Amid Twitter buyout, Musk says free speech is simply "that which matches the law."
Read the whole story
Read the whole story
Elon Musk, Twitter’s next owner, provides his definition of “free speech”
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
When he finds out that lawful moderation/editorial policy is expensive (you need a large staff of professionals) he will jump to the favorite billionaire stop gap solution to rely on cheesy AI programs, interns and volunteers.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
"To many Nazis, Catholics were suspected of insufficient patriotism, or even of disloyalty to the Fatherland, and of serving the interests of 'sinister alien forces'.[2] Nazi radicals also disdained the Semitic origins of Jesus and the Christian religion. Although the broader membership of the Nazi Party after 1933 came to include many Catholics, aggressive anti-Church radicals like Alfred Rosenberg, Martin Bormann and Heinrich Himmler saw the kirchenkampf campaign against the Churches as a priority concern, and anti-church and anticlerical sentiments were strong among grassroots party activists."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_views_on_Catholicism
Marjorie's just jumping on her favorite bandwagon!
She wanted to demonize the Episcopalians and Unitarians, but together they don't constitute the large number of Catholics, and she needs a large number of people for her future concentration camps. Socialists, Jews, LGBTQ people, Black people, and Mexicans aren't enough either: she needs Catholics.
And Marjorie is a Capitalist Nazi! She has learned from Hitler's mistakes. I mean, Hitler wasted a lot of energy burning people in ovens. Marjorie, being a good Republican Capitalist Nazi, isn't going to waste the energy from burning Catholics (Satan worshipers); she's going to connect all her new ovens to turbines and generate energy, which she'll in turn profitize. It's a win-win solution: undesirables are eliminated while good American hard workers gain employment at the camps while supplying profit-making affordable energy.
Upvote
12
(12
/
0)
What couldn't you say on Twitter before that you're dying to say now?
Upvote
17
(17
/
0)
Giving up on that dream just because there are downsides is the worst form of nihilism - if you want to do that, it's your choice. We didn't stay in the caves because "only the rich will have houses"..
Upvote
2
(4
/
-2)
Hack-n-Slash
Ars Legatus Legionis
Um... you don't really do logic, do you?
We should be scared about Biden restricting right-wing blather on twitter, and here's the right-wing blather on twitter to prove it!
Upvote
13
(14
/
-1)
I'm still trying to figure out how politicians doing something isn't supporting a political agenda but companies managing their own property is.
I'm not sure Planet Earth has enough coffee to support this analysis so I'm gonna go clip my toenails instead.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
Fact-checking is censorship! There should be no difference between so-called vetted, objective reporting and Weekly World News!
Isn't it weird how the ideologues who cheered Trump on when he called factual reporting "fake news!" and said that mainstream journalism was "the enemy of the people!" are now cheering so loudly when they think Elon Musk will tear down any semblance of "censorship" that could weed out news which is fake? It's almost like there's no internal consistency between what they endorse as long as they see that people they don't like are suffering.
I rest my case.
Upvote
18
(18
/
0)
Will her ovens also bake pizzas? Because that would bring the conspiracy wheel full circle.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
It's a drive by post from someone who got here from some shithole end of reddit. But I can give you his answer, he can finally use the words to describe LGBTQ people that he's always really wanted to, but gets banned for.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
Except for spam (which is commercial speech and this easier to regulate), it's nearly impossible to make any of those categories of speech illegal, due to the First Amendment. People have tried, for most of them.
As for passing a Constitutional Amendment... Yeah, good luck with that. I doubt you could even get enough support in both houses of Congress and in enough states, to pass something simple like an enforcement mechanism for the Emoluments Clause (which, as Trump demonstrated, is sorely needed, as he was able to ignore it without any penalty).
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
The political agenda of not giving bigots a platform to spread hate? That's a political agenda?
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
For some, billionaires whining about how unfair the world is, is "relatable". I, uh, disagree. But for the right wing - which is all about grievance, it resolves two conflicting thoughts: Everything sucks, and why don't we got nothin - vs and intense desire to idolize shiny objects that proceed to fleece them so they got nothin. Viola: The shiny object that has endless grievance. Yay!!!
Sure beats thinking.
Musk sure puts the "idiot" in idiot savant. Feeling his apartheid roots maybe?
Sure beats thinking.
Musk sure puts the "idiot" in idiot savant. Feeling his apartheid roots maybe?
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
And that's a perfectly decent solution... If you only want your company to do business in the US. If Twitter doesn't poke its head out of the country, then, sure, the SPEECH Act will prevent any other country from enforcing any judgement whatsoever on it.
The moment Twitter has overseas assets, though, any government in a country where those assets reside doesn't need the help of US courts to enforce that judgement.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
Realistically the reason Twitter has content moderation is not because other countries have less freedom of speech than the U.S. does. It's because pretty much every country that is big enough to matter on this question -- mostly but not exclusively the U.S. -- is already pretty clear on this point: Twitter can moderate its platform because it is a private platform.
That view "matches the law" and "does not go beyond the law." Musk simply doesn't understand what he's talking about, which is a common problem for people who are fairly bright and driven but have limited education and not much experience outside their specific field of activity. He probably thinks the law isn't worth knowing anything about. U.S. courts have certainly given him no reason to think otherwise.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
Scary Devil Monastery
Ars Scholae Palatinae
You mean these people? The Very Fine Ones?
I don't find it weird at all. They have a playbook, written by the gent below;
Upvote
19
(19
/
0)
It would be pretty hard to imagine him growing up in that environment and being free of its biases. And the culture of his companies lends a lot of weight to the idea that he's a racist, crypto- or otherwise. Not ideal in the world's richest and arguably most powerful single human, but this is where we are.
Upvote
1
(2
/
-1)
Upvote
-17
(0
/
-17)
Oh? Can you give examples of right wingers saying one thing and being banned for it and others saying the same thing and not getting banned?
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
There are places in this world--yes real places--that have nothing to do with the US Constitution. They are also not under the purview of the Supreme Court of the United States. Twitter exists there too, so far.
Try broadening your viewpoint.
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
What can people not say that needs to be said? The reason why these are just drive by posts is because once you punch down it's just plain old bigotry and they figure Musk is an ally for bigots. We had one that got banned a few pages back who tried to argue and then it finally came down to the fact that the dude just hated trans people.
Upvote
12
(13
/
-1)
Upvote
7
(8
/
-1)
Also, New York Post is not a reliable source, and that analysis predates the Hunter Biden nonsense, so it reporting something doesn't add any weight to it's truth value.
----
Obviously, part of our problem is predispositions and the inclination to seek out info that confirms our preconceptions. But exchanges like this make me wonder how much of it is poor information literacy? That is, how many people fall for things like the Hunter laptop BS because they want it to be true, and how many people fall for it because they simply lack the skills to analyze it (or the training to even think to analyze it), and it is published in what to them is a "reputable" news source (because, again, lacking the training to question the source, or the skills to do so effectively)? Because I suspect the 8% of the electorate who say they would've reconsidered their 2020 POTUS vote if they had "known" about it aren't ideologues who wanted it to be true—if they were, surely they would've already been voting for Trump. And probably would've been seeking out news sources that were reporting on it, and therefore been aware of it before the survey, not to mention before the election.
Upvote
12
(12
/
0)
All well and good before the outrage amplifying algorithms started blasting nonsense into everybody's feed and gave global reach to the planet's most delusional without local context. When your neighbor's a dissembling mound you know that and know exactly how much credibility to give anything they say. When twitter verifies a user and they go on to spread disinformation it kind of puts the onus on twitter.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
I wasn't making fun of anyone. Well, maybe Trump Jr because he tries so hard to be the macho testosterone-fueled male to earn daddy's love (which daddy is incapable of feeling, let alone giving) and he's engaged to a woman who has features that are traditionally considered more masculine. Frankly, that improves my opinion of Trump Jr a little. It's still deep underwater, but the fact that he was willing to enter into a serious relationship with a woman who doesn't have the traditional features that we would associate with an attractive woman means there's at least a little more depth to the man than he tries to let on with his public persona. He looked past the superficial and to the person beneath. I consider her personality to be like a lung from someone who's smoked a pack a day for 50 years, but that's just me. If Trump Jr sees that and thinks it's beautiful, maybe because compared to his own personality it is, then credit where it's due.
Upvote
-7
(1
/
-8)
I mean... if the swastika fits...
In the immortal words of Homer Simpson: "Why do things that happen to stupid people keep happening to me?" If you don't understand how that applies to you, you may as well just get used to being called a nazi for the rest of your life.
Upvote
15
(15
/
0)
Elon Musk and completely overestimating the abilities of AI. Can you name a more iconic duo?
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
That's not "pointing out hypocrisy"; that's concern trolling. You're trying to call out people for violating a principle you've said repeatedly you don't believe in. If you don't believe there should be restrictions on free speech, then don't complain when people say horrible things to and about you. If you think there should be some limits (like, say, that whatever they're saying should have factual basis), then you actually are for moderation and limits on speech, so you need to change your stated position. Argue for the positions you actually believe; don't pretend to argue for positions that you don't believe.
Also, deliberately violating one's own principles to make a point—as several people appear to be doing to you—isn't really hypocrisy. It would be hypocrisy if these people didn't repeatedly acknowledge that what they're doing isn't what they truly believe, or if they (almost) never practiced what they preached, even when they were being sincere.
Upvote
12
(12
/
0)
1. getting along with people in your tribe (at church, in the forums, your guild playing games, at school)
2. wanting things to be "normal"
3. poor critical thinking skills
4. distraction - having a life! there are other things than the minutiae of the latest news item
..the list goes on.
Applies equally to all political/moral persuasions, though it's scientific fact that liberals tend to be a little more open minded and ready to change their minds in the face of evidence. A little.
The expectation that people will process difficult information well is hopelessly unrealistic - and so any system that relies on that expectation is doomed.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
The two things Musk is best at are self-promotion, and taking credit for other people's ideas. Neither are behaviors he needs any encouragement to continue.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
You missed the point completely. Retrospectively I can see how it would be an easy mistake to make, but if you look a bit closer I say how it would raise my opinion of Trump Jr if he were dating a trans woman. We can talk about how enlightened we are, and how things shouldn't matter, but when faced with a situation where someone you're dating tells you they are trans... many of us would probably fail that challenge. Which just means we still have work to do before our actions are fully in line with our words. We are currently living in a transitional age. A few generations from now people probably won't even think twice about it, but basically all of us alive now straddle the period between complete rejection of the idea and complete acceptance. We were socialized with the idea that these things are wrong, and have since taken the conscious choice to reject that idea, but it's not that simple to fully internalize a new idea. It will be a constant effort probably for the rest of our lives.
Upvote
-10
(1
/
-11)
Caveat, I'm assuming you're talking more about an "eternal life" sort of thing, rather than simply improving technology so that people are more likely to live to current world record ages of ~120 years. I don't have a problem with the latter.
But assuming we're talking about eternal life, I don't see it as a dream. I think there's a good reason that people die and I don't think my opinion is nihilistic. Our society already has problems with stagnation in part because most governments are gerontocracies. Even a relatively widely distributed life extension would turn this into a lichocracy where nothing ever changes. If we look at scifi, it's very rare for extreme life extension to be seen as a good thing. In Star Trek it's explicitly shown as a bad thing. Ringworld is the one exception that comes to mind (where lifespans are measured in centuries, but the technology was developed centuries ago), but Niven does hint at how hard it was for society to adapt (I haven't read all the books, maybe he covers this more).
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Fancy Internet Person
Ars Praefectus
You can change your behavior immediately if you choose. It doesn't take generations.
Don't mock people (even bad people) for their looks.
Donald Trump Jr. isn't going to read your comment at Ars. Nor is his fiance.
You know who might read your comment? A trans woman who is in the middle of transitioning.
Upvote
20
(20
/
0)
Suggesting that Musk is transphobic because he looks like someone who is in the middle of transitioning is mocking the man for his looks. (And is pretty borderline, if not outright, transphobic in upon itself.) And are you suggesting that Kimberly Guilfoyle doesn't really have the features that American society considers "attractive"? Again, that's mocking the woman for her looks (or potential lack there of... which if she's engaged to a Trump, I'm pretty sure she's along the lines of what most would consider "attractive".) A person's personality has nothing to do with their physical attractiveness (or, again, lack there of), so I'm not sure why you're trying to bring that up.
Just... stop digging the hole you're making for yourself.
Upvote
16
(16
/
0)