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

 

[OldLadyJosie]

Everyone knows it's the purple one!

I have two and a half degrees myself, and I will stand by red being the best tasting until I die.

 

[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.

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.

The rights of corporations are the rights of the people who own those entities. They can enter into contracts and engage in public discourse that benefits them.

I do believe Citizens United and the voiding of limits on political contributions were wrong; I also understand it will be a loooooong time before we have a Supreme Court who might agree with me.

 

[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.

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.

Why arent bots speech? Serious question, btw. Saying algorithm seems to be a bit simplistic, after all they dont create themselves.

If companies can be ruled by the Supreme Court to have free speech why wouldnt a bot deployed by a company be part of free speech?

Click-wrap licenses actually already suggest that bots are "people" and can have "speech". Fortune 500 companies literally delegate signing authority for contracts to what barely even qualifies as an algorithm using the most liberal definition of the word. So surely if you sprinkle in some ML logic allowing for a limited degree of autonomy and decision making capacity it seems like it should qualify if you want to take an absolutist position.

 

[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.

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

Hammer was an egotistical cockwomble with a massive chip on his shoulder whose tech worked about as well as FSD does.

 

[graylshaped]

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

He was born in South Africa. It won't happen.

 

[HiredGoons]

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?

Hammer was an egotistical cockwomble with a massive chip on his shoulder whose tech worked about as well as FSD does.

Imagine if you ordered Justin Hammer from Wish. That's Elon Musk.

 

[graylshaped]

Everyone knows it's the purple one!

I have two and a half degrees myself, and I will stand by red being the best tasting until I die.

Wait, I missed something. If we are talking M&Ms, everyone knows the green ones are the best.

 

[watermeloncup]

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.

California is also the only (or one of very few, I forget) states where it's illegal to discriminate against someone's political leanings in employment.

 

[GreyAreaUK]

Everyone knows it's the purple one!

I have two and a half degrees myself, and I will stand by red being the best tasting until I die.

Wait, I missed something. If we are talking M&Ms, everyone knows the green ones are the best.

Would you be surprised to find we're actually talking about Crayons?

 

[OldLadyJosie]

Imagine if you ordered Justin Hammer from Wish. That's Elon Musk.

 

[gsgrego]

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?

Hammer was an egotistical cockwomble with a massive chip on his shoulder whose tech worked about as well as FSD does.

Imagine if you ordered Justin Hammer from Wish. That's Elon Musk.

Orders iron man costume on wish, gets mask with picture of elon musk.

 

[Deleted member 221201]

Everyone knows it's the purple one!

I have two and a half degrees myself, and I will stand by red being the best tasting until I die.

Wait, I missed something. If we are talking M&Ms, everyone knows the green ones are the best.

If any brown M&M's are found in the Twitter HQ then the contract could be in violation

Buried amongst dozens of points in Van Halen's rider was an odd stipulation that there were to be no brown M&M's candies in the backstage area. If any brown M&M's were found backstage, the band could cancel the entire concert at the full expense of the promoter.

 

[HiredGoons]

Everyone knows it's the purple one!

I have two and a half degrees myself, and I will stand by red being the best tasting until I die.

Wait, I missed something. If we are talking M&Ms, everyone knows the green ones are the best.

Only if they have the sexy boots.

 

[Tijger]

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.

Why arent bots speech? Serious question, btw. Saying algorithm seems to be a bit simplistic, after all they dont create themselves.

If companies can be ruled by the Supreme Court to have free speech why wouldnt a bot deployed by a company be part of free speech?

Click-wrap licenses actually already suggest that bots are "people" and can have "speech". Fortune 500 companies literally delegate signing authority for contracts to what barely even qualifies as an algorithm using the most liberal definition of the word. So surely if you sprinkle in some ML logic allowing for a limited degree of autonomy and decision making capacity it seems like it should qualify if you want to take an absolutist position.

Its not really about what I want but when a guy says he's going to make Twitter only moderate whats not legal speech wise and says at the same time he wants to ban bots there's a disconnect there. And legally that can get absolutist very quickly.

 

[dmand]

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'.

Yeah, I'm certain Elon has no idea what complexity is or how to deal with it. Plus, as you point out he's white. All solid points.

 

[OldLadyJosie]

Buried amongst dozens of points in Van Halen's rider was an odd stipulation that there were to be no brown M&M's candies in the backstage area. If any brown M&M's were found backstage, the band could cancel the entire concert at the full expense of the promoter.

Ooh! Ooh! Fun fact! I know why this is, as it's not actually uncommon! (I used to do stage lighting for large productions). Riders sometimes have bizarre inclusions like this to test if the venue is reading the rider completely. The thought process is that if something like that is missed, a bigger issue is more likely with one of the other technical items, so it's a weed out. It's not usually as weird as the M&Ms thing, usually it's just a specific kind of drink or something.

Another fun fact, the Foo Fighters once had one that was a coloring book. I still have it somewhere.

 

[gsgrego]

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.

Why arent bots speech? Serious question, btw. Saying algorithm seems to be a bit simplistic, after all they dont create themselves.

If companies can be ruled by the Supreme Court to have free speech why wouldnt a bot deployed by a company be part of free speech?

Click-wrap licenses actually already suggest that bots are "people" and can have "speech". Fortune 500 companies literally delegate signing authority for contracts to what barely even qualifies as an algorithm using the most liberal definition of the word. So surely if you sprinkle in some ML logic allowing for a limited degree of autonomy and decision making capacity it seems like it should qualify if you want to take an absolutist position.

Its not really about what I want but when a guy says he's going to make Twitter only moderate whats not legal speech wise and says at the same time he wants to ban bots there's a disconnect there. And legally that can get absolutist very quickly.

He wants to ban bots so people cannot post public information and his terrible and ridiculous plane habits.

 

[acefsw]

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.

It's modern day idol worship mixed in with a misguided populism that's fueled by uncertainty, striving, with a sense of personal powerlessness, and the need for community to affirm the causes and scapegoat "others" as the origins of their fevered fears. They're just symbolic figureheads they rally around as the champions of their community and beliefs.

 

[Deleted member 221201]

I think if the current ceo is savvy (Aggarwal), then we could have a very interesting dynamic in Oct when the acquisition is complete

He is very well liked & regarded in the company & may turn out to be the Twitter Shotwell & reign in Musk's impulses

If that that happens, we could see a better company & I'm hoping the technical team stays put & implements some good ideas & filters out the rest.

 

[watermeloncup]

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.

Why arent bots speech? Serious question, btw. Saying algorithm seems to be a bit simplistic, after all they dont create themselves.

If companies can be ruled by the Supreme Court to have free speech why wouldnt a bot deployed by a company be part of free speech?

Click-wrap licenses actually already suggest that bots are "people" and can have "speech". Fortune 500 companies literally delegate signing authority for contracts to what barely even qualifies as an algorithm using the most liberal definition of the word. So surely if you sprinkle in some ML logic allowing for a limited degree of autonomy and decision making capacity it seems like it should qualify if you want to take an absolutist position.

Its not really about what I want but when a guy says he's going to make Twitter only moderate whats not legal speech wise and says at the same time he wants to ban bots there's a disconnect there. And legally that can get absolutist very quickly.

He wants to ban bots so people cannot post public information and his terrible and ridiculous plane habits.

Ah, I had assumed that by "bots" he meant a single person controlling multiple accounts (ahem). But that does make sense that he might be talking about banning automatic posting entirely to go after the plane tracking kid.

 

[graylshaped]

Everyone knows it's the purple one!

I have two and a half degrees myself, and I will stand by red being the best tasting until I die.

Wait, I missed something. If we are talking M&Ms, everyone knows the green ones are the best.

Would you be surprised to find we're actually talking about Crayons?

I told you I missed something.

My vote goes to Burnt Umber.

 

[nimelennar]

There are times when I finally think I have my inner language prescriptivist tamed, when I think I can accept that words mean what people generally accept them to mean. I've even mostly gotten over the use of "literally" to mean "not literally."

But then someone uses "ad hominem" to just refer to an insult, rather than to discrediting an argument by discrediting the speaker, and I realize I still have a long path ahead of me to becoming a descriptivist.

Similar to this, I suppose.

 

[Snark218]

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?

Hammer was an egotistical cockwomble with a massive chip on his shoulder whose tech worked about as well as FSD does.

Imagine if you ordered Justin Hammer from Wish. That's Elon Musk.

And Justin Hammer is already "We have a Tony Stark at home!"

 

[aerogems]

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

He can run, but he's constitutionally barred from taking office as POTUS, so it'd be kind of pointless. Highest office he could hold without a constitutional amendment is Speaker of the House, and presumably it would mean he would be skipped over in the order of succession should it ever come to that.

 

[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!

It's clearly green.

Blasphemy! I could have agreed to disagree if you had said red or sky blue, but green!? Them's fightin' words!

 

[graylshaped]

Buried amongst dozens of points in Van Halen's rider was an odd stipulation that there were to be no brown M&M's candies in the backstage area. If any brown M&M's were found backstage, the band could cancel the entire concert at the full expense of the promoter.

Ooh! Ooh! Fun fact! I know why this is, as it's not actually uncommon! (I used to do stage lighting for large productions). Riders sometimes have bizarre inclusions like this to test if the venue is reading the rider completely. The thought process is that if something like that is missed, a bigger issue is more likely with one of the other technical items, so it's a weed out. It's not usually as weird as the M&Ms thing, usually it's just a specific kind of drink or something.

Another fun fact, the Foo Fighters once had one that was a coloring book. I still have it somewhere.

My wife's divorce attorney told me straight up that what we agreed to at the table didn't matter. It was the words on the page. Then he got pissy when I would call him out on things he submitted in writing that differed from what we had discussed. "That's just boilerplate," he would say. He screwed up and cc'd me on an email to my wife that said "This guy is starting to piss me off."

"Is this how you want to be represented?" I asked my wife.

She told him to cut it out and the process was completed amicably. Which I learned does not mean friendly in that context.

 

[aerogems]

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?

The thing that often gets overlooked is that Hammer is still the head of a major competitor to Stark Industries. So, objectively, he's been pretty successful.

 

[nimelennar]

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!

 

[aerogems]

Everyone knows it's the purple one!

I have two and a half degrees myself, and I will stand by red being the best tasting until I die.

You're wrong, of course, but I can at least respect the (wrong) opinion of someone who says it's red, even if it's obvious to anyone that they're wrong.

 

[ScifiGeek]

LOL. Spot on as always.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46DBT_6KSzg

Why is it that all right wingers sell snake oil?

Because they've already conditioned their followers against critical thinking, and to accept whatever their leaders tell them as gospel, making them very easy marks.

 

[aerogems]

Everyone knows it's the purple one!

I have two and a half degrees myself, and I will stand by red being the best tasting until I die.

Wait, I missed something. If we are talking M&Ms, everyone knows the green ones are the best.

If any brown M&M's are found in the Twitter HQ then the contract could be in violation

Buried amongst dozens of points in Van Halen's rider was an odd stipulation that there were to be no brown M&M's candies in the backstage area. If any brown M&M's were found backstage, the band could cancel the entire concert at the full expense of the promoter.

I've covered this before, but the reason those riders are in there is because it's a quick and easy way for the band's manager to walk into a venue and tell if the event planner read the whole contract. It's why they always bury it somewhere in the middle of the contract. If they don't see a bowl of M&Ms or there are brown ones in there, they know the person likely didn't read the contract and so they should start checking other things, such as those affecting the band's safety, and deciding if they want to go ahead with the performance.

Edit: Looks like OldLadyJose beat me to explaining this.

 

[Deleted member 817175]

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.

It's not that the bot ought to enjoy its own free speech rights, it's that I as the owner of the bot should. The bot is just how I have chosen to express myself. I use lots of tools to amplify my voice beyond mere physical speaking. I use my copy and paste buttons so that I don't have to go to the trouble of typing unique responses. I retweet on Twitter so I don't even have to use my copy and paste buttons. I tap the orange button just below this on my screen, and within a few seconds, anyone in the world can hear what I have to say (if for some reason they want to).

My corporation is also how I choose to express myself. So is my anonymity (or pseudonymity, or whatever the case may be). It gives me the freedom to express views that I would be more reluctant to express if someone could publicly link them back to me by some capricious executive who doesn't appreciate that I just publicly called him a moron and he clearly has no regard for the laws that might protect me.

But the part that makes it dumb to me isn't because Musk and I have a philosophical agreement on how far free speech should extend; it's that Musk is uneducated and uninformed enough to think that "Twitter should only restrict speech as far as the law allows it to" is actually a meaningful critique of current Twitter policies, which it isn't, because Twitter already does that.

 

[Hmnhntr]

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.

Yep, and that's why all the "non-woke" Twitter wannabes will always be in distant second place or worse. Prominent conservatives like Ted Cruz routinely used to post to Twitter about how they were gonna leave Twitter to go to Parler. Then never did...

It's almost like "woke" is a made up boogeyman that really means "people now acknowledge people we don't like as valid, and we get called out when we say something offensive". If it were really the plague they claim it is, they wouldn't have a choice in leaving- they'd be kicked off. After all, that's what they keep saying isn't it? That the "woke left" is banning them left and right and "cancelling" them? And yet, they're still on Twitter complaining about it...

 

[Celery Man]

Everyone knows it's the purple one!

I have two and a half degrees myself, and I will stand by red being the best tasting until I die.

Wait, I missed something. If we are talking M&Ms, everyone knows the green ones are the best.

If any brown M&M's are found in the Twitter HQ then the contract could be in violation

Buried amongst dozens of points in Van Halen's rider was an odd stipulation that there were to be no brown M&M's candies in the backstage area. If any brown M&M's were found backstage, the band could cancel the entire concert at the full expense of the promoter.

I've covered this before, but the reason those riders are in there is because it's a quick and easy way for the band's manager to walk into a venue and tell if the event planner read the whole contract. It's why they always bury it somewhere in the middle of the contract. If they don't see a bowl of M&Ms or there are brown ones in there, they know the person likely didn't read the contract and so they should start checking other things, such as those affecting the band's safety, and deciding if they want to go ahead with the performance.

Also worth noting Van Halen’s tour at the time was unprecedentedly large, with pyrotechnics and heavy stage rigging. If they messed up the M&Ms thing, the band couldn’t trust they didn’t mess up the fireworks or rigging or something that could be extremely dangerous or fatal.

 

[Celery Man]

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.

Yep, and that's why all the "non-woke" Twitter wannabes will always be in distant second place or worse. Prominent conservatives like Ted Cruz routinely used to post to Twitter about how they were gonna leave Twitter to go to Parler. Then never did...

It's almost like "woke" is a made up boogeyman that really means "people now acknowledge people we don't like as valid, and we get called out when we say something offensive". If it were really the plague they claim it is, they wouldn't have a choice in leaving- they'd be kicked off. After all, that's what they keep saying isn't it? That the "woke left" is banning them left and right and "cancelling" them? And yet, they're still on Twitter complaining about it...

These people have spent all of America’s history being able to say whatever they want, about anything, to anyone, whenever they want.

Anything less than that is a horrible “woke” affront to everything they hold dear…

 

[ip_what]

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.

The rights of corporations are the rights of the people who own those entities. They can enter into contracts and engage in public discourse that benefits them.

I do believe Citizens United and the voiding of limits on political contributions were wrong; I also understand it will be a loooooong time before we have a Supreme Court who might agree with me.

I’m a pretty progressive guy, but I think the progressive press really fucked up the messaging on Citizens United (and TBH, Steven’s dissent didn’t help) - well, unless the intent was to rile people up regardless of the quality of the red meat being dangled…

The problem with Citizens United was never “corporations are people.” It also wasn’t that “money equals speech.” Those are actually very uncontroversial positions. Ask yourself - could the government ban Patagonia from spending money to produce a documentary about climate change? Because of corporations don’t have the free speech rights of individuals or if money didn’t equal speech, the government could do that.

The problem with citizens united has always been that restrictions on electioneering shouldn’t be tested under “strict scrutiny,” But rather found to be permissible because they further an important government interest.

 

[OldLadyJosie]

Also worth noting Van Halen’s tour at the time was unprecedentedly large, with pyrotechnics and heavy stage rigging. If they messed up the M&Ms thing, the band couldn’t trust they didn’t mess up the fireworks or rigging or something that could be extremely dangerous or fatal.

Exactly. Failing to read a rider closely can be a matter of safety, so those little notes are really important, especially since tours don't bring everything needed with them since the venue provides a great deal of the load out.

I really have never liked how these things get trotted out as 'stars being out of control' instead of what they actually are there for, but at the same time I get it.

 

[OldLadyJosie]

Edit: Looks like OldLadyJose beat me to explaining this.

I fully admit I get really excited any time I get to bring up the coloring book. They had a whole page about the ice they liked best, and ranking different kinds of ice. It was fantastic.

 

[Hmnhntr]

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.

Yep, and that's why all the "non-woke" Twitter wannabes will always be in distant second place or worse. Prominent conservatives like Ted Cruz routinely used to post to Twitter about how they were gonna leave Twitter to go to Parler. Then never did...

It's almost like "woke" is a made up boogeyman that really means "people now acknowledge people we don't like as valid, and we get called out when we say something offensive". If it were really the plague they claim it is, they wouldn't have a choice in leaving- they'd be kicked off. After all, that's what they keep saying isn't it? That the "woke left" is banning them left and right and "cancelling" them? And yet, they're still on Twitter complaining about it...

These people have spent all of America’s history being able to say whatever they want, about anything, to anyone, whenever they want.

Anything less than that is a horrible “woke” affront to everything they hold dear…

Bingo. They've used their social power to silence people for generations, and now they're scared because they don't hold the social power anymore. Or at least, they no longer have a monopoly on it.

Another obvious tell is how many Conservatives reference the 50s as America's "Golden Age". Notably, a time when most of them were children (Jon Stewart has a funny bit about that), and a time when you very much could be arrested and rounded up for saying the wrong things or simply not acting the right way. Though, in my experience, few of these people have even heard of the House Un-American Activities Committee. They never think about what was happening during the Red Scare when people were outed as "Commies" because it didn't and wouldn't happen to them. It only happened to people they didn't like, so it was fine. Or just as bad, it wasn't even on their radar because they have a bubble of awareness approximately 10 ft wide.

Once again, it's just projection. They're scared of these things because of what they would do if they had the power and they can't comprehend that other people aren't the same way. They see it as fundamental human nature.

 

[Dontthinksobud]

Sort of ironic that having a Telsa is now a symbol of low-key alt-rightism, bahaha.. didn't see that coming.