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

 

[ScifiGeek]

You know if it weren't for trolls we'd only be at page 3 of comments. But nooooooo.

Which is why, Musk will unfortunately make more money unleashing the trolls.

Some people will feel like it's their mission to fight that largely pointless, losing battle against the trolls.

This is will drastically increase Twitter "engagement" numbers.

 

[graylshaped]

"I love being a notorious pest because it validates me."

I bother, therefore I am?

Agitatito ergo sum.

That may become my second tattoo.

Agitattoo ergo sum

I annoy my tattoo? I'm meta, but that may be a bridge too far, even for me.

 

[mpfaff]

Good thing we now have the Ministry of Information.

One of my favorite things the past damn near 20 years on the Internet has been the goofy assed 1984 references people drop in relation to shit that doesn't connect. Some chunks of the left during the Bush administration borrowed from it quite a bit. Then when things switched it jumped across the aisle and pulling down racist old statues became deleting history and I guess banning bigoted tweets is the thought police or whatever. The other people are always Big Brother.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

Some people will feel like it's their mission to fight that largely pointless, losing battle against the trolls.

Good thing we now have the Ministry of Information.

One of my favorite things the past damn near 20 years on the Internet has been the goofy assed 1984 references people drop in relation to shit that doesn't connect. Some chunks of the left during the Bush administration borrowed from it quite a bit. Then when things switched it jumped across the aisle and pulling down racist old statues became deleting history and I guess banning bigoted tweets is the thought police or whatever. The other people are always Big Brother.

"THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I IMAGINE IS IN THE BOOK 1984!"

 

[Basil Forthrightly]

"I love being a notorious pest because it validates me."

I bother, therefore I am?

Agitatito ergo sum.

That may become my second tattoo.

Agitattoo ergo sum

I annoy my tattoo? I'm meta, but that may be a bridge too far, even for me.

Perhaps you torment the ghost of Hervé Villechaize?

 

[DarthSlack]

You know if it weren't for trolls we'd only be at page 3 of comments. But nooooooo.

Which is why, Musk will unfortunately make more money unleashing the trolls.

Some people will feel like it's their mission to fight that largely pointless, losing battle against the trolls.

This is will drastically increase Twitter "engagement" numbers.

If that were true, 4chan would be rolling in filthy lucre. It's not.

Most people don't want to have racism, misogyny, hate, bigotry and all the other assorted bullshit that flows from the right wing shoved in their face day after day. If Twitter becomes a troll park, decent human beings will go elsewhere.

 

[orwelldesign]

Discussing the hypothetical types of transition and surgery plans of hypothetical future partners can also veer really gross and objectifying really quickly.

Date who you want and have sex with who you want, but also, there's no deception involved.

Also also, your preference in who you fuck should not factor into treating people with dignity and respect.

"...have sex with who you want..."

Easier said than done. Jeri Ryan thinks I'm a creep.

I've never understood how people can be sexually attracted to water balloons. I personally prefer human bodies.

I was just joking. I'm not really attracted to Jeri Ryan. But I have always been sexually attracted to Iggy Pop. Does that meet with your approval?

Not gonna lie, I'm not super attracted to Jeri Ryan either.

But I'm super into 7 of 9.

Same with Gamora -- she's my "celebrity free pass." Not Zoe Saldana, Gamora. My wife is okay with this. She will not, however, paint herself green. I've asked.

Edit: delete extra r in Gamora

You're a weirdo.

Pretty sure there's a direct linear relationship between number of posts on ars and just how much of a weirdo someone is, Zip. Pretty sure.

You're telling me you don't think Gamora's a hottie? Weirdo yourself.

 

[orwelldesign]

Good thing we now have the Ministry of Information.

One of my favorite things the past damn near 20 years on the Internet has been the goofy assed 1984 references people drop in relation to shit that doesn't connect. Some chunks of the left during the Bush administration borrowed from it quite a bit. Then when things switched it jumped across the aisle and pulling down racist old statues became deleting history and I guess banning bigoted tweets is the thought police or whatever. The other people are always Big Brother.

Not gonna lie, it's my least favorite thing, because I did my senior thesis on 1984 -- well, and Brave New World and We by Zamyatin -- a sort of paean to dystopias.

I've mostly given up correcting fools for how wrong they are, but I do say "smdh" a LOT.

Edit: you know what? No, it's not. Not even close. Because it's super obvious when people are wrong about it, and how they're wrong. My actual least favorite thing is how wrong people are about Nietzsche, who is somewhat more obscure, and whose work is frequently referenced by white supremacists and Nazis -- quite undeservedly so. I knew a dude in college who had "übermensch" tattooed across his back in 4" Olde German script -- and he was exactly as douchey as that implies. Maybe slightly more douchey than that implies -- in any case it reflected really poorly on him, what he thought of himself, and what Nietzsche would have thought of him.

The Nietzsche==Nazi line of thinking is really sad, because he was pretty against Germans, "German" thought, and very very against anti-Semitism. His sister turned his notes into something they shouldn't have been, in The Will to Power.

Sorry to go OT, y'all. Drinking cup of coffee after a restless night.

 

[Fancy Internet Person]

You know if it weren't for trolls we'd only be at page 3 of comments. But nooooooo.

Which is why, Musk will unfortunately make more money unleashing the trolls.

Some people will feel like it's their mission to fight that largely pointless, losing battle against the trolls.

This is will drastically increase Twitter "engagement" numbers.

If that were true, 4chan would be rolling in filthy lucre. It's not.

Most people don't want to have racism, misogyny, hate, bigotry and all the other assorted bullshit that flows from the right wing shoved in their face day after day. If Twitter becomes a troll park, decent human beings will go elsewhere.

Even more than that, it scares off advertisers.

Kellogg's and Geico don't want their sponsored post to appear next to a load of slurs.

Twitter doesn't make money directly off of engagement, it makes money off advertising.

 

[Alfonse]

You know if it weren't for trolls we'd only be at page 3 of comments. But nooooooo.

Which is why, Musk will unfortunately make more money unleashing the trolls.

Some people will feel like it's their mission to fight that largely pointless, losing battle against the trolls.

This is will drastically increase Twitter "engagement" numbers.

If that were true, 4chan would be rolling in filthy lucre. It's not.

Most people don't want to have racism, misogyny, hate, bigotry and all the other assorted bullshit that flows from the right wing shoved in their face day after day. If Twitter becomes a troll park, decent human beings will go elsewhere.

Even more than that, it scares off advertisers.

Kellogg's and Geico don't want their sponsored post to appear next to a load of slurs.

Twitter doesn't make money directly off of engagement, it makes money off advertising.

While this is all true, it's not that true in this case. Primarily because... well, people are already on Twitter.

Odds are good that, no matter what Musk says, overt racism and such will not be permitted. As you point out, that would really scare off advertisers (this is why Reddit cracked down on some of the wilder subs).

What will be tolerated is misgendering of trans people and covert forms of bigotry. Things that centrists don't care about but the left does. This will cause the left to flee, but the centrists will stay because... they don't care. They don't recognize it as bigotry, so they'll be fine with it. Same goes for advertisers.

So what you will have is a bunch of radical Reich-wingers and... a bunch of centrists with no left to stop the right from submerging them in "I can't believe it's not bigotry" rhetoric. When the left disengages from a social media platform, it is the right that wins because centrists will not move. Parler and Gab failed because it required action to go there, and centrists don't care. But centrists don't care, so they won't leave Twitter just because the left did.

Elon Musk wants to turn Twitter into (even more of) a Reich-wing radicalization pipeline. And he can definitely succeed at that.

 

[Fancy Internet Person]

You know if it weren't for trolls we'd only be at page 3 of comments. But nooooooo.

Which is why, Musk will unfortunately make more money unleashing the trolls.

Some people will feel like it's their mission to fight that largely pointless, losing battle against the trolls.

This is will drastically increase Twitter "engagement" numbers.

If that were true, 4chan would be rolling in filthy lucre. It's not.

Most people don't want to have racism, misogyny, hate, bigotry and all the other assorted bullshit that flows from the right wing shoved in their face day after day. If Twitter becomes a troll park, decent human beings will go elsewhere.

Even more than that, it scares off advertisers.

Kellogg's and Geico don't want their sponsored post to appear next to a load of slurs.

Twitter doesn't make money directly off of engagement, it makes money off advertising.

While this is all true, it's not that true in this case. Primarily because... well, people are already on Twitter.

Odds are good that, no matter what Musk says, overt racism and such will not be permitted. As you point out, that would really scare off advertisers (this is why Reddit cracked down on some of the wilder subs).

What will be tolerated is misgendering of trans people and covert forms of bigotry. Things that centrists don't care about but the left does. This will cause the left to flee, but the centrists will stay because... they don't care. They don't recognize it as bigotry, so they'll be fine with it. Same goes for advertisers.

So what you will have is a bunch of radical Reich-wingers and... a bunch of centrists with no left to stop the right from submerging them in "I can't believe it's not bigotry" rhetoric. When the left disengages from a social media platform, it is the right that wins because centrists will not move. Parler and Gab failed because it required action to go there, and centrists don't care. But centrists don't care, so they won't leave Twitter just because the left did.

Elon Musk wants to turn Twitter into (even more of) a Reich-wing radicalization pipeline. And he can definitely succeed at that.

It's not a one-and-done thing, but it is usable.

People who give a shit about deniable bigotry can @kelloggs or @Geico or @Budweiser, etc... every time they can get a screenshot of an ad next to right wing shittiness.

Again, neither outcome is assured, but there are avenues for action.

 

[O/Siris]

SO the hell what? The blogger's speech was not suppressed in any way, shape, nor form.

Only because musk was not in a position to do so. He now will be and has a track record of retaliating against speech.

Free speech is not freedom from consequence.

Musk has made no effort to even attempt having said speech suppressed nor removed. What he said, effectively, is "you can leave the store now."

That is NOT a violation of free speech in actuality nor free speech in principle. He is under no obligation whatsoever to server people who insult the people working for Tesla.
Not even as a free speech matter.

Is Twitter under an obligation to serve people who incite riots at the Capitol?

After just being told that context matter, this is just an asinine response. ON THE DAY THAT HAPPENED, I called every participant an insurrectionist and that they deserve no such protection.

Incitement to violence is not protected speech even if brought to Constitutional discussion.

Is Twitter under an obligation to serve people who post about football?

This attempt at diversion is not accepted. No, but this has no relevance to the point I've raised.

I responded to a post accusing Elon of violating his own definition of free speech because he opted to not do business with a rude, disrespectful critic (my description). But Elon took no action whatsoever to have the critique suppressed nor removed. The critics comments were and are untouched (at least from any action Elon Musk took). There is no violation of free speech in law nor in principle.

What Twitter (or any platform, really) is or not obligated to allow is not relevant in the least to that point. I have NEVER said that any host is "obligated" to allow anything. I *have* said, and do say, that taking action to silence an opinion is a violation of free speech as a principle. This is not something Elon Musk did in the cited case. The speech in question was and is untouched (by Elon Musk).

"Firing the customer" happens hundreds, if not thousands, of times every single day without violating anyone's free speech. This is one case of that.

 

[DarthSlack]

You know if it weren't for trolls we'd only be at page 3 of comments. But nooooooo.

Which is why, Musk will unfortunately make more money unleashing the trolls.

Some people will feel like it's their mission to fight that largely pointless, losing battle against the trolls.

This is will drastically increase Twitter "engagement" numbers.

If that were true, 4chan would be rolling in filthy lucre. It's not.

Most people don't want to have racism, misogyny, hate, bigotry and all the other assorted bullshit that flows from the right wing shoved in their face day after day. If Twitter becomes a troll park, decent human beings will go elsewhere.

Even more than that, it scares off advertisers.

Kellogg's and Geico don't want their sponsored post to appear next to a load of slurs.

Twitter doesn't make money directly off of engagement, it makes money off advertising.

While this is all true, it's not that true in this case. Primarily because... well, people are already on Twitter.

Odds are good that, no matter what Musk says, overt racism and such will not be permitted. As you point out, that would really scare off advertisers (this is why Reddit cracked down on some of the wilder subs).

What will be tolerated is misgendering of trans people and covert forms of bigotry. Things that centrists don't care about but the left does. This will cause the left to flee, but the centrists will stay because... they don't care. They don't recognize it as bigotry, so they'll be fine with it. Same goes for advertisers.

So what you will have is a bunch of radical Reich-wingers and... a bunch of centrists with no left to stop the right from submerging them in "I can't believe it's not bigotry" rhetoric. When the left disengages from a social media platform, it is the right that wins because centrists will not move. Parler and Gab failed because it required action to go there, and centrists don't care. But centrists don't care, so they won't leave Twitter just because the left did.

Elon Musk wants to turn Twitter into (even more of) a Reich-wing radicalization pipeline. And he can definitely succeed at that.

I'm gonna disagree a bit. Reddit had to do something because if they didn't, they were going to go under. They didn't have a sugar daddy who didn't care if the place made money or not. And I seriously doubt that the RWNJs are going to be content with just hate light. They got used to spewing the real deal, out loud, and as soon as a Musk owned Twitter cracks down on overt, out-loud, bigotry there's gonna be a shitstorm. Right wing talking heads are going to completely lose their shit about how Musk betrayed them.

Which leaves Musk in a bad position. Either he continues with "censorship" and the RWNJs leave for more hate tolerant pastures, or he lets the Right go full-on hatemongering and drives off everyone else.

 

[Fancy Internet Person]

A definition of "Free Speech" that's outrageously more useful to the ultra-rich than to ordinary people is worthless.

 

[O/Siris]

2nd Edit: Restoring my original response:

Only because musk was not in a position to do so. He now will be and has a track record of retaliating against speech.

Free speech is not freedom from consequence.

Musk has made no effort to even attempt having said speech suppressed nor removed. What he said, effectively, is "you can leave the store now."

That is NOT a violation of free speech in actuality nor free speech in principle. He is under no obligation whatsoever to server people who insult the people working for Tesla.
Not even as a free speech matter.

Is Twitter under an obligation to serve people who incite riots at the Capitol?

After just being told that context matter, this is just an asinine response. ON THE DAY THAT HAPPENED, I called every participant an insurrectionist and that they deserve no such protection.

Incitement to violence is not protected speech even if brought to Constitutional discussion.

Is Twitter under an obligation to serve people who post about football?

This attempt at diversion is not accepted. No, but this has no relevance to the point I've raised.

I responded to a post accusing Elon of violating his own definition of free speech because he opted to not do business with a rude, disrespectful critic (my description). But Elon took no action whatsoever to have the critique suppressed nor removed. The critics comments were and are untouched (at least from any action Elon Musk took). There is no violation of free speech in law nor in principle.

What Twitter (or any platform, really) is or not obligated to allow is not relevant in the least to that point. I have NEVER said that any host is "obligated" to allow anything. I *have* said, and do say, that taking action to silence an opinion is a violation of free speech as a principle. This is not something Elon Musk did in the cited case. The speech in question was and is untouched (by Elon Musk).

"Firing the customer" happens hundreds, if not thousands, of times every single day without violating anyone's free speech. This is one case of that.

 

[Deleted member 388703]

Only because musk was not in a position to do so. He now will be and has a track record of retaliating against speech.

Free speech is not freedom from consequence.

Musk has made no effort to even attempt having said speech suppressed nor removed. What he said, effectively, is "you can leave the store now."

That is NOT a violation of free speech in actuality nor free speech in principle. He is under no obligation whatsoever to server people who insult the people working for Tesla.
Not even as a free speech matter.

Is Twitter under an obligation to serve people who incite riots at the Capitol?

After just being told that context matter, this is just an asinine response. ON THE DAY THAT HAPPENED, I called every participant an insurrectionist and that they deserve no such protection.

Incitement to violence is not protected speech even if brought to Constitutional discussion.

Is Twitter under an obligation to serve people who post about football?

This attempt at diversion is not accepted. No, but this has no relevance to the point I've raised.

I responded to a post accusing Elon of violating his own definition of free speech because he opted to not do business with a rude, disrespectful critic (my description). But Elon took no action whatsoever to have the critique suppressed nor removed. The critics comments were and are untouched (at least from any action Elon Musk took). There is no violation of free speech in law nor in principle.

What Twitter (or any platform, really) is or not obligated to allow is not relevant in the least to that point. I have NEVER said that any host is "obligated" to allow anything. I *have* said, and do say, that taking action to silence an opinion is a violation of free speech as a principle. This is not something Elon Musk did in the cited case. The speech in question was and is untouched (by Elon Musk).

"Firing the customer" happens hundreds, if not thousands, of times every single day without violating anyone's free speech. This is one case of that.

... said nobody with the slightest understanding of free speech, ever,


So not surprising at all to see coming from you.

 

[Alfonse]

You know if it weren't for trolls we'd only be at page 3 of comments. But nooooooo.

Which is why, Musk will unfortunately make more money unleashing the trolls.

Some people will feel like it's their mission to fight that largely pointless, losing battle against the trolls.

This is will drastically increase Twitter "engagement" numbers.

If that were true, 4chan would be rolling in filthy lucre. It's not.

Most people don't want to have racism, misogyny, hate, bigotry and all the other assorted bullshit that flows from the right wing shoved in their face day after day. If Twitter becomes a troll park, decent human beings will go elsewhere.

Even more than that, it scares off advertisers.

Kellogg's and Geico don't want their sponsored post to appear next to a load of slurs.

Twitter doesn't make money directly off of engagement, it makes money off advertising.

While this is all true, it's not that true in this case. Primarily because... well, people are already on Twitter.

Odds are good that, no matter what Musk says, overt racism and such will not be permitted. As you point out, that would really scare off advertisers (this is why Reddit cracked down on some of the wilder subs).

What will be tolerated is misgendering of trans people and covert forms of bigotry. Things that centrists don't care about but the left does. This will cause the left to flee, but the centrists will stay because... they don't care. They don't recognize it as bigotry, so they'll be fine with it. Same goes for advertisers.

So what you will have is a bunch of radical Reich-wingers and... a bunch of centrists with no left to stop the right from submerging them in "I can't believe it's not bigotry" rhetoric. When the left disengages from a social media platform, it is the right that wins because centrists will not move. Parler and Gab failed because it required action to go there, and centrists don't care. But centrists don't care, so they won't leave Twitter just because the left did.

Elon Musk wants to turn Twitter into (even more of) a Reich-wing radicalization pipeline. And he can definitely succeed at that.

I'm gonna disagree a bit. Reddit had to do something because if they didn't, they were going to go under. They didn't have a sugar daddy who didn't care if the place made money or not. And I seriously doubt that the RWNJs are going to be content with just hate light. They got used to spewing the real deal, out loud, and as soon as a Musk owned Twitter cracks down on overt, out-loud, bigotry there's gonna be a shitstorm. Right wing talking heads are going to completely lose their shit about how Musk betrayed them.

Which leaves Musk in a bad position. Either he continues with "censorship" and the RWNJs leave for more hate tolerant pastures, or he lets the Right go full-on hatemongering and drives off everyone else.

I'm not sure if you've been paying attention to the... everything that's going on in the world. But are you certain that "full-on hatemongering" will drive off the advertisers and centrists?

We thought that Trump would drive the center of the Republican party off too. We were wrong.

 

[O/Siris]

I wanted to concentrate on this point in particular.

Really? Because you've been arguing the opposite the entire time. You don't think anyone should face consequences for what they post on Twitter, for instance.

No I haven't.

Just as with @Hack-n-Slash and his effort to tie me into the Jan 6 insurrection, you're making that thought up wholesale.

I've stated repeatedly, including right in this thread, that certain posts have no such protection in law nor in principle.

I'll use a personal example: Ars handed me a 24-hour ban last year. I disagree that I did what I was alleged of doing, but I've never argued that they don't have a right to do so. I don't think I disparaged them for their call, either (@Aurich, et al, if I did, I apologize. That was wrong of me).

If I believe that the sole intent of an action is to silence speech one does not like, then I will call that out. But, in the case of actionable behavior, that isn't the case. Calling Ivermectin medically-proven effective against COVID, for example, is misinformation. As a free speech advocate (and small-ell libertarian who still believes in the power of open discussion) I believe it's *better* to leave it posted and confronted, than it is to ban the statement. But I'm okay with tagging misinformation, or taking action to clearly notify that it is so. However, it's a subjective call (on my part), deciding that banning such posts are a violation of free speech. I *try* to differentiate the two, attempts to silence versus a refusal to engage. I don't think that I've derided anyone for disagreeing with me on that call. If I have, I apologize; I was wrong to do so.

 

[Fancy Internet Person]

I'm gonna disagree a bit. Reddit had to do something because if they didn't, they were going to go under. They didn't have a sugar daddy who didn't care if the place made money or not. And I seriously doubt that the RWNJs are going to be content with just hate light. They got used to spewing the real deal, out loud, and as soon as a Musk owned Twitter cracks down on overt, out-loud, bigotry there's gonna be a shitstorm. Right wing talking heads are going to completely lose their shit about how Musk betrayed them.

Which leaves Musk in a bad position. Either he continues with "censorship" and the RWNJs leave for more hate tolerant pastures, or he lets the Right go full-on hatemongering and drives off everyone else.

I'm not sure if you've been paying attention to the... everything that's going on in the world. But are you certain that "full-on hatemongering" will drive off the advertisers and centrists?

We thought that Trump would drive the center of the Republican party off too. We were wrong.

Any plan, process, or hope for the future may fail. Uncertainty is inherent to all things in the future.

If there's a possibility for a good future, opposing the attempt to bring bigots back to Twitter is a reasonable measure to take.

Assuming preemptive failure is not especially useful.

 

[O/Siris]

Free speech is not freedom from consequence.

Musk has made no effort to even attempt having said speech suppressed nor removed. What he said, effectively, is "you can leave the store now."

That is NOT a violation of free speech in actuality nor free speech in principle. He is under no obligation whatsoever to server people who insult the people working for Tesla.
Not even as a free speech matter.

Is Twitter under an obligation to serve people who incite riots at the Capitol?

After just being told that context matter, this is just an asinine response. ON THE DAY THAT HAPPENED, I called every participant an insurrectionist and that they deserve no such protection.

Incitement to violence is not protected speech even if brought to Constitutional discussion.

Is Twitter under an obligation to serve people who post about football?

This attempt at diversion is not accepted. No, but this has no relevance to the point I've raised.

I responded to a post accusing Elon of violating his own definition of free speech because he opted to not do business with a rude, disrespectful critic (my description). But Elon took no action whatsoever to have the critique suppressed nor removed. The critics comments were and are untouched (at least from any action Elon Musk took). There is no violation of free speech in law nor in principle.

What Twitter (or any platform, really) is or not obligated to allow is not relevant in the least to that point. I have NEVER said that any host is "obligated" to allow anything. I *have* said, and do say, that taking action to silence an opinion is a violation of free speech as a principle. This is not something Elon Musk did in the cited case. The speech in question was and is untouched (by Elon Musk).

"Firing the customer" happens hundreds, if not thousands, of times every single day without violating anyone's free speech. This is one case of that.

... said nobody with the slightest understanding of free speech, ever,


So not surprising at all to see coming from you.

@S73v3r made exactly the argument you're trying to deny happened.

 

[Hack-n-Slash]

Is Twitter under an obligation to serve people who post about football?

This attempt at diversion is not accepted. No, but this has no relevance to the point I've raised.

It does, you're just unwilling to accept it.

Twitter is and was under no more obligation to business with anyone than Musk is, no matter how much you want to shout "freeze peach!".

 

[Hack-n-Slash]

I wanted to concentrate on this point in particular.

Really? Because you've been arguing the opposite the entire time. You don't think anyone should face consequences for what they post on Twitter, for instance.

No I haven't.

Just as with @Hack-n-Slash and his effort to tie me into the Jan 6 insurrection, you're making that thought up wholesale.

No one tried to "tie you to the Jan 6 insurrection", and you're an illiterate baboon if you think anyone did.

 

[Deleted member 388703]

Is Twitter under an obligation to serve people who incite riots at the Capitol?

After just being told that context matter, this is just an asinine response. ON THE DAY THAT HAPPENED, I called every participant an insurrectionist and that they deserve no such protection.

Incitement to violence is not protected speech even if brought to Constitutional discussion.

Is Twitter under an obligation to serve people who post about football?

This attempt at diversion is not accepted. No, but this has no relevance to the point I've raised.

I responded to a post accusing Elon of violating his own definition of free speech because he opted to not do business with a rude, disrespectful critic (my description). But Elon took no action whatsoever to have the critique suppressed nor removed. The critics comments were and are untouched (at least from any action Elon Musk took). There is no violation of free speech in law nor in principle.

What Twitter (or any platform, really) is or not obligated to allow is not relevant in the least to that point. I have NEVER said that any host is "obligated" to allow anything. I *have* said, and do say, that taking action to silence an opinion is a violation of free speech as a principle. This is not something Elon Musk did in the cited case. The speech in question was and is untouched (by Elon Musk).

"Firing the customer" happens hundreds, if not thousands, of times every single day without violating anyone's free speech. This is one case of that.

... said nobody with the slightest understanding of free speech, ever,


So not surprising at all to see coming from you.

@S73v3r made exactly the argument you're trying to deny happened.

Yes, yes, we're all familiar with your unique habit of gaslighting and illiterately lying about what others said.

 

[O/Siris]

I'm gonna disagree a bit. Reddit had to do something because if they didn't, they were going to go under. They didn't have a sugar daddy who didn't care if the place made money or not. And I seriously doubt that the RWNJs are going to be content with just hate light. They got used to spewing the real deal, out loud, and as soon as a Musk owned Twitter cracks down on overt, out-loud, bigotry there's gonna be a shitstorm. Right wing talking heads are going to completely lose their shit about how Musk betrayed them.

Which leaves Musk in a bad position. Either he continues with "censorship" and the RWNJs leave for more hate tolerant pastures, or he lets the Right go full-on hatemongering and drives off everyone else.

I'm not sure if you've been paying attention to the... everything that's going on in the world. But are you certain that "full-on hatemongering" will drive off the advertisers and centrists?

We thought that Trump would drive the center of the Republican party off too. We were wrong.

Any plan, process, or hope for the future may fail. Uncertainty is inherent to all things in the future.

If there's a possibility for a good future, opposing the attempt to bring bigots back to Twitter is a reasonable measure to take.

Assuming preemptive failure is not especially useful.

While I disagree with the specific actions being attempted, I agree with the principle.

For what that's worth.

 

[O/Siris]

I wanted to concentrate on this point in particular.

Really? Because you've been arguing the opposite the entire time. You don't think anyone should face consequences for what they post on Twitter, for instance.

No I haven't.

Just as with @Hack-n-Slash and his effort to tie me into the Jan 6 insurrection, you're making that thought up wholesale.

No one tried to "tie you to the Jan 6 insurrection", and you're an illiterate baboon if you think anyone did.

Says the one who did it.

You and those who share your view have REPEATEDLY tried to get a response from me that defends them in any way, shape, or form, despite all my posts in the thread here when that insurrection took place (and since).

 

[Hack-n-Slash]

I wanted to concentrate on this point in particular.

Really? Because you've been arguing the opposite the entire time. You don't think anyone should face consequences for what they post on Twitter, for instance.

No I haven't.

Just as with @Hack-n-Slash and his effort to tie me into the Jan 6 insurrection, you're making that thought up wholesale.

No one tried to "tie you to the Jan 6 insurrection", and you're an illiterate baboon if you think anyone did.

Says the one who did it.

How to say 'I'm an illiterate baboon' without saying 'I'm an illiterate baboon'...

You and those who share your view have REPEATEDLY tried to get a response from me that defends them in any way, shape, or form, despite all my posts in the thread here when that insurrection took place (and since).

Oh, the poor poor matryr.

It's not at ALL possible that I was expecting a rather obvious "No, they are not" reply to the question.

 

[Basil Forthrightly]

I wanted to concentrate on this point in particular.

Really? Because you've been arguing the opposite the entire time. You don't think anyone should face consequences for what they post on Twitter, for instance.

No I haven't.

Just as with @Hack-n-Slash and his effort to tie me into the Jan 6 insurrection, you're making that thought up wholesale.

No one tried to "tie you to the Jan 6 insurrection", and you're an illiterate baboon if you think anyone did.

Says the one who did it.

How to say 'I'm an illiterate baboon' without saying 'I'm an illiterate baboon'...

You and those who share your view have REPEATEDLY tried to get a response from me that defends them in any way, shape, or form, despite all my posts in the thread here when that insurrection took place (and since).

Oh, the poor poor matryr.

It's not at ALL possible that I was expecting a rather obvious "No, they are not" reply to the question.

He gets asked a simple question about Twitter that can be answered "yes" or "no", he's sees a nefarious smear campaign. Such a sensitive snowflake.

Seriously, O/Siris. There's a huge gap between what's in your head on this point and what's in the posts. I suggest you follow the link Hack provided, reread his question to you and then consider how your recent characterization of that question paints a poor picture of you to other readers. Remember, no one but you remembers what you posted over a year ago.

 

[DarthSlack]

I'm not sure if you've been paying attention to the... everything that's going on in the world. But are you certain that "full-on hatemongering" will drive off the advertisers and centrists?

We thought that Trump would drive the center of the Republican party off too. We were wrong.

That's a fair point. That said, 4chan isn't exactly a hotspot for advertising and that's really where Twitter's going. And as far as I know, 4chan isn't a big hangout for "centrists".

 

[Alfonse]

I'm not sure if you've been paying attention to the... everything that's going on in the world. But are you certain that "full-on hatemongering" will drive off the advertisers and centrists?

We thought that Trump would drive the center of the Republican party off too. We were wrong.

That's a fair point. That said, 4chan isn't exactly a hotspot for advertising and that's really where Twitter's going. And as far as I know, 4chan isn't a big hangout for "centrists".

But that's because they're not already there. 4chan was small and not well advertised; it was just a webforum with a unique gimmick. Twitter went mainstream.

Turning a mainstream platform sharply right-wing is a very different thing from asking users to join a right-wing platform. When platforms shift, all things being equal, most people will stay where they are and acclimatize themselves to the new normal.

This is why radicalization of existing communities can be so dangerous. Most people came there for something other than the radicalization, something it still provides. Given the choice between leaving a place that matters to them and staying with a more hostile crowd (especially if they're not hostile to you), we know what the answer is.

 

[ScifiGeek]

You know if it weren't for trolls we'd only be at page 3 of comments. But nooooooo.

Which is why, Musk will unfortunately make more money unleashing the trolls.

Some people will feel like it's their mission to fight that largely pointless, losing battle against the trolls.

This is will drastically increase Twitter "engagement" numbers.

If that were true, 4chan would be rolling in filthy lucre. It's not.

Most people don't want to have racism, misogyny, hate, bigotry and all the other assorted bullshit that flows from the right wing shoved in their face day after day. If Twitter becomes a troll park, decent human beings will go elsewhere.

It's not going to quickly turn into to 4chan. 4chan was always the niche, anything goes and never grew.

Twitter is already big with a wide audience, that Musk will shift it right, but it won't go 4chan.

I suspect a lot of what he will allow would be more "alternative views" on Vaccines, and lot more right wing misinformation, because I think this is Political for Musk. He wants a GOP government. His hard right shift happened when California indicated that public health was more important in a Pandemic, than him having a factory open to produce cars, and clearly Musk saw that the other way around. Plus the GOP isn't talking about a Wealth Tax.

 

[Fancy Internet Person]

You know if it weren't for trolls we'd only be at page 3 of comments. But nooooooo.

Which is why, Musk will unfortunately make more money unleashing the trolls.

Some people will feel like it's their mission to fight that largely pointless, losing battle against the trolls.

This is will drastically increase Twitter "engagement" numbers.

If that were true, 4chan would be rolling in filthy lucre. It's not.

Most people don't want to have racism, misogyny, hate, bigotry and all the other assorted bullshit that flows from the right wing shoved in their face day after day. If Twitter becomes a troll park, decent human beings will go elsewhere.

It's not going to quickly turn into to 4chan. 4chan was always the niche, anything goes and never grew.

Twitter is already big with a wide audience, that Musk will shift it right, but it won't go 4chan.

I suspect a lot of what he will allow would be more "alternative views" on Vaccines, and lot more right wing misinformation, because I think this is Political for Musk. He wants a GOP government. His hard right shift happened when California indicated that public health was more important in a Pandemic, than him having a factory open to produce cars, and clearly Musk saw that the other way around. Plus the GOP isn't talking about a Wealth Tax.

Today's GOP isn't going to accept a Twitter that's a little more bigoted and a little more fascist.

I agree with you on what Musk intends, but that doesn't mean everyone else is going to cooperate with his vision.

 

[graylshaped]

I wanted to concentrate on this point in particular.

Really? Because you've been arguing the opposite the entire time. You don't think anyone should face consequences for what they post on Twitter, for instance.

No I haven't.

Just as with @Hack-n-Slash and his effort to tie me into the Jan 6 insurrection, you're making that thought up wholesale.

No one tried to "tie you to the Jan 6 insurrection", and you're an illiterate baboon if you think anyone did.

Says the one who did it.

How to say 'I'm an illiterate baboon' without saying 'I'm an illiterate baboon'...

You and those who share your view have REPEATEDLY tried to get a response from me that defends them in any way, shape, or form, despite all my posts in the thread here when that insurrection took place (and since).

Oh, the poor poor matryr.

It's not at ALL possible that I was expecting a rather obvious "No, they are not" reply to the question.

He gets asked a simple question about Twitter that can be answered "yes" or "no", he's sees a nefarious smear campaign. Such a sensitive snowflake.

Seriously, O/Siris. There's a huge gap between what's in your head on this point and what's in the posts. I suggest you follow the link Hack provided, reread his question to you and then consider how your recent characterization of that question paints a poor picture of you to other readers. Remember, no one but you remembers what you posted over a year ago.

It's been more than a year since I have seen anything he posted.

Mind you, others keep quoting him...

 

[Deleted member 276317]

I think Elon will solve the timid advertiser problem by shutting down the posts of those who are calling for boycotts. After all, if free speech is to survive, then that speech that calls to end free speech must not be tolerated. Call it a paradox of tolerance. Silencing the enemies of free speech is still consistent with the principles of free speech.

Elon, through Twitter, can silence critics sufficiently to prevent boycotts?

Naive.

 

[s73v3r]

I think Elon will solve the timid advertiser problem by shutting down the posts of those who are calling for boycotts. After all, if free speech is to survive, then that speech that calls to end free speech must not be tolerated. Call it a paradox of tolerance. Silencing the enemies of free speech is still consistent with the principles of free speech.

Calling for a boycott of something absolutely is free speech, and is in no way, shape, or form being an "enemy" of it.

 

[Fancy Internet Person]

I think Elon will solve the timid advertiser problem by shutting down the posts of those who are calling for boycotts. After all, if free speech is to survive, then that speech that calls to end free speech must not be tolerated. Call it a paradox of tolerance. Silencing the enemies of free speech is still consistent with the principles of free speech.

Calling for a boycott of something absolutely is free speech, and is in no way, shape, or form being an "enemy" of it.

He's saying that he agrees that Musk is a cynical, lying fascist. It's just that he approves of that.

However the plan he proposes doesn't work without a fast and high degree of compliance from existing Twitter folks and a complacency from other media and from brands that would be shocking.

 

[mpfaff]

I think Elon will solve the timid advertiser problem by shutting down the posts of those who are calling for boycotts. After all, if free speech is to survive, then that speech that calls to end free speech must not be tolerated. Call it a paradox of tolerance. Silencing the enemies of free speech is still consistent with the principles of free speech.

Elon Musk made it clear that legal speech is allowed. Boycotts are free speech. Part of freedom of speech is freedom of association and the freedom to not associate with people or companies who support things you find terrible. Banning talk of boycotts is pretty authoritarian and steps even further than banning people who get people stirred up to harass the parents of murdered children

 

[DarthSlack]

You know if it weren't for trolls we'd only be at page 3 of comments. But nooooooo.

Which is why, Musk will unfortunately make more money unleashing the trolls.

Some people will feel like it's their mission to fight that largely pointless, losing battle against the trolls.

This is will drastically increase Twitter "engagement" numbers.

If that were true, 4chan would be rolling in filthy lucre. It's not.

Most people don't want to have racism, misogyny, hate, bigotry and all the other assorted bullshit that flows from the right wing shoved in their face day after day. If Twitter becomes a troll park, decent human beings will go elsewhere.

It's not going to quickly turn into to 4chan. 4chan was always the niche, anything goes and never grew.

Twitter is already big with a wide audience, that Musk will shift it right, but it won't go 4chan.

I suspect a lot of what he will allow would be more "alternative views" on Vaccines, and lot more right wing misinformation, because I think this is Political for Musk. He wants a GOP government. His hard right shift happened when California indicated that public health was more important in a Pandemic, than him having a factory open to produce cars, and clearly Musk saw that the other way around. Plus the GOP isn't talking about a Wealth Tax.

See, that's the problem, once Musk unleashes "Free Speech For All", he loses control. Because today's right wing isn't going to be happy unless they're given full, open and unrestricted license to scream their hatred at the top of their lungs. It's not gonna be pretty.

I get the argument that Alfonse is making about how Twitter has an existing user base that could stick with it, it's just that I don't think we've seen a popular site go off the rails as far, or as completely, as Twitter might do under Musk. Even at its worst, Twitter hasn't allowed the kind of hate Musk might enable. I guess we'll just have to see.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

Psychophant is just making a hash of the Paradox of Tolerance that gets invoked around Twitter et al. discussion in an attempt to Gotcha the regulars.