Free Bird

So now Elon's only choice to make money will be to scrub, spider and sell personal data. Got a billion in interest to pay back each year.

I thought the GOP was about fiscal conservatism and preserving jobs? Originally Posted by going4itnow

No, Elon has lots of ways to make money. But I really don't care if he does and he didn't buy Twitter to make a ton of money. After all, he wanted to ensure there was free speech on Twitter and he has big time Fuck You money to do what he wants.

And no, being conservative is not about preserving needless jobs of libtards who hate half the population. Part of being fiscally conservative is not wasting money and instead right sizing the size of your staff

These Twitter employees whining about losing their jobs today sure didn’t give a fuck a large numbers of Conservative accounts were unfairly banned, some with huge accounts. They thought it was funny.

The entire “Content Curation Team” was reportedly fired. Their job was to monitor the trending section and add “context” that fit their narrative. They were also responsible for choosing which news/propaganda to display to you at the top

Elon Musk has fired the Curation team, the Human Rights team, the Climate team and the Ethics, Transparency, and Accountability team among others.

Also other areas most impacted with cuts were product trust and safety, policy, communications, ethical AI, data science, research, machine learning, social good, accessibility.

Why the fuck does a social media company need all this bullshit? No wonder Twitter was losing money - it was run by libtard morons employing over twice as many libtard morons than it needed.

Oh My - what a beat down of the corrupt media by Elon

What’s funny is that all of these journalists like Kyle Grantham complaining to Elon Musk who think they are the true source of legitimate information all doubted the legitimacy of the Hunter Biden Laptop story and covered it up instead of reporting on it.

Every Time:

And in less than an hour, Elon Musk got the Crazy Left to oppose permanent bans for impersonating another person, something that has always been against Twitter's terms of service.

It’s really amazing how the libtards on Twitter are suddenly coming to the defense of “protected” speech and opposing unfair bans. After conservatives have been banned unfairly for ages by the former Twitter Nazi's

BOOM this then leading to one of the greatest meme's ever

In another example of more woke left wing bullshit, Woke = left wing bullshit, when Elon Musk was making cuts at Twitter, executives recommended making sure they fired enough whites and men. Musk and his team brushed them off.

This is the sickness the left has brought to our country

They were concerned about disparate impact and the legal complications of Title VII claims if there were disproportional cuts.

That's not leftist sickness, that's part of the law of the land and their ethical and fiduciary responsibility to protect the company.

There are federal, state and potentially local implications to take into consideration there that any well-trained executive team should be concerned about.

They were concerned about disparate impact and the legal complications of Title VII claims if there were disproportional cuts.

That's not leftist sickness, that's part of the law of the land and their ethical and fiduciary responsibility to protect the company.
Originally Posted by HDGristle

No, that is not part of the law of the land. Discriminating by race, sex, etc is part of the law of the land. But no company has to employ quotas when they fire people on merit.

It's not like Musk said get rid of all the people of color. He asked his teams to cut the worst performers

Which means he understood the issues with disparate treatment and wanted a performance-based decision, but they were also looking at disparate impact because no specific intent is required as part of a DI claim.

That is absolutely part of the law of the land for which there is ample case law starting with the Supreme Court decision in Griggs v Duke Power back in 1971 and for which multiple levels of municipal jurisdictions have laws abd practices requiring similar review.

I know you may not personally agree with it, but the plethora of case law here means that they were trying to employ valid legal theory rather than simply woke folks trying to take jobs away from white people.

Which means he understood the issues with disparate treatment and wanted a performance-based decision, but they were also looking at disparate impact because no specific intent is required as part of a DI claim.

That is absolutely part of the law of the land for which there is ample case law starting with the Supreme Court decision in Griggs v Duke Power Originally Posted by HDGristle

Griggs v Duke Power is not apples to apples here and would not apply unless he imposed some arbitrary test. Since they made strictly performance based decisions, it was indeed some woke employees trying to use quotas.

In today's society, anyone can file a claim, regardless of intent. Doesn't mean they will succeed or that companies should stop doing the right thing by making purely performance based decisions

Never said that specific case applied, but mentioning it achieved my desired result. Means you know better than to make the assertions in a vacuum but you're still doing it.

Never said that specific case applied, but mentioning it achieved my desired result. Means you know better than to make the assertions in a vacuum but you're still doing it. Originally Posted by HDGristle

And yet you claimed otherwise just a post or so ago when you said:

they were also looking at disparate impact because no specific intent is required as part of a DI claim.

That is absolutely part of the law of the land for which there is ample case law starting with the Supreme Court decision in Griggs v Duke Power back in 1971 Originally Posted by HDGristle

Why lie and try to claim you didn't assert that?