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

 

[fractl]

My neighbor is a full-fledged red-hat, and chose to tell me "You Democrats are destroying the country" after I said "Good morning" to him while walking my kid to school. Emphasis: he chose to engage while my kid was with me.

I said "We can disagree without being assholes. Or, at least, I can."

I will continue to say good morning to him, while knowing it is quite possible I will wind up elbow-hooking him.

I can't even. What the fuck does "destroying the country" even mean? How fucking fragile do you think the USA is if it's being "destroyed" by wind turbines and parental leave and anti-discrimination laws, or any of the 1,000 things that liberal/Democrats support?

Are your gay neighbors destroying the country because they cook meth in the garage and sacrifice virgins in the back yard, or because they got married?

I would genuinely like to know that guy's answer. WTF was done to you buddy? Did somebody take a Greenpeace flag, break into your house and sodomize you with the flagpole? Or are you just having a panic attack cause that's what Fucker Carlson told you is gonna happen?

Which televangelist said that Katrina was God’s wrath over support for gays? Some people actually believe that garbage.

 

[fractl]

Must every venue that invites expressive participation allow all expressions?

No. Freedom of association is a fundamental part of freedom of expression, even if self-imposed limitations are exactly that: Limitations. But the larger and more "general-purpose" a venue is, the greater its ethical responsibility is to avoid interfering, and the more credibility it gains from restraint.

I don't like Twitter's format, so I have no actual dog in this fight. But if Elon Musk intends to turn it into the world's first legit internet town square, I'm glad someone is trying. It's been a very long time since anyone took the idea of the internet as "empowering" seriously, and it's an idea that deserves to be resurrected.

Bigotry is intellectual vandalism, it only serves to smear shit on everything it touches.

There's not one person on this planet uninfected with prejudice. It's normal to be grossed out by extreme cases of it, but thinking we're separate from the problem would be self-delusion. So avoiding it altogether isn't protecting anything, it's just giving the illusion of power to wretched ideas that actually have very little of it.

Not everyone wants to be part of some intellectual root cause analysis of bigotry

It doesn't have to be so cerebral. Sometimes it's just about looking in the mirror, and recognizing in yourself the weaknesses that led others down the wrong path.

They just want to be able to discuss whatever without people taking shots based on who they are. Bigotry and hate speech on social networks literally kills people and there isn't any obligation to keep what was well described as cancer alive.

Lots of social interactions add to the burdens of life and can "literally kill people." It's stressful to see bad things, to be witness to madness or malice, to be betrayed or have illusions shattered. But it's also life-affirming and joyful to see the opposite, and sometimes life-affirming and joyful to even express the positive in the face of the negative.

The people we expect to insulate us from the jaggedness of the world are called family and friends. I don't know why anyone would expect billions of strangers on the internet to do that for them, or why they would think political and cultural debates are supposed to be a bunch of choir-preaching and self-adulation.

Realizing that surprises are possible is the best gift anyone can give themselves.

Racists, fascists and bigots don’t need empowering. I won’t participate with such types present: That would give them more legitimacy. Starve them of oxygen (attention) and they will crawl back under the rocks where they used to be.