a conservative, rather than a liberal bias. On average, accounts are drawn toward the conservative side. Liberal accounts were exposed to moderate content, which shifted their experience toward the political center, while the interactions of right-leaning accounts were skewed toward posting conservative content. Accounts that followed conservative news sources also received more politically aligned followers, becoming embedded in denser echo chambers and gaining influence within those partisan communities.
These differences in experiences and actions can be attributed to interactions with users and information mediated by the social media platform. But we could not directly examine the possible bias in Twitter’s news feed algorithm, because the actual ranking of posts in the “home timeline” is not available to outside researchers.
Researchers from Twitter, however, were able to audit the effects of their ranking algorithm on political content, unveiling that the political right enjoys higher amplification compared to the political left. Their experiment showed that in six out of seven countries studied, conservative politicians enjoy higher algorithmic amplification than liberal ones. They also found that algorithmic amplification favors right-leaning news sources in the U.S.
Our research and the research from Twitter show that Musk’s apparent concern about bias on Twitter against conservatives is unfounded.
Referees or censors?
The other allegation that Musk seems to be making is that excessive moderation stifles free speech on Twitter. The concept of a free marketplace of ideas is rooted in John Milton’s centuries-old reasoning that truth prevails in a free and open exchange of ideas. This view is often cited as the basis for arguments against moderation: accurate, relevant, timely information should emerge spontaneously from the interactions among users.
Unfortunately, several aspects of modern social media hinder the free marketplace of ideas. Limited attention and confirmation bias increase vulnerability to misinformation. Engagement-based ranking can amplify noise and manipulation, and the structure of information networks can distort perceptions and be “gerrymandered” to favor one group.
As a result, social media users have in past years become victims of manipulation by “astroturf” causes, trolling and misinformation. Abuse is facilitated by social bots and coordinated networks that create the appearance of human crowds.
We and other researchers have observed these inauthentic accounts amplifying disinformation, influencing elections, committing financial fraud, infiltrating vulnerable communities and disrupting communication. Musk has tweeted that he wants to defeat spam bots and authenticate humans, but these are neither easy nor necessarily effective solutions.
Inauthentic accounts are used for malicious purposes beyond spam and are hard to detect, especially when they are operated by people in conjunction with software algorithms. And removing anonymity may harm vulnerable groups. In recent years, Twitter has enacted policies and systems to moderate abuses by aggressively suspending accounts and networks displaying inauthentic coordinated behaviors. A weakening of these moderation policies may make abuse rampant again.
Manipulating Twitter
Despite Twitter’s recent progress, integrity is still a challenge on the platform. Our lab has found new types of sophisticated manipulation, which we presented at the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media in June 2022. Malicious users exploit so-called “follow trains” – groups of people who follow each other on Twitter – to rapidly boost their followers and create large, dense hyperpartisan echo chambers that amplify toxic content from low-credibility and conspiratorial sources.
Another effective malicious technique is to post and then strategically delete content that violates platform terms after it has served its purpose. Even Twitter’s high limit of 2,400 tweets per day can be circumvented through deletions: We identified many accounts that flood the network with tens of thousands of tweets per day.
We also found coordinated networks that engage in repetitive likes and unlikes of content that is eventually deleted, which can manipulate ranking algorithms. These techniques enable malicious users to inflate content popularity while evading detection.
Musk’s plans for Twitter are unlikely to do anything about these manipulative behaviors.
Content moderation and free speech
Musk’s acquisition of Twitter raises concerns that the social media platform could decrease its content moderation. This body of research shows that stronger, not weaker, moderation of the information ecosystem is called for to combat harmful misinformation.
It also shows that weaker moderation policies would ironically hurt free speech: The voices of real users would be drowned out by malicious users who manipulate Twitter through inauthentic accounts, bots and echo chambers.
This article has been update to include the completion of Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter.
Filippo Menczer is Professor of Informatics and Computer Science at Indiana University.
The Conversation arose out of deep-seated concerns for the fading quality of our public discourse and recognition of the vital role that academic experts could play in the public arena. Information has always been essential to democracy. It’s a societal good, like clean water. But many now find it difficult to put their trust in the media and experts who have spent years researching a topic. Instead, they listen to those who have the loudest voices. Those uninformed views are amplified by social media networks that reward those who spark outrage instead of insight or thoughtful discussion. The Conversation seeks to be part of the solution to this problem, to raise up the voices of true experts and to make their knowledge available to everyone. The Conversation publishes nightly at 9 p.m. on FlaglerLive.
FlaglerLive relies on a strong core of donors. But they’re just a fraction of the 25,000 readers who daily depend on FlaglerLive for reliable, fearless reporting and analysis you cannot get anywhere else. If you’re still on the sidelines, we need you to join the Friends of FlaglerLive today. Elections, storms, the latest catastrophe - when dependable and factual local reporting will be more essential than ever, take a stand for integrity and have a direct voice in fostering serious journalism in your community. As little as $10 makes a difference, or better still, become a monthly donor: Become a "Friend of" FlaglerLive, a 501(c)(3) non-profit news organization. Donations are tax deductible. Think of it as buying a "scoop", in every sense of the term!
Reader Interactions
Comments
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Shelly says
You just can’t stand the fact that Twitter will no longer be able to suppress people and the truth.
Brian Chrestoff says
Filippo Menczer is Wrong: His remarks and reasoning are taken straight from Soviet era policy for disseminating rulings and political action items published in Pravda (The “Truth”) by the Central Committee to be carried out by activist and lower Party Officials. “Only by Controlling the content of public debate can you truly experience freedom of speech”. For Mr. Menczer to use Twitter Researchers and their amazing algorithms as his source of data to justify his opinions is your first clue that he has no idea the depth of political divide that has taken hold in this country because of organizations like Twitter and Facebook that have used their selective policies to control the debate taking place on social media during the last election cycle. Elon Musk personally fired the Gang of Four at Twitter who were responsible for not allowing public discussion on Twitter regarding Hunter Biden’s laptop contents. I’d say Elon has made his feelings known. Mr. Menczer’s implied defense of Twitter’s Chief Executives and their Content Control policies that cut off important debate during the last presidential election cycle in my opinion leaves him with no standing in this discussion. I’m sure Mr. Musk would find many of Mr. Menczer’s comments here to be nothing more than “harmful misinformation” (I did) but has made it clear they should not be censored just because he disagrees with Mr. Menczer. No one is suggesting that we will benefit from an “anything goes” policy, but it is time to put an end to the Facebook and Twitter policies that target the Right and divide this country in a way that benefits no one.
The dude says
“Targeting the right” = “fact checking”
If the morons on the right could or would get their facts right, maybe they wouldn’t get “targeted” lying is a sin.
Lying to all the dullards and tribal morons who believe anything they’re told by their QAnon masters is even worse.
They don’t even try to find “truth” they just spit out whatever invective they think will get their MAGAts all riled up and make them live in fear.
Deborah Coffey says
Here’s hoping everyone realizes that Elon Musk is a very unstable genius. He loves all this attention, which just makes him crazier. Maybe we should put him back under his rock and stop reporting on him.
Dennis C Rathsam says
Free speech at last!!!!! America was born on free speech, but all the social platforms kill any story the government tells them to. Joe Biden who have never been elected president if they didnt kill the Biden,s son laptop story. FBI & CIA said it was Russian interfearence….POPPYCOCK!!!!! Social media control on whats written will now stop on Twitter. The truth will be told, not the democratic lies of the past. Thanx Elon a job well done…The days of lies finally comes to an end. God Bless America.
Laurel says
Dennis: You are a perfect example of how confirmation bias effects people.
Jimbo99 says
Give Musk a shot at saving Twitter, couldn’t be any worse than giving Biden a shot at saving Democracy.
The dude says
Glad we can agree that President Biden is trying to save democracy from the MAGAt crowd.
Well done, there’s hope yet.
Timothy Patrick Welch says
Danger…
Moderation should only be based on common decency, similar to other media broadcast rules.
Other moderation ultimately limits free speech and allows for content manipulation and abuse.
Edith Campins says
No, this isn’t about free speech. It is about giving extreme elements of society a voice.
“One account, created this month, included a Nazi swastika as its profile picture and retweeted quotes from Musk alongside antisemitic memes. Another tweet, showing a video montage glorifying Nazi Germany with the comment, “I hear that there have been some changes around here,” was liked more than 400 times.
The Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI), a group that analyzes hundreds of millions of messages across social media, said use of the n-word on the app spiked nearly 500 percent over the 12 hours after Musk’s deal was finalized.
By Friday afternoon, misogynistic and anti-LGBTQ messages had become increasingly prominent, including from accounts calling for the harassment and misnaming of transgender people or the use of terms, like “groomer,” to insinuate that they sexually recruit children.
It is really about lies, vulgarity and hate.
Brian Chrestoff says
Edith………Most folks here have never heard of the NCRI. I have and am aware one of its very reasons for their very existence is to convince Americans that the Political Right is a threat to their Democracy. I consider your boldfaced attempt to use, as you point out, ONE account that had a Swastika as its profile picture along w/ retweets of past comments by Mr. Musk next to antisemitic memes as some implied proof you have that Conservatives are White Supremacists and Elon has now joined up to support them is exactly an example of the “extreme elements” and their behavior on social media that you complain about. There are many research organizations that use very clever and amazing algorithms that analyze social media postings that can show evidence that issues the Left, and you, feels are important and should be supported are in fact very harmful to us as a country. There are 3.96 billion social media users every day and you point to an increase of 400 incidences of people glorifying the Nazi’s horrible crimes against humanity as proof that Elon Musk and his Conservative allies are somehow to blame and should be silenced. Your first clue that the Left’s sexual orientation agenda is going sideways is the “Drop The T” movement. The original “LGB” movement can see the lunacy the addition of the T has brought upon them. The fact you are 180 degrees apart from me in your belief system (based on your comments above) does not mean I think you are a liar, vulgar and filled w/ hate. You are angry to be sure and you have every right to express those opinions here or in private but please……….stop insinuating that my Conservative friends or I are responsible for the ills of the world that those you support at the polls are responsible for.
Edith Campins says
Watch this and tell me that these vulgarities and hate filled posts and tell me that Musk hasn’t given them a voice and a platform. These comments are demeanig to free speech.
Jonathan says
Another millionare that spreads propaganda, hate and lives. What’s wrong with these rich people that have so much hate and promote conspiracy theories and violence. They sure give all rich people a bad name. It’s time the DOJ starts recognizing the domestic terriorists in our country and starts prosecuting them, it is getting out of hand.
Brian Chrestoff says
Now who here is spreading propaganda, hate and lives……I mean lies? How is anyone supposed to take a comment like this seriously?
Pogo says
@All too familiar
“I smell blood and an era of prominent madmen.”
― W.H. Auden
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._H._Auden
@Vote!
https://desantiswatch.org/influence-watch/?akid=12050.47960.E1y_4z&rd=1&t=8
James says
As I’ve said once before, I sure would have liked to see him “settle back” and focus on his car company.
What’s wrong with going down in history just as a great automotive innovator, industrialist?
In my opinion, he can either end up as a modern day Henry Ford… or eventually as a modern day version of Howard Hughes.
Again just an opinion.
James says
His cars seem to catch on fire, not safe for sure. He needs to get in one of his spaceships with Donald and Jr. and fly to the moon on a one way ride never to return.
Our world would be a safer and happier place for sure.
James says
“Two tickets to paradise! Pack your bags we leave tonight… hum, hum, hum… yada, yada, yada… I’ve got two tickets to Paarraaaaaaaadice” – Eddie Money
“Only two dad?” – Donald Trump Jr.
Ray W. says
Can it be argued that Pogo posts the most inciteful comment pertaining to this article thus far? I am not arguing that content rules suppress or encourage free speech. I suppose that a cursory reading of the various comments posted on FlaglerLive proves the importance of the wide variety of free speech available to FlaglerLive readers. I think I understand, and I try to accept that Mr. Tristam imposes limits on some of the content that is submitted to the site, presumably because of the malicious nature of a significant number of commenters on the site. Malice, defined in the law as, “ill will or hatred directed to the person or property of another”, is not just harmful but destructive. Should malice be supported? Tough question in a free speech context. Is the smell of blood and the presence of madmen among us apropos in the context of the choices posed by the author of the article?
Perhaps the argument can be framed in this context: Can it be argued that no single one of us can fully and completely comprehend the magnitude of the current smell of blood on our streets and the ever-rising level of insanity displayed by certain of the prominent madmen among us because we live in our own small worlds, unable to conceive of the entire magnitude of what really is going on around us? Can it be argued that the likes of Dennis C. Rathsam, who repeatedly presents as a commenter who is so removed from today’s reality that it appears that he lives in a dreamworld defined by the necessity and intensity of his effort to see reality as an enemy that must be defeated? In Mr. Rathsam’s fantasy world, if only he tries harder to repeat his errant thoughts often enough, he will be the one who is responsible for a rising red tide that he hopes will sweep liberalism in all its forms out of Congress.
One of my earliest comments on this site pertained to a certain local politician’s radio show comment about beheading Democrats. I argued then that the politician really meant what he said, as did so many of the other like-minded politicians around the country, and I argue today that they still mean what they say. Is it out of malice that a certain television commenter inferred that the hammer attack on Mr. Pelosi might have been derived from a “tryst”, with the use of that term implying sexual activity between the two men, a comment devoid of any evidence, a comment based solely on conjecture? I refer FlaglerLive readers to reread the definition of malice described above.
I occasionally write of a 2015 conversation with my oldest daughter, who called to discuss her worries about rising politically violent content on social media sites. I tried to reassure her by commenting that America periodically gets a stomachache and just needs to throw up every once in a while. After Trump announced his candidacy and began speaking to ever growing crowds of people suffering from stomachaches, I called my daughter and apologized to her, stating that I had been wrong. America didn’t have a stomachache; it was entering into a long-term cycle of violence that would last for years and perhaps for decades. I told her that I based my thoughts on a long-term cycle of violence that engulfed western Europe and the United States from around 1890 to 1915, as detailed in Tuchman’s “The Proud Tower.”
In time, I posted comments that Putin had stated a few years earlier to a Financial Times reporter that he believed that “liberalism” had become obsolete, in the sense that the rule of law had become obsolete, that democracy had become obsolete, and that human rights had become obsolete. Was it a reliance on this belief that today’s liberal governments, vastly outnumbered by the autocratic and authoritarian governments predominating around the world, had become obsolete that prompted Putin to test the strength and endurance of the democracies of the world by invading the Ukraine?
I later added comments based on C.S. Lewis’ “The Abolition of Man”, in which he argued that there would come a time when one generation of humans would build upon the knowledge left to them from prior generations. This one superhuman generation, according to Lewis, in the chapter “Men Without Chests”, would achieve the capacity to create a new man in its own imperfect image of what mankind should be, thereby erasing the divine spark of inspiration that makes us all human. To Lewis, that superhuman generation would amass enough knowledge to know how to clone humans, to know how to control human minds through mass media, and to know how to engage in eugenics manipulations to the extent that what had been given to us by God, that divine spark of creation, would cease to exist. This generation would abolish humanity and that all succeeding generations of humans, now lacking God’s divine spark of creation, would inevitably decline to insignificance.
Was C.S. Lewis correct in his musings? Have we reached a point where we have learned to wield social media in a manner that presages the abolition of man? Have we reached a point where unfettered mis-and disinformation sustains various authoritarian governments in a manner that encourages them to attack all democracies? Have we entered into an age where a democratic populace’s capacity to see reality as an enemy to be defeated is to be encouraged and refined by distant authoritarian governments and that efforts for a populace to see reality as truth is discouraged and disparaged by those same distant authoritarian governments?
Frankly, I don’t know the answer to those two points. The only thing I think is supportable is that no one else knows either, which brings me to the important question posed by Alexander Hamilton in the first paragraph of Federalist Paper #1, a question I have posted many times. For the first time, I will post the entire first paragraph.
“After an unequivocal experience of the inefficiency of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America. The subject speaks of its own importance; comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the UNION, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world. It has frequently been remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident or force. If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind.”
I argue that while the ratifying process took time and was quite close, our founding fathers chose reason and choice, and rejected accident or force (accident meaning accident of royal birth order and force meaning tyranny by all authoritarian means); they reasoned and chose to establish the liberal democratic Constitutional republic of Hamilton’s desires, but he also recognized who would oppose such a government.
In the third paragraph of Federalist Paper #1, Hamilton wrote:
“Among the most formidable of the obstacles which the new Constitution will have to encounter may readily be distinguished the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every State to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power, emolument and consequence of the offices they hold under the State establishments; and the perverted ambition of another class of men who will either hope to aggrandize themselves by the confusions of their country, or will flatter themselves with fairer prospects of elevation from the subdivision of the empire into several partial confederacies than from its union under one government.”
Perhaps Hamilton was on to something. Perhaps, mankind is forever destined to be ruled by kings or dictators. There doesn’t seem to me to be any shortage of people among us who would be kings, if only they could somehow seize power.
In summary, I accept that I do not know the answer to the question of whether and to what extent content should be moderated on social media sites. I do know that certain political figures should never be given the power to establish content boundaries. I can only hope the Elon Musk is capable of concerning himself with the question whether and how best to moderate content, and that he considers that question to be one of the great questions, meaning that it unanswerable, but that he must always strive to answer it. I attribute this paraphrased comment to Abraham Lincoln, knowing fully that I may be wrong, but it is claimed that Lincoln said that all great problems are unsolvable. If a problem is solvable, it cannot be a great problem.
Far too many FlaglerLive commenters present themselves as persons capable of solving the many great problems that confront us, if only we all would do as they say. Since I believe that great problems are unsolvable, I reject anyone who claims to possess the capacity to solve great problems. Long ago I became aware of the philosophical principle that there are three great questions in each person’s life, each of which is unanswerable, but we must spend our lives striving to answer them: How shall I live my life? How shall I be governed? How do I know what I know? Any other approach seems way too submissive to authoritarianism thought to me.
James says
Well, as they say in computer science, some problems are harder than others… and then some are just intractable.
My question… why hasn’t Musk realized that?
Laurel says
Ray W.: Oh, you liberal, coastal elite, you! Just kidding. I may have an answer for you. There are overblown egos, and there are lemmings. There are a few who struggle with trying not to be either, but they are definitely in the minority. That leave the overblown egos with a hell of an audience.
The young people today think they have discovered free speech, and are taking credit for it. Lenny Bruce became infamous for using the word “fuck” repeatedly in his stand up performances, often getting himself arrested. His use of the word was, to his mind, to dilute it by making it mainstream, which decades later seems to be true. George Carlin had his “seven words you cannot say on television,” which now you can (one is still very taboo).
I think algorithms are to blame. They feed on, and regurgitate confirmation bias that people consume with a dark vigor. Personally, I won’t even click on a thumbs up or down on my TV apps. If I want “more like this” I’ll find it myself.
I don’t know, Twitter hate speech has increased dramatically since Musk took over. The word “nigger” (and there it is) increased 500%. So, do we let it go in the Lenny Bruce spirit? Or do we continue to let everyone know we still think it is rude, demeaning, and unacceptable? Actually, in African American circles, it is used freely. I don’t use it except for this comment today. I don’t like it; I won’t let it go when it hear it.
Hate speech is hate speech, and it seems to me to stem from low self esteem. I cannot figure out for the life of me what is so bad about Jews! How are they going to replace me? How are immigrants effecting me? I don’t see it. Hate speech is rude, ignorant and simply bad manners.
So, my humble response to your impressive comment is: Rewire the algorithms to seek non political, non religious, positive actions; ignore overblown egos and let the lemmings follow the kinder authorities; do not follow the hate speech; teach our kids manners, and work on their self esteem. Twitter can turn into Parlor and shrivel away.
Oh yeah, and get rid of lobbyists.
Ray W. says
Thank you, Laurel, for your interesting ideas, particularly the corrosive and often unexpected outcomes driven by hatred. .
John says
Musk is not different then Donald, rich and just enjoy getting attention even when it is dangerous to others or our country, neither of them care.
David S. says
Musk you are still a fool please keep your boy Trumpee off this network..
Ray W. says
While I readily concede that Brian Chrestoff may properly describe himself as a member of the political right, I remain unconvinced that he or any of his friends can accurately be defined as Conservatives. I do concede that today’s so-called conservative party greatly differs from the qualities that once and hopefully still defines true Conservatism. Oy vey!
When I studied conservative traditions, I came to realize that I was far more conservative that many of my so-called conservative friends, but I certainly cannot be said to occupy a space within today’s so-called conservative movement.
Mr. Chrestoff, please start describing yourself and your friends as s0-called conservatives. Intellectual rigor requires at least that much from you, once you begin to study true Conservatism. Whether you are a malicious so-called conservative remains open to debate.
One possible relevant argument is that our founding fathers hoped that our liberal democratic Constitutional republic would produce men (and women) of virtue, but they knew that partisan politics would produce other sorts of men and women, including persons such as Brian Chrestoff and his friends, which is why our founding fathers insisted on inserting checks and balances into their proposed Constitution for every delegated power; they never intended for any one person to hold unlimited power for an indeterminate period of time and they greatly feared mob rule.
As an aside, I think it arguable that our founding fathers opposed all partisan politics, but they accepted that human nature meant that partisan politics would always exist. In that sense, Brian Chrestoff is wrong to argue that the political right is not responsible for some or possibly much or most of today’s ills of the world. Of course, so too is the responsibility of the political left. Intellectual rigor requires that much. The very fact that Brian Chrestoff categorizes himself as he does supports the argument that our founding fathers knew he would exist and feared his existence enough to take steps to protect us all from people like him.
Brian Chrestoff says
Ray……..thank you for not calling me a liar, vulgar or a hater but please spare me your sophomoric attempts to articulate the difference between a so-called Conservative and a True Conservative like yourself. The problem w/ your post is you used it to attack me for reasons you never really made clear other than your apparent belief in your superiority to myself and fellow Conservatives.
Sorry,,,,,,,,,so called Conservatives.
Brian Chrestoff says
Really Ray?………..the Founding Fathers feared I would exist and took steps to protect everyone from my opinions?
When you get time away from the mirror look up Intellectual Rigor.
The only real difference between you and I is you choose to hide behind a W.
Ray W. says
Yes, our founding fathers feared I would exist, too. That one is easy to accept. I have long understood that when I swore the prosecutor’s oath to seek justice, I immediately became the person the founding fathers feared. Anyone accepting any delegated political power was to be questioned and feared. I have always taken the position that our founding fathers were quite prescient about human nature. They really did know that people like you would always exist, and they took steps to limit your impact on society. You brought on my comment all by yourself. Just accept it and move on.
As an aside, I listened to a portion of an interview of a high-ranking Republican who had written an op-ed acknowledging the Republican role in today’s politically violent rhetoric. He was the originator of the first Republican effort to use a bus tour to politicize a “fire Pelosi” campaign. He regrets today that action. He termed the Republican role in today’s politically violent speech as “original sin.” He did, also, focus on his belief that today’s Democratic Party has stepped into the madness and shares the blame, just not the original blame.
Laurel says
Ray W.: Absolutely! As an NPA, I have backed the Democrats repeatedly on this forum. My motivation was the craziness that is currently infiltrating our society. The worse the Republican candidate is, the more people like him/her. Truth is no longer of interest to half the country.
Reality is, no matter which party is in charge, we lose more of our rights.
*sigh*
James says
I don’t know about all you other folks out there, but I’m wondering who’s “Ray W.” and “Brian Chrestoff???” They remind of that Star Trek episode “The Alternative Factor” (not a trekkie, I just looked it up on wikipedia… hey, this did start out as an article on Musk right?). I mean weren’t those two guys locked in the “dimensional corridor gateway” or something?
Just an observation.
FlaglerLive says
Ray W. Has never made a secret of his identity (his columns have appeared here under his full name), though he chooses here to go with the first initial of his last name, which we respect. As any reader of his comments know, he was for many years one of our leading Assistant Public Defenders in the Seventh Judicial Circuit, assigned to major cases, including death penalty cases, and is the son of Dan Warren, whose name needs no introduction, and Judge Stacia Warren. We have no clue who Mr. Chrestoff is, though a quick Google search suggests a person with the same name is a member of a regional Cadillac Club.
James says
Thanks, for the clarification… as for me I’m the James that lives in Palm Coast. You know my last name (since it’s part of my email address which I’ve freely given you). And yes, I choose to remain as anonymous as I can, for as long as I can… I didn’t move here to run for public office… or to be clubbed to death.
FYI… And no, I’m not a member of the regional Cadillac Club (nor do I want to be).
Ray W. says
To me, James provides one of the better elements of FlaglerLive commenting. Another commenter brings a new and interesting perspective to a comment thread. Thank you, James.
As I have long been intrigued by Hegel’s famous Hypothesis, Antithesis, Synthesis trinity, I accept that a comment (hypothesis) may draw out an immediate antithesis from an unexpected commenter. The clash between the hypothesis and the antithesis can drive the original comment toward a synthesis that very well might be unexpected. Who knew? Star Trek? Is the left side of Brian Chrestoff’s face black or white? Good comment.
Pogo says
@And so it went
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4_9uGIo6Ks
@Goddamn it — VOTE!
https://desantiswatch.org/influence-watch/?akid=12050.47960.E1y_4z&rd=1&t=8