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
I never made that argument. I said he doesn't support "absolute free speech" and he clearly doesn't. There is an important difference in what I specifically called out that you continually fail to understand. You seem completely capable of understanding nuance.
Upvote
17
(17
/
0)
Which has been show, repeatedly, by his own actions. The retaliating against a customer is just one example of musks repeated double standard of going after and punishing anyone who speaks negatively of him. None of those actions support a single one of his messages on free speech.
Upvote
15
(15
/
0)
So the Dems were celebrating Trump getting kicked off for no reason, and he wasn't impaired at all? And his return isn't a threat to Democracy? That's not what I've been hearing.Banning someone from Twitter doesn't either. If it did, why is Donald Trump still able to appear on TV, in newspaper interviews, issue press releases and hold political rallies if his speech is being impaired?
https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/ ... itter-aclu
Can I post pro trans posters on your house? I mean not doing so impairs my right to free speech.
Upvote
26
(27
/
-1)
Once again failing to address what I stated. What relevance does any of that have to do with myself or what I posted?So the Dems were celebrating Trump getting kicked off for no reason, and he wasn't impaired at all? And his return isn't a threat to Democracy? That's not what I've been hearing.Banning someone from Twitter doesn't either. If it did, why is Donald Trump still able to appear on TV, in newspaper interviews, issue press releases and hold political rallies if his speech is being impaired?
https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/ ... itter-aclu
Goodbye troll.
Upvote
20
(20
/
0)
Upvote
18
(18
/
0)
And your stupid bullshit is so because moderation is good both morally and objectively on top of and separate from its legality.
Upvote
14
(16
/
-2)
Nobody with the slightest understanding of Pruneyard would stupidly lie that it has any relevance whstsoever here.
Upvote
15
(15
/
0)
Again I remind you, anyone that uses 'woke' as a pejorative has told you all you need to know about them.
Upvote
26
(27
/
-1)
Says the person so triggered by it they had to create an account to whine about it. LOL!
Upvote
28
(28
/
0)
I wonder how likely it is that someone who claims COVID is just a cold and who called for the installation of a dictatorship in Canada this January, of all things, is likely to do any such thing.
Anticipating the counter-argument that these are unrelated, not really, no. Like the statement that prompted this article, all three are statements made by a man of limited education who does not really understand what he is talking about and therefore says things that are dumb.
To the applause of his adoring fans, who apparently miss the gilded age.
Upvote
18
(19
/
-1)
Some of us have the mental capacity acknowledge the difference between having the right to do a thing, and doing the right thing. Thus, we support the free-speech-protecting constitutional right of moderation and oppose promoting fascism and bigotry, amd acknowlege in both cases the inherent right to do so.
Others will go "Hurr durr where's your support for corporate righs now that Elon is in charge you hippocrats!"
See O/Siris's idiocy just above for an example of the latter.
Upvote
21
(21
/
0)
It's not hard to figure out it's because you were dropped on your head at least three times a day as a booze baby.
Upvote
5
(14
/
-9)
Does he not realize what he argument sounds like? It was her fault! She made me do it! If she didn't make me angry I would never of beat her!
Upvote
13
(17
/
-4)
Because to be right wing, it's a requirement thst you have to be pig-ignorant and easily led. It's self-selection as an easy mark for scammers.
That's the singular reason Parler exists - it was made by those behind Cambridge Analytica who decided the best strategy to achieve their goal ditch the Facebook middleman and use frozen peaches to honeypot the magats into giving up their contact info for spamvertizing.
Upvote
15
(16
/
-1)
... said nobody capable of rational independent thought, ever.
So not surprised to see you being the sheep to parrot those lies.
Upvote
25
(25
/
0)
Reminder: It was the US State Department that wanted the prosecutor gone, because the prosecutor was corrupt and not investigating.
But that little fact isn't convenient to the lemmings' narrative.
But that little fact isn't convenient to the lemmings' narrative.
Upvote
23
(23
/
0)
As evidenced by the Tangerine Tantrum. His one and only skill (and he's very good at it, to give credit where it's due) is gulling the gullible.
Upvote
13
(13
/
0)
Pretty much the entire EU also wanted him gone. Anyone trying to make out that it was something Joe did by himself is either a liar or a fool.
Upvote
20
(20
/
0)
Just like with "crооked hillary," they're just people who are "still obsessed with Andriy Derkatch's fictions about the winning presidential candidate's son for some dumb reason."
Upvote
15
(15
/
0)
Isn’t it nice when an absurdly rich man wields $60G to remodel the world to his liking, while at the same time claiming to simply be doing the will of the people?
I mean, I knew that Musk was a libertarian. And I guess I could have known that he was a populist too, maybe even a Trumpist. But this is frankly fascist-level of scary. This quote is downright frightening:
To be clear, this quote implies that the “will of the people” is absolute in its power; whereas in a constitutional democracy there are civil rights (such as those in the Bill of Rights) that exists above popular will precisely to prevent a tyranny of the majority. The genocidal decisions of Stalin, Mao or Hitler (all claiming to enact the will of the people), were tyrannical whether or not a majority of the population actually supported them. As Madison said, if people were angels, then you wouldn’t need government (or rights) — but it is precisely because we aren’t angels that we need civil rights, along with checks and balances.
Which brings us to the other scary quote of the day:
But let’s also remember that those who would abuse free speech to gain power are also the ones who are quick to extinguish it when they do get in power. Unfortunately, libertarians like Musk have skipped over 20th-century history; and are therefore bound to repeat it.
Never again, we used to say.
I mean, I knew that Musk was a libertarian. And I guess I could have known that he was a populist too, maybe even a Trumpist. But this is frankly fascist-level of scary. This quote is downright frightening:
I mean, seriously? If I am a Jew or a Muslim, do I have to let people post antisemitic or Islamophobic messages on my private property? Need I do so for homophobes if I am running an LGBT+ center? Am I to understand that my private decisions are now subjected entirely to the “will of the people”? Is my own right of free speech nullified in the face of the right of free speech of others? In other words, if a private platform cannot decide what is acceptable or not to say on its own soapbox, then this is no more a right of free speech, but a tyranny of free speech.
To be clear, this quote implies that the “will of the people” is absolute in its power; whereas in a constitutional democracy there are civil rights (such as those in the Bill of Rights) that exists above popular will precisely to prevent a tyranny of the majority. The genocidal decisions of Stalin, Mao or Hitler (all claiming to enact the will of the people), were tyrannical whether or not a majority of the population actually supported them. As Madison said, if people were angels, then you wouldn’t need government (or rights) — but it is precisely because we aren’t angels that we need civil rights, along with checks and balances.
Which brings us to the other scary quote of the day:
This is, in fact, pure demagoguery. I am certainly not afraid of “free speech” as most people would define it, but I am definitely afraid of what Musk’s definition of it would bring. At least since the fascist crisis of the 1920s–1930s, most free and democratic countries have learnt that in order to protect free speech in a society, you actually have to place some limits on it. You can’t scream, “fire!” in a crowded concert hall, nor should you be allowed to incite genocide on Twitter. This is pretty much common sense.
But let’s also remember that those who would abuse free speech to gain power are also the ones who are quick to extinguish it when they do get in power. Unfortunately, libertarians like Musk have skipped over 20th-century history; and are therefore bound to repeat it.
Never again, we used to say.
Upvote
13
(13
/
0)
How is it a "problem" that the "will" of the corrupt fails to tamper with the law that protects free speech?
Upvote
4
(5
/
-1)
To be precise, it reminds courts that it's still wrong to sue third parties not responsible for publishing the content.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
Reminder: not all hallucinogens are chemical in nature. Right-wing media provides such effects, as one can clearly and irrefutibly observe in the spoiler.
Upvote
12
(12
/
0)
Not going to find the original comment but is zero arguing that our free speech laws are too lax or too strict?
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
which is - given how easy it is to fake the registration (just consider foreign comment bots) literally means little. Nevermind that everybody who is registered prior to the sale would have to be verified and double checked ? Seems unlikely... so anonymity will prevail
Also - in European law, Corporate entities have independent legal standing, equivalent to actual people, as in "Incorporated". They bear responsibility for their statements and can be sued over them fully in civil court, and in the case of criminal activity the respective responsible "organs" aka employees..
So what exactly is the difference you allude to ?
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Elon is a bright guy with massive blindspots. Social media has the same "alignment problem" as artificial general intelligence, AGI. The instrumental goals of clicks and likes aren't in any way identical to the terminal goals of a vibrant town square or democratic exchange.
Musk has repeatedly warned against simply "more" AI and even mooted government controls to prevent what he sees as fairly likely catastrophy if AGI ascends without checks to its power. Twitter (+bots!!!) are entirely analogous force multipliers with genuine existential risks for individual and social security. We could, for example, ask a Rohingya about this--if we could find one who hasn't been persecuted and disappeared #Facebook.
Musk has repeatedly warned against simply "more" AI and even mooted government controls to prevent what he sees as fairly likely catastrophy if AGI ascends without checks to its power. Twitter (+bots!!!) are entirely analogous force multipliers with genuine existential risks for individual and social security. We could, for example, ask a Rohingya about this--if we could find one who hasn't been persecuted and disappeared #Facebook.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
His comment reads like he's lamenting that the attempts by those like Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz to eliminate Section 230's free speech protections haven't gone anywhere.
edit: going back through their other takes, I probably have the right law, but can add other politicians as well. While 90+% of censorship comes from Republicans, there is some bipartisan stupidity going on as well.
Though that's not to try to falsely equate the two, as while the left's attempts to defang hate and lies and the right's attempts to kill people they don't like may be equally bad in the eyes of the law, they are pretty obviously morally opposite.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
Unfortunately that applies to any "truth" convinced of it's righteous correctness. Political dogma, religion, anything cultish, ideology or even uncritical science.... A very human foible
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
I prefer to think of him as a petulant child who also has the keys to the toy shop.
Upvote
3
(4
/
-1)
Scary Devil Monastery
Ars Scholae Palatinae
That, and Musk likely won't change Twitter's comment policy much unless he decides to override his entire legal team. Which might admittedly happen since Elon has never really been that good at predicting people.
I'll let Beau do the talking for this one, again;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBeEjohoLiU
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
Scary Devil Monastery
Ars Scholae Palatinae
Oh, that line does have a point. Anyone using it knows damn well the point must be the quiet part. Because the fragile snowflakes who call it "Woke" to consider bigotry, racism and misogyny unacceptable literally fall apart if it's exposed that they consider it a burden to not be allowed to other people over things the people being othered have no control over.
The irony is that Twitter isn't going to significantly meet them halfway. Either the company retains the same policy it's had for a long time or it becomes a Gab clone every bit as disappointing to the alt-right yokels as the original version where there are no liberals to troll.
And Musk's legal and marketing department knows as much and will so inform him. Whether he changes the ToS and moderation policy will thus rather depend on how much of his 44 billion dollar investment he's willing to lose.
The short and the long of it is that the people thinking Twitter's about to become a safe space for the alt-right cesspool or racism and bigotry are likely either wrong or they'll find it as big a letdown as Parler and Gab. A future where they actually get what they want does not exist.
And I can only surmise that the subconscious realization of this is what keeps getting alt-right shitwits to succumb to their usual response of throwing tantrums.
Upvote
18
(18
/
0)