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

 

[Psychophant]

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

Boycotts are economic action. If they were free speech, then there would be no legal way for the federal government to prohibit transactions with prohibited parties(Iran, North Korea, etc)

You're wanting it to be regulated that people can't make decisions to not support a business based on their own feelings, or rather they can't make that position known publicly because it might hurt their bottom line.

I want nothing of the sort. I fully support the right of people to boycott whoever they want. The idea that they should be legally protected from any consequence from private entities is what I object to. Everyone had freedom of association don't they? It goes both ways. The state should not be able to retaliate for a boycott, the private sector should be free to.

 

[Psychophant]

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

Boycotts are economic action. If they were free speech, then there would be no legal way for the federal government to prohibit transactions with prohibited parties(Iran, North Korea, etc)

The government puts limits on speech all the time. The idea that “if it was speech, government couldn’t limit it” holds no water.

You left out the important qualifying word(free). "If they were free speech" meaning speech that couldn't legally be limited under the law. Obviously some speech can be restricted. The claim wasn't that "Boycotts are speech", it was that "Boycotts are free speech." Obviously the governments can restrict direct calls for violence, because they aren't free speech. If it can legally be restricted by the government, then it isn't free speech, ergo economic transactions with prohibited entities aren't free speech.

 

[Psychophant]

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

Boycotts are economic action. If they were free speech, then there would be no legal way for the federal government to prohibit transactions with prohibited parties(Iran, North Korea, etc)

The government puts limits on speech all the time. The idea that “if it was speech, government couldn’t limit it” holds no water.

You left out the important qualifying word(free). "If they were free speech" meaning speech that couldn't legally be limited under the law. Obviously some speech can be restricted. The claim wasn't that "Boycotts are speech", it was that "Boycotts are free speech." Obviously the governments can restrict direct calls for violence, because they aren't free speech. If it can legally be restricted by the government, then it isn't free speech, ergo economic transactions with prohibited entities aren't free speech.

So you believe that "This company supports hate groups so maybe you shouldn't give them money" is dangerous speech that shouldn't be permitted?

It doesn't sound dangerous to me. It might conflict with the goals a private corporation may have, so they should feel free to censor it if they choose to though.

 

[Psychophant]

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

Boycotts are economic action. If they were free speech, then there would be no legal way for the federal government to prohibit transactions with prohibited parties(Iran, North Korea, etc)

The government puts limits on speech all the time. The idea that “if it was speech, government couldn’t limit it” holds no water.

You left out the important qualifying word(free). "If they were free speech" meaning speech that couldn't legally be limited under the law. Obviously some speech can be restricted. The claim wasn't that "Boycotts are speech", it was that "Boycotts are free speech." Obviously the governments can restrict direct calls for violence, because they aren't free speech. If it can legally be restricted by the government, then it isn't free speech, ergo economic transactions with prohibited entities aren't free speech.

Nope. Boycotts absolutely are free speech. And there are plenty of things that are “free speech” that the government can restrict. Lying in advertising, for one.

You are quite literally trying to remove any ability for people to rebuke bad speech, and to choose not to associate with assholes.

Nope. All those things you can say legally without government interference? That is "free speech". All the other stuff? Just speech, with the possibility of having it removed and paying a consequence for it. Lying in advertising isn't free speech, specifically because you can't legally do it. The US definition of free speech is quite broad, other countries will have a narrower definition.

 

[Psychophant]

Thoughts from watching Tesla stock freefall:

I wonder if this is all a ruse to crash Tesla stock so he can take it private more cheaply.

That's a little 4D space chess for me, but TSLA investors sure seem not impressed by all this.

If you look at the 2 year price chart, investors are still doing incredibly well. If they bought in the bubble, well, sorry but you bought into a bubble, nobody feels bad for you. There is no freefall here.

 

[Psychophant]

It doesn't sound dangerous to me. It might conflict with the goals a private corporation may have, so they should feel free to censor it if they choose to though.

Musk has said legal speech is permitted. Calling for boycotts of companies that have their ads alongside the inevitable bigoted shit that's going to end up on Twitter is allowed on his Twitter.

Yes, I'm aware. And I theorized he might want to make an exception for speech that harms the viability of his free speech platform. Round and round we go...

 

[Psychophant]

It doesn't sound dangerous to me. It might conflict with the goals a private corporation may have, so they should feel free to censor it if they choose to though.

Musk has said legal speech is permitted. Calling for boycotts of companies that have their ads alongside the inevitable bigoted shit that's going to end up on Twitter is allowed on his Twitter.

Yes, I'm aware. And I theorized he might want to make an exception for speech that harms the viability of his free speech platform. Round and round we go...

Yeah, protect free speech by suppressing free speech, great

Yep.

 

[Psychophant]

It doesn't sound dangerous to me. It might conflict with the goals a private corporation may have, so they should feel free to censor it if they choose to though.

Musk has said legal speech is permitted. Calling for boycotts of companies that have their ads alongside the inevitable bigoted shit that's going to end up on Twitter is allowed on his Twitter.

Yes, I'm aware. And I theorized he might want to make an exception for speech that harms the viability of his free speech platform. Round and round we go...

Yeah, protect free speech by suppressing free speech, great

Yep.

Hang on a moment.

So imagine a white supremacist group uses their free speech to tweet about how good a white-only world would be, and how they wish they had some final answer get rid of all those annoying 'others.' Twitter places an ad for some pillow manufacturer next to those tweets and some non-white supremacists contact the pillow company to make them aware. The pillow company says they're happy to appear next to a pic of some guy with a swastika tattoo yelling that non-whites need to get out of his country. The non-white supremacists organise a boycott and you support Twitter banning them because they threaten Twitter's ad revenue?

Do I have that right? And you post Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance to support your point?

Or do you mean Musk would get rid of the white supremacists from Twitter, in my example?

If you allow speech that threatens the viability of your free speech platform, then it may cease to exist. To best protect it, you paradoxically might have to suppress that speech that threatens it. It's mostly a thought exercise, taking the principle of free speech to extremes, but it shows, like Popper's tolerance paradox, there is still room in a "maximum free speech" model to restrict some speech.

I doubt Elon's Twitter would come close to a total free speech model anyways.

 

[Psychophant]

So let me get this straight.

People can post whatever they like, and that's fine. Even if what they post is considered deeply offensive and hateful to others, causing those targeted to leave the platform.

When those targeted post calls for boycotts or similar, in an effort to get the platform to limit the posts they consider deeply offensive and hateful, causing advertisers to leave the platform, that's not okay.

Your justification for this is that boycotts of advertisers harm platform revenue, making the platform no longer viable or self-sustaining based on generated revenue. E.g. the (original) TOS is not a suicide pact, so the platform can implement restrictions and expand the scope of the TOS in order to keep the platform financially stable. Makes sense.

Please tell me, what do you think is going to happen to the platform's ad revenue, which you postulate is necessary to keep the platform viable, when all the people targeted by speech they deem offensive and/or hateful leave the platform? Users choosing to leave the platform en masse reduces ad revenue as much as (or more than) specific advertisers choosing to leave the platform.

Are you suggesting that the offended users be compelled to continue using the platform? If so, how would you implement that? If not, why is one class of revenue-reducing speech worth protecting while another class of revenue-reducing speech is worth banning?

People have been targeted by offensive speech on Twitter for a long time now. Many people left. Those still on are quite addicted, especially the heavy users, and are unlikely to leave in large numbers. There are tools to help, which could be expanded.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ch ... ment-tools

 

[Psychophant]

Yeah, protect free speech by suppressing free speech, great

Yep.

Hang on a moment.

So imagine a white supremacist group uses their free speech to tweet about how good a white-only world would be, and how they wish they had some final answer get rid of all those annoying 'others.' Twitter places an ad for some pillow manufacturer next to those tweets and some non-white supremacists contact the pillow company to make them aware. The pillow company says they're happy to appear next to a pic of some guy with a swastika tattoo yelling that non-whites need to get out of his country. The non-white supremacists organise a boycott and you support Twitter banning them because they threaten Twitter's ad revenue?

Do I have that right? And you post Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance to support your point?

Or do you mean Musk would get rid of the white supremacists from Twitter, in my example?

If you allow speech that threatens the viability of your free speech platform, then it may cease to exist. To best protect it, you paradoxically might have to suppress that speech that threatens it. It's mostly a thought exercise, taking the principle of free speech to extremes, but it shows, like Popper's tolerance paradox, there is still room in a "maximum free speech" model to restrict some speech.

I doubt Elon's Twitter would come close to a total free speech model anyways.

Banning the people who speak against the white supremacists is exactly the inverse of Popper's point.

Their speech wouldn't be banned, just their boycott actions. They would be free to say whatever they want to the white supremacists directly. You know, engaging with bad ideas and people directly. It's the speech that harms the platform that would be shunned.

 

[Psychophant]

So let me get this straight.

People can post whatever they like, and that's fine. Even if what they post is considered deeply offensive and hateful to others, causing those targeted to leave the platform.

When those targeted post calls for boycotts or similar, in an effort to get the platform to limit the posts they consider deeply offensive and hateful, causing advertisers to leave the platform, that's not okay.

Your justification for this is that boycotts of advertisers harm platform revenue, making the platform no longer viable or self-sustaining based on generated revenue. E.g. the (original) TOS is not a suicide pact, so the platform can implement restrictions and expand the scope of the TOS in order to keep the platform financially stable. Makes sense.

Please tell me, what do you think is going to happen to the platform's ad revenue, which you postulate is necessary to keep the platform viable, when all the people targeted by speech they deem offensive and/or hateful leave the platform? Users choosing to leave the platform en masse reduces ad revenue as much as (or more than) specific advertisers choosing to leave the platform.

Are you suggesting that the offended users be compelled to continue using the platform? If so, how would you implement that? If not, why is one class of revenue-reducing speech worth protecting while another class of revenue-reducing speech is worth banning?

People have been targeted by offensive speech on Twitter for a long time now. Many people left. Those still on are quite addicted, especially the heavy users, and are unlikely to leave in large numbers. There are tools to help, which could be expanded.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ch ... ment-tools

This in no way approaches anything resembling an answer to the question I asked you.

Are you suggesting that the offended users be compelled to continue using the platform? If so, how would you implement that? If not, why is one class of revenue-reducing speech worth protecting while another class of revenue-reducing speech is worth banning?

Because the primary concern of the platform(allegedly) is free speech, not revenue. If the goal was revenue maximization, your arguments would be making sense. Within the framework of maximizing free speech to the detriment of everything else, it does not.