Elon Musk, Twitter’s next owner, provides his definition of “free speech”

Amid Twitter buyout, Musk says free speech is simply "that which matches the law."

Read the whole story

 

[Walt Dizzy]

I didn't read through every comment, sorry if this point has been made already.

Without excusing all the bad things Elon Musk has done, I'd like to posit the following scenarios:

How would a smart person go about making Twitter grow? One path would be to open the platform to trolls and scammers, and peddlers of woo by refusing to moderate. Would that really work? Has it worked anywhere, including truly extremist sites?

Another way would be to get people foaming at the mouth by pretending that Twitter will radically change its policies. Encourage the fighting by dropping hints that a certain former President will soon be back. Give vague reassurances to their stoke their fears.

Remember that episode of South Park where the Devil fought Jesus? I'm looking for Elon to exit Twitter with several $100M in profits in the next year or two. After making essentially no changes at all to their moderation policies.

1. No. Because all decent people leave or never join and then the trolls, ect, have no one left to troll.

That's precisely my point.

If you believe that Elon Musk is driven by his ideology, this business venture is doomed to failure. And he will reap his just reward by driving his company into failure.

If you believe that Elon Musk has the goal of making money from the purchase of Twitter, the way an intelligent person would use his negatives is to fan the outrage of a gullible public in order to keep Twitter in the news in a way that an advertising agency could only dream of. While continuing to operate Twitter in a way that keeps it viable: continued moderation to keep the controversy at a simmer and not allow trolls to drive away users.

Notice that Musk has not publicly ruled out the possibility of allowing Donald Trump to return, while Trump himself has stated flatly that he will not. If this doesn't tell you what the game is, nothing will.

 

[scrimbul]

So given that Musk has already violated the terms of the acquisition agreement, do we think the board is still going to take the ludicrously over-valued payday, or will they drag this out to the last day and go "Oh, my goodness, you appear to have violated the terms of the agreement. We'll be leaving now, with that one billion you owe us. Ta ta, darling!"?

It would be better if the shareholders suddenly had spines and a fit of self-righteous indignation but it's unlikely that will happen.

Twitter is however reporting on and admitting account closures and reduced follower counts for high profile users across the board that vastly outnumber the conservative political profiles follower count increases.

Given what Gab, Parler and Truth Social look like in terms of total users I wouldn't exactly blame the shareholders for making all of this Musk's problem because Twitter still has a long way to fall before becoming a ghost town.

There are users such as George Takei pledging to remain against an uptick of intolerant or illiberal voices but those individuals are nobly wasting their time. Leaving after the deal closure with YouTube videos explaining why would have a vastly more profound effect.

(For those who missed it, the reason why would be Musk being a demonstrable hypocrite on his free-speech-as-applied-to-private-platforms principles.)

 

[acefsw]

This is a fucking horror show and I watched the buyout with amusement. I'm sad that Jack is not involved anymore.
For example, see this later tweet by Musk where he refers to a completely childish meme about banned speech on twitter (from the JRE show). And here Rogan (bear with me) seems completely reasonable and so do Jack + Vijaya. Why isn't banning misgendering fine?

https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status ... 4367856641

That is the longest I’ve ever listened to Joe Rogans podcast. Please don’t ever make me do that again, that was stroke-inducingly horrible.
To save others the horror, I’ll sum up Rogan and his bros’ point: If someone is asking someone they are talking to to please use their preferred gender denominator, they are actually harassing the person they are talking to.

Also, according to Joe, we have absolutely no idea whatsoever about why transgender people have sky high suicide rates - we simply have no idea at all about whether bullying has anything to do with it at all.

My god.

So, Miss Rogan it is.

I get how one can be tempted by a cheap laugh, but everyone, don't do that please. Misgendering is a no-no, regardless of whom.

But someone should certainly ask these people how they would feel if they were misgendered, and what they think the appropriate response should be to being misgendered.

Well, according to Rogan's own logic, by demanding that I call him sir or he/him, he is the one actually harassing me - in other words, his demands are unwarranted and make me the aggrieved party. Obviously, he hasn't thought this through, (Surprise!).

I'm sure that if others started to regularly misgender him in the feminine, he'd have a shitfit because he is a misogynist pig and doesn't value women, [that, and while he will feel aggrieved, he will still refuse to understand the harm he causes to others by purposely misgendering them]. He's the super tough white dude that thinks insulting people by using effeminate terms is okay, which inherently assumes that being feminine is a bad thing.

So, no, I have no problems taking cheap shots at Rogan or other celebrities of his ilk.

That said, regardless of what I might think about Chelsea Manning, I would never refer to Chelsea by anything other than the pronoun she prefers. Same goes with Caitlyn Jenner, who I think is a complete ass.

There's a distinction, a fine line to be sure, but I think in this instance he is fair game because he set himself up for it.

Edit - added a line [..]

 

[rochefort]

In many ways, this feels like yet another instance of 'wealthy white techbro finds out that thing outside their expertise is in fact complex after all'.

You couldn't be more wrong. This is another instance of 'wealthy white techbro is unable to admit that thing outside their expertise is in fact too complex for them after all'.

 

[rochefort]

what I constantly miss in this discussion, is his statement that "everybody is going to be a registered user" (or something in that direction) -> Which I, as a European, interpret as "no anonimous bullshit allowed".

When that's a fact, people will automatically be responsible for their "free speech". As well as companies, which -absurdidly- are considered "people" as well, in USA law.

Elon will never give up his bot followers. Any statements to the contrary are lies.

 

[GreyAreaUK]

what I constantly miss in this discussion, is his statement that "everybody is going to be a registered user" (or something in that direction) -> Which I, as a European, interpret as "no anonimous bullshit allowed".

When that's a fact, people will automatically be responsible for their "free speech". As well as companies, which -absurdidly- are considered "people" as well, in USA law.

Elon will never give up his bot followers. Any statements to the contrary are lies.

I'm not sure he needs them though - he has more than enough brainwashed followers who seem to think he's a real-world Tony Stark.

 

[jdw]

Notice that Musk has not publicly ruled out the possibility of allowing Donald Trump to return, while Trump himself has stated flatly that he will not. If this doesn't tell you what the game is, nothing will.

I encourage you to research the (astonishing lack of) correlation between what Donald Trump says and what Donald Trump does.

 

[OldLadyJosie]

I'm not sure he needs them though - he has more than enough brainwashed followers who seem to think he's a real-world Tony Stark.

I've said it before and I'll say it again; he's just a more successful Justin Hammer at best.

 

[GreyAreaUK]

I'm not sure he needs them though - he has more than enough brainwashed followers who seem to think he's a real-world Tony Stark.

I've said it before and I'll say it again; he's just a more successful Justin Hammer at best.

Yep. Perfect analogy.

 

[Deleted member 349585]

This is a fucking horror show and I watched the buyout with amusement. I'm sad that Jack is not involved anymore.
For example, see this later tweet by Musk where he refers to a completely childish meme about banned speech on twitter (from the JRE show). And here Rogan (bear with me) seems completely reasonable and so do Jack + Vijaya. Why isn't banning misgendering fine?

https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status ... 4367856641

That is the longest I’ve ever listened to Joe Rogans podcast. Please don’t ever make me do that again, that was stroke-inducingly horrible.
To save others the horror, I’ll sum up Rogan and his bros’ point: If someone is asking someone they are talking to to please use their preferred gender denominator, they are actually harassing the person they are talking to.

Also, according to Joe, we have absolutely no idea whatsoever about why transgender people have sky high suicide rates - we simply have no idea at all about whether bullying has anything to do with it at all.

My god.

So, Miss Rogan it is.

I get how one can be tempted by a cheap laugh, but everyone, don't do that please. Misgendering is a no-no, regardless of whom.

But someone should certainly ask these people how they would feel if they were misgendered, and what they think the appropriate response should be to being misgendered.

Well, according to Rogan's own logic, by demanding that I call him sir or he/him, he is the one actually harassing me - in other words, his demands are unwarranted and make me the aggrieved party. Obviously, he hasn't thought this through, (Surprise!).

I'm sure that if others started to regularly misgender him in the feminine, he'd have a shitfit because he is a misogynist pig and doesn't value women, [that, and while he will feel aggrieved, he will still refuse to understand the harm he causes to others by purposely misgendering them]. He's the super tough white dude that thinks insulting people by using effeminate terms is okay, which inherently assumes that being feminine is a bad thing.

So, no, I have no problems taking cheap shots at Rogan or other celebrities of his ilk.

That said, regardless of what I might think about Chelsea Manning, I would never refer to Chelsea by anything other than the pronoun she prefers. Same goes with Caitlyn Jenner, who I think is a complete ass.

There's a distinction, a fine line to be sure, but I think in this instance he is fair game because he set himself up for it.

Edit - added a line [..]

You do you, I have no power to stop you, but that's a low hanging fruit of a "joke" and IMHO does more harm than good by increasing hostility against us. Given how many people already wants us dead just for existing, I'm not too hot on provoking them more then they already are.

 

[Deleted member 817175]

Hooray Freeze Peach.

Spam is not illegal
Bots are not illegal
Russian disinformation is not illegal
Racial slurs are not illegal
Rants targeting transgender persons are not illegal.
Gross memes to dehumanize the targets of right wing hate aren't illegal.
Demanding that minorities go back to "their own countries" aren't illegal.
Falsehoods aren't illegal (except in very narrow circumstances).

Bots are not speech. They are an algorithm. Twitter can, and will, still ban bots.

And it continues to amaze me how much spam, disinformation, slurs, gross memes, and falsehoods I see posted on Twitter everyday without the accounts being banned. But let's get one thing straight. Spam, to an extent, has been being regulated by Congress. Because it can be harassment or it can disrupt normal activity.

But I will say this to all the 'big names' that whine about free speech: be ready. The same controls that moderate your speech moderate every one else's.

Software is speech (multiple rulings by the courts).
Algorithms are speech (multiple rulings by the courts)
Automated means of speech are speech (i.e. printing press was a pretty important early automated means of speech)

Speech doesn't literally mean soley spoken words coming from a human's mouth unassisted by technology. I mean if it did then nothing on Twitter by definition would be speech.

Now to be clear ALL software isn't legal protected speech but not all verbal speech is legal protected speech either.

I agree. If you take sort of a philosophically maximalist position on free speech, which Musk claims he does, I don't see how you can then extend that to saying that you're going to ban bots and require humans to validate their real identities. How can free speech be compatible with the idea that I must name myself before speaking and can only channel my speech through some software programs and not others? He contradicts his claims in the same breath as making them.

There is a simple if disappointing explanation for such things.

Musk is a man of limited education, clearly some degree of genius and personal drive, great business, and limited experience outside his chosen field (which admittedly seems like a very broad field because his business development spans multiple sectors). I know many such people, admittedly not billionaires, and I'm sure most of us here do if we've been working somewhere professional for at least a few years or so.

Musk is probably not very accustomed to thinking deeply about these issues. He is certainly not very well informed about them, but that doesn't really occur to him, because he's deeply skeptical that any supposed bodies of knowledge outside his area of expertise are worth a shit anyway. His idea of total free speech actually comes with all sorts of asterisks and limitations, not all of which would occur to him at the same time, but all of which seem totally practical and common sensical and obvious. So obvious that no one who actually wants to get anything done would clearly spend any time debating them, so any debate is probably for some ulterior purpose, or just engaged in by lazy navel-gazing sorts who don't want to actually accomplish anything.

Not being a psychologist, I won't attempt to psychoanalayze further -- just to say that if at first glance it seems odd that someone of such apparently high intelligence would say things that seem so poorly informed and inconsistent, well, I don't know that it really surprises me. His views on free speech are about as relevant as Linus Pauling's views on vitamin C, except that we never pinned the day to day functioning of the political class to nutrition and then gave Pauling control of the biggest pill factory.

 

[graylshaped]

Guy who canceled a customer's Tesla order because "he was rude" has thoughts on censorship at a private non-governmental business.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... rs-model-x

I thought freedom of speech was not freedom from consequences.

Are you capable of thought deeper than a sound bite? This is an honest question.

Osiris is a self-professed libertarian, of course he isn't. It's unfair to put him in the position of having to answer.

He named himself after a deity with a literal birdbrain.

 

[acefsw]

You do you, I have no power to stop you, but that's a low hanging fruit of a "joke" and IMHO does more harm than good by increasing hostility against us. Given how many people already wants us dead just for existing, I'm not too hot on provoking them more then they already are.

Well, I'm not transgender, but I am gay and have zero problems "provoking" homophobic assholes, which is me standing up for our - my - inherent rights. Period. We didn't get to where we are today by hiding in the closet so we wouldn't get our asses kicked. Civil rights is an ugly affair and fearing the repercussions of the oppressor should not be a deterrent.

 

[OldLadyJosie]

I think one of the most telling things about this whole mess is that I have seen people all over the internet saying that they'll finally be able to 'speak freely' and what that always seems to entail for them is conspiracy nonsense and hateful rhetoric against specific groups of people.

It doesn't really matter what Musk says or even does at this point. These people are now empowered to act as if their ideas are valid and popular with the majority, as they were with Trump. It's never surprising when stochastic violence is quick to follow either.

 

[watermeloncup]

Ugh. If I had any any real alternative to Starlink available at the moment, I'd be seriously considering cancelling it. And by "real alternative," I mean other than 56k dialup, or paying $300-400/month for cellular data, or a 1.5mbs down/0.5mbps up aging WiMax-based "rural broadband" service (which was nice, when it first became available over a decade ago, but the company providing it seems to have taken an attitude of "well, we got our government funding to roll out the network, and we have the reliable income from people who haven't had any better options until recently, so why would we invest any money in upgrading speeds?"), or older satellite internet services like Xplornet which would be slower & more expensive than just using cellular data... without counting the $900 installation fee.

It's also kind of funny to see Musk touting the "free speech absolutism" aspect of Starlink - so does that mean they'll stop using carrier-grade NAT/explicitly blocking inbound connections so you can actually host content directly on Starlink connections...? Yeah, not holding my breath there.

That said, honestly part me of is kind of looking forward seeing to Musk get a hard lesson in basic realities that practically every regular denizen of Usenet learned 20+ years ago. Namely, that a social network based on "free speech absolutism" will at best it will only appeal to the portion of the population that's OK with having to be in "flame warrior" mode constantly - and at worst/more likely, will just turn into a large scale version the *chan sites. Admittedly, that's also the part of me that already sees Twitter as a cesspool that seems to be 1 part "hold my beer" response to someone saying "there's no possible way you could create a social network that's worse than the nastiest corners of Usenet's alt.* hierarchy back in the day" - and one part ridiculously over-engineered replacement for RSS feeds.

My parents just cancelled Starlink and went back to 6 mbps DSL because Starlink couldn't compete with it for reliability. It was OK for a while, but got much worse over the past several months. Based on the times when the service would get flaky, I think they're severely oversubscribiing their satellites. It was an incredibly disappointing experience, especially considering how damn expensive the service is and how much the fanbois overhyped Starlink. With Musk behaving like an far-right man child, I'm sure my parents are glad to no longer support him as well.

I'd be happy to have any terrestrial broadband available here, even DSL - but sadly it's not an option. Haven't noticed any decline in speed/reliability, though I'm probably in an area with low enough population density that that's not likely to happen in the foreseeable future. Though even before his latest antics, I already wasn't crazy about helping to fund (as I've seen it described elsewhere) "Elon Musk's grand plan to irrevocably ruin the night sky."

It's entirely possible that the problem is localized to where my parents live, as it's not that remote an area. Glad it's working better for you. When it was good for my parents, it was really good, but the times when it was bad increasingly disrupted my mom's work. Starlink support was of no help either.

I find it a sign of a broken system that people like you and my parents have to rely on a super complicated and expensive satellite system to get a reasonable level of internet access. Other countries manage to deploy good internet access to virtually everyone using existing wired or terrestrial wireless technologies. Ruining the night sky is no joke. I barely know anything about astronomy, but in the times I'm an a place where the sky isn't orange it's really easy to see low earth satellites like Starlink.

 

[graylshaped]

Hooray Freeze Peach.

Spam is not illegal
Bots are not illegal
Russian disinformation is not illegal
Racial slurs are not illegal
Rants targeting transgender persons are not illegal.
Gross memes to dehumanize the targets of right wing hate aren't illegal.
Demanding that minorities go back to "their own countries" aren't illegal.
Falsehoods aren't illegal (except in very narrow circumstances).

Bots are not speech. They are an algorithm. Twitter can, and will, still ban bots.

And it continues to amaze me how much spam, disinformation, slurs, gross memes, and falsehoods I see posted on Twitter everyday without the accounts being banned. But let's get one thing straight. Spam, to an extent, has been being regulated by Congress. Because it can be harassment or it can disrupt normal activity.

But I will say this to all the 'big names' that whine about free speech: be ready. The same controls that moderate your speech moderate every one else's.

Software is speech (multiple rulings by the courts).
Algorithms are speech (multiple rulings by the courts)
Automated means of speech are speech (i.e. printing press was a pretty important early automated means of speech)

Speech doesn't literally mean soley spoken words coming from a human's mouth unassisted by technology. I mean if it did then nothing on Twitter by definition would be speech.

Now to be clear ALL software isn't legal protected speech but not all verbal speech is legal protected speech either.

I agree. If you take sort of a philosophically maximalist position on free speech, which Musk claims he does, I don't see how you can then extend that to saying that you're going to ban bots and require humans to validate their real identities. How can free speech be compatible with the idea that I must name myself before speaking and can only channel my speech through some software programs and not others? He contradicts his claims in the same breath as making them.

There is a simple if disappointing explanation for such things.

Musk is a man of limited education, clearly some degree of genius and personal drive, great business, and limited experience outside his chosen field (which admittedly seems like a very broad field because his business development spans multiple sectors). I know many such people, admittedly not billionaires, and I'm sure most of us here do if we've been working somewhere professional for at least a few years or so.

Musk is probably not very accustomed to thinking deeply about these issues. He is certainly not very well informed about them, but that doesn't really occur to him, because he's deeply skeptical that any supposed bodies of knowledge outside his area of expertise are worth a shit anyway. His idea of total free speech actually comes with all sorts of asterisks and limitations, not all of which would occur to him at the same time, but all of which seem totally practical and common sensical and obvious. So obvious that no one who actually wants to get anything done would clearly spend any time debating them, so any debate is probably for some ulterior purpose, or just engaged in by lazy navel-gazing sorts who don't want to actually accomplish anything.

Not being a psychologist, I won't attempt to psychoanalayze further -- just to say that if at first glance it seems odd that someone of such apparently high intelligence would say things that seem so poorly informed and inconsistent, well, I don't know that it really surprises me. His views on free speech are about as relevant as Linus Pauling's views on vitamin C, except that we never pinned the day to day functioning of the political class to nutrition and then gave Pauling control of the biggest pill factory.

You pack a lot into that take, and I appreciate the time you spent on it. It's worth noting that rather than "limited education," Musk has--more or less--about the same that Bill Gates had. Both men did well in business, and both have subsequently turned their fortunes to ostensibly beneficial ends. One of these men stay in their lane as a philanthropist; the other seeks to impose his ego on the world.

Much like a certain former president, who boasts about the degree he purchased, has floundered in business, but through sheer hucksterism, continues to convince other people to fund his vanity plays.

 

[DovePig]

I'm not sure he needs them though - he has more than enough brainwashed followers who seem to think he's a real-world Tony Stark.

I've said it before and I'll say it again; he's just a more successful Justin Hammer at best.

Not being familiar with that name (the whole MCU thing is not really my cuppa!), I thought you meant Justin Bieber – especially with the way his fans jump to his defence and sound like angry teens ;-)

 

[acefsw]

I think one of the most telling things about this whole mess is that I have seen people all over the internet saying that they'll finally be able to 'speak freely' and what that always seems to entail for them is conspiracy nonsense and hateful rhetoric against specific groups of people.

It doesn't really matter what Musk says or even does at this point. These people are now empowered to act as if their ideas are valid and popular with the majority, as they were with Trump. It's never surprising when stochastic violence is quick to follow either.

Yeah, social media's amplification of their views deludes them into thinking they hold the majority opinion when in fact they are in the minority, and it will encourage them to start acting out in public. It's not a matter of if, but when.

 

[jhodge]

Hooray Freeze Peach.

Spam is not illegal
Bots are not illegal
Russian disinformation is not illegal
Racial slurs are not illegal
Rants targeting transgender persons are not illegal.
Gross memes to dehumanize the targets of right wing hate aren't illegal.
Demanding that minorities go back to "their own countries" aren't illegal.
Falsehoods aren't illegal (except in very narrow circumstances).

Bots are not speech. They are an algorithm. Twitter can, and will, still ban bots.

And it continues to amaze me how much spam, disinformation, slurs, gross memes, and falsehoods I see posted on Twitter everyday without the accounts being banned. But let's get one thing straight. Spam, to an extent, has been being regulated by Congress. Because it can be harassment or it can disrupt normal activity.

But I will say this to all the 'big names' that whine about free speech: be ready. The same controls that moderate your speech moderate every one else's.

Software is speech (multiple rulings by the courts).
Algorithms are speech (multiple rulings by the courts)
Automated means of speech are speech (i.e. printing press was a pretty important early automated means of speech)

Speech doesn't literally mean soley spoken words coming from a human's mouth unassisted by technology. I mean if it did then nothing on Twitter by definition would be speech.

Now to be clear ALL software isn't legal protected speech but not all verbal speech is legal protected speech either.

I agree. If you take sort of a philosophically maximalist position on free speech, which Musk claims he does, I don't see how you can then extend that to saying that you're going to ban bots and require humans to validate their real identities. How can free speech be compatible with the idea that I must name myself before speaking and can only channel my speech through some software programs and not others? He contradicts his claims in the same breath as making them.

Apparently I'm a masochist, but here goes:

If you start from the premise that all people are born equal in terms of moral worth and dignity, there is nothing contradictory about saying that all people should have the right to speak, but that bots and corporations should be restricted. Bots and corporations are not natural persons.

Corporations are treated as people for some purposes of law because it's a convenient fiction to do so, but that doesn't grant them the moral equivalency of a person.

There is a conflict between maximalist free speech and content-neutral restrictions, but we've generally decided in law that content-neutral restrictions are more acceptable because they don't elevate one person over another. "No bots" would be a content-neutral restriction aimed at preventing auto-generated posts from overwhelming actual people.

Those soft of restrictions are not satisfying when what you want is explicitly to suppress some opinions, but they are compatible with the US tradition of what "Free Speech" means in the context of the First Amendment.

 

[nimelennar]

I'm not sure he needs them though - he has more than enough brainwashed followers who seem to think he's a real-world Tony Stark.

I've said it before and I'll say it again; he's just a more successful Justin Hammer at best.

Not being familiar with that name (the whole MCU thing is not really my cuppa!), I thought you meant Justin Bieber – especially with the way his fans jump to his defence and sound like angry teens ;-)

Hey, hey, hey.

I'm as unimpressed with Elon Musk as anyone, but there's no need to go so far as to compare him to Bieber.

His talents clearly don't extend as far as he thinks they do, but I at least give Musk credit for being talented at something.

 

[Deleted member 349585]

You do you, I have no power to stop you, but that's a low hanging fruit of a "joke" and IMHO does more harm than good by increasing hostility against us. Given how many people already wants us dead just for existing, I'm not too hot on provoking them more then they already are.

Well, I'm not transgender, but I am gay and have zero problems "provoking" homophobic assholes, which is me standing up for our - my - inherent rights. Period. We didn't get to where we are today by hiding in the closet so we wouldn't get our asses kicked. Civil rights is an ugly affair and fearing the repercussions of the oppressor should not be a deterrent.

I just don't think that gratuitous ad hominems help anyone's rights.

 

[gsgrego]

Just to signed up to say this The blind hatred to Elon of many readers of Ars is astonish! That so many curse words being used is the indication that snowflakes are not rational

Blind?

We hate him because he acts like an asshole constantly.
We hate him because he allows his factory workers to work in a place of racism and sexism.
We hate him because he keeps breaking the law.
We hate him because he says some blatantly idiotic things.

 

[Amiga4000T]

He has been studying Donald Trumps playbook.
I sadly believe that he'll run for President in 2024...

 

[Hmnhntr]

@ip_what And I believe that was not the only reason Trump got mowed from Twitter. Your beliefs are just as valid as mine. Sorry it won't let me quote your comment.

Ok, but one of our beliefs tracks with the frankly unnecessary analysis twitter provided justifying its decision:

https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/c ... suspension

Now you’re free to believe that twitter is lying about its true motives (though if they are, why wasn’t trump banned sooner?)

Because they needed a reason to?, or else it wouldn't be "justified" (as you or someone else said on here)

I don’t think they needed a reason to ban Trump, legally or morally, but others may think Twitter should have a reason to ban folks. Hard to think of a better reason than encouraging a violent mob to storm the capitol, even if you don’t believe that was the “true” reason.

But look - Trump is sui generis. Please, please tell us what other things twitter is going after conservatives unfairly for.

Also, his argument is what? That Twitter wanted to ban Trump (maybe so), but waited until he did something that actually called for a ban so they could "pretend" they had a reason? Isn't that....good moderation? They didn't ban him when they hated him, they waited until he did something extreme. The only way that I can interpret his complain is that somehow the ban is invalid because they wanted to ban him beforehand?

 

[DovePig]

Spoiler

Just to signed up to say this The blind hatred to Elon of many readers of Ars is astonish! That so many curse words being used is the indication that snowflakes are not rational

Do you need a protected space to go cry in?

 

[odikweos]

Gotta say that unlike the usual - this comments section has been great. Several thought provoking points of view I hadn't considered, and elaborations of ones I have of value - and collegial. Let's keep that up?

 

[acefsw]

You do you, I have no power to stop you, but that's a low hanging fruit of a "joke" and IMHO does more harm than good by increasing hostility against us. Given how many people already wants us dead just for existing, I'm not too hot on provoking them more then they already are.

Well, I'm not transgender, but I am gay and have zero problems "provoking" homophobic assholes, which is me standing up for our - my - inherent rights. Period. We didn't get to where we are today by hiding in the closet so we wouldn't get our asses kicked. Civil rights is an ugly affair and fearing the repercussions of the oppressor should not be a deterrent.

I just don't think that gratuitous ad hominems help anyone's rights.

I don't see it as an ad hominem because I am using his own argument against him. I also don't think it matters all that much on this particular forum or that it will increase people's hatred beyond what it already is right now. We're just going to have to disagree on this point and leave it at that. I am sure we can agree an a host of other issues, but this obviously isn't one of them.

 

[mpfaff]

Just to signed up to say this The blind hatred to Elon of many readers of Ars is astonish! That so many curse words being used is the indication that snowflakes are not rational

A unique post by a new user, thanks for the completely novel insight you bring to the comments. Everyone including myself are so triggered that we're actually urinating uncontrollably because of the truth bomb you just doled out.

 

[HiredGoons]

Just to signed up to say this The blind hatred to Elon of many readers of Ars is astonish! That so many curse words being used is the indication that snowflakes are not rational

Apartheid senpai will never acknowledge you.

 

[aerogems]

Thankyou Mr Musk for freeing Twitter so that freedom of expression can be you know expressed for everyone, not just the snowflakes. Now time to cleanse the ranks of Twitter employees who do not agree with freedom of expression for everyone. Start with that lawyer Indian chick who thinks she is American NOT.

Clearly from your statement, "freedom of expression" is the freedom to freely state racist and sexist messages without repercussions.

What is really stupid about people like you is you think Musk actually cares about fascists like you. He doesn't. He bought Twitter for his own goals, and they have nothing to do with your racist agenda. You will find out sooner or later.

The fact that racist and sexist messages are what most people consider to be the worst examples of things that might be posted is an interesting testament to how well current moderation systems work. Ask some of the poor sods who have taken jobs as moderators for Twitter, Facebook, and other sites about some of the worst things they've seen. I'm sure they'd consider it a vacation if all they had to deal with was racist and sexist messages.

Just wait until someone decides to start distributing uber violent snuff porn or kiddie porn so disgusting even the average kiddie porn aficionado would think it goes too far. There's those videos of people being beheaded or brutally murdered in some other way. Things that will mentally scar you for life once you see them. It may not be legal in the US, but can you say it's illegal in every place Twitter operates?

 

[watermeloncup]

@ip_what And I believe that was not the only reason Trump got mowed from Twitter. Your beliefs are just as valid as mine. Sorry it won't let me quote your comment.

Ok, but one of our beliefs tracks with the frankly unnecessary analysis twitter provided justifying its decision:

https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/c ... suspension

Now you’re free to believe that twitter is lying about its true motives (though if they are, why wasn’t trump banned sooner?)

Because they needed a reason to?, or else it wouldn't be "justified" (as you or someone else said on here)

I don’t think they needed a reason to ban Trump, legally or morally, but others may think Twitter should have a reason to ban folks. Hard to think of a better reason than encouraging a violent mob to storm the capitol, even if you don’t believe that was the “true” reason.

But look - Trump is sui generis. Please, please tell us what other things twitter is going after conservatives unfairly for.

Also, his argument is what? That Twitter wanted to ban Trump (maybe so), but waited until he did something that actually called for a ban so they could "pretend" they had a reason? Isn't that....good moderation? They didn't ban him when they hated him, they waited until he did something extreme. The only way that I can interpret his complain is that somehow the ban is invalid because they wanted to ban him beforehand?

That's a good point. Trump was actually given a ton of leeway by Twitter. He had broken the rules many many times before he was banned. Anyone else would have been banned years ago. January 6 was just so far beyond the pale that Twitter was forced to act.

 

[aerogems]

Hooray Freeze Peach.

Spam is not illegal
Bots are not illegal
Russian disinformation is not illegal
Racial slurs are not illegal
Rants targeting transgender persons are not illegal.
Gross memes to dehumanize the targets of right wing hate aren't illegal.
Demanding that minorities go back to "their own countries" aren't illegal.
Falsehoods aren't illegal (except in very narrow circumstances).

Bots are not speech. They are an algorithm. Twitter can, and will, still ban bots.

Excepting, of course, the bots Musk pays for to inflate his own follower count.

 

[HiredGoons]

Thankyou Mr Musk for freeing Twitter so that freedom of expression can be you know expressed for everyone, not just the snowflakes. Now time to cleanse the ranks of Twitter employees who do not agree with freedom of expression for everyone. Start with that lawyer Indian chick who thinks she is American NOT.

Clearly from your statement, "freedom of expression" is the freedom to freely state racist and sexist messages without repercussions.

What is really stupid about people like you is you think Musk actually cares about fascists like you. He doesn't. He bought Twitter for his own goals, and they have nothing to do with your racist agenda. You will find out sooner or later.

The fact that racist and sexist messages are what most people consider to be the worst examples of things that might be posted is an interesting testament to how well current moderation systems work. Ask some of the poor sods who have taken jobs as moderators for Twitter, Facebook, and other sites about some of the worst things they've seen. I'm sure they'd consider it a vacation if all they had to deal with was racist and sexist messages.

Just wait until someone decides to start distributing uber violent snuff porn or kiddie porn so disgusting even the average kiddie porn aficionado would think it goes too far. There's those videos of people being beheaded or brutally murdered in some other way. Things that will mentally scar you for life once you see them. It may not be legal in the US, but can you say it's illegal in every place Twitter operates?

The UK has even stricter pornography laws than the United States and Twitter's international office is based in ireland.

 

[GreyAreaUK]

JThe blind hatred to Elon of many readers of Ars is astonish! (

Come back when you have the emotional depth perception to distinguish the difference between 'dislike' and 'hate'.

 

[Hmnhntr]

Is Donald Trump a citizen of California under which he has the rights of someone who lives under its state constitution? If not, I fail to see the relevance.

And even if you can protest on someone's physical private property under California law, that still doesn't mean that a company in California that runs a website can't still ban you or moderate your posts. That would be frankly absurd to claim.

Kind of funny how only a state they hate for being a "liberal hell hole" is the only state that provides protection of their rights to the extent that they want. If that level of free speech is what Conservatives want...why don't they campaign for it in their states? It's almost like free speech is a deflection here that they don't actually care about that much.

 

[aerogems]

Start with that lawyer...

...who has a Bachelor of Science qualification, whereas you probably have a strong opinion about which colour Crayon tastes best.

Everyone knows it's the purple one!

 

[pkh]

Is there some sort of secret Musk adoration society where you guys hang out waiting for links to appear, or do you just visit Ars nonstop hoping that maybe today is the day they'll post something about Elon?

Sad.

There is a weird behavior where everyday people become enamored with some person in power simply because they have some sort of power or influence, and often in spite of that powerful person's failings. Im sure there is a word for it but I just cant think of it at the moment. Sycophantism, maybe?

Trump is a perfect example. An awful lot of people love and defend him because "he's a successful businessman" when in fact he is a complete failure as a businessman in virtually every segment he has entered. He would be a greasy used car salesman (probably a very good one, given his level of bullshit) if it werent for being born to an incredibly wealthy family and for being bailed out numerous times by his father. He is the human version of "too big to fail" because of how "big" he started due to his father's business. He has no discernable skills, scores very low in emotional intelligence, and is generally not a likeable person. And yet millions of people hang on his every word.

Musk has similar followers but he has the advantage of actually being intelligent and running two companies that have had a big impact on multiple industries. He certainly has many faults but at least there are some legitimate reasons why people might defend him.

 

[GreyAreaUK]

Start with that lawyer...

...who has a Bachelor of Science qualification, whereas you probably have a strong opinion about which colour Crayon tastes best.

Everyone knows it's the purple one!

It's clearly green.

 

[Hack-n-Slash]

I'm not sure he needs them though - he has more than enough brainwashed followers who seem to think he's a real-world Tony Stark.

I've said it before and I'll say it again; he's just a more successful Justin Hammer at best.

Yep. Perfect analogy.

Given Justin Hammer's utter incompetence at providing useful tech, wouldn't Obadiah Stane be a better fit?

 

[Deleted member 349585]

You do you, I have no power to stop you, but that's a low hanging fruit of a "joke" and IMHO does more harm than good by increasing hostility against us. Given how many people already wants us dead just for existing, I'm not too hot on provoking them more then they already are.

Well, I'm not transgender, but I am gay and have zero problems "provoking" homophobic assholes, which is me standing up for our - my - inherent rights. Period. We didn't get to where we are today by hiding in the closet so we wouldn't get our asses kicked. Civil rights is an ugly affair and fearing the repercussions of the oppressor should not be a deterrent.

I just don't think that gratuitous ad hominems help anyone's rights.

I don't see it as an ad hominem because I am using his own argument against him. I also don't think it matters all that much on this particular forum or that it will increase people's hatred beyond what it already is right now. We're just going to have to disagree on this point and leave it at that. I am sure we can agree an a host of other issues, but this obviously isn't one of them.

Sure, I respect that and totally agree with the rest there We’re good.