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

 

[Uragan]

Why do you think people have categorized you thusly?

Well, it's obvious why they categorized me thusly.

They are so fucking terrible at defending their arguments, and their experience in the world is so limited that they believe, despite common sense, that repeatedly calling me a nazi transphobe etc is a way to gain the upper hand in an argument.

It did distract me for a while, I succumbed to trying to expose how stupid of a rhetorical approach that is, but I overestimated their intelligence and now I'm stuck with their endless repetition of the same meaningless claim.

It doesn't offend me, just to be clear. But the redundancy of their thought is remarkable.

You really like insulting people, but wilt under any sort of pushback from your targets.

 

[Jordan83]

Ahh, for a second I thought one of you was capable of approaching this debate in good faith.

Well, I guess that is total wishful thinking.

What debate?

I'm honestly asking. I haven't really seen anything resembling much of a debate from you. Just attempted barbs back and forth with some people.

I even answered the question you asked several pages ago, and then told you later that I answered it when you complained that nobody had. You failed to address either count, and just continued to try and trade barbs.

So, honestly. What debate do you think you're having with anyone here? Because honestly I don't see one. I just see a lot of shit being flung, equally by you and at you.

No one is trying to debate me!

I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard.

It's not that hard really.

So, are you on board with corporations filtering the truth for you? I think it's worth exploring that particular question.

I already answered a variant of that question. See my previous reply to you.

To summarize: it's their prerogative to filter whatever they want on their platform, and I am perfectly fine with them choosing to do so. Twitter does it, Facebook does it, YouTube does it, Ars Technica does it, OANN does it, Truth Social does it, Breitbard does it, Reddit does it, etc. etc. etc. And yes, I am fine with it. I may have opinions about them for doing it, based on the manner they do it or any number of factors, but I do not call for their ability to do so to be taken away from them. Because I have a choice as well, even if that choice is to not engage.

I do not have a Twitter account, and have not ever had a Twitter account. Who, what, how, Twitter chooses to moderate has zero effect on my life.

 

[fafalone]

There's a lot of comments so I didn't read every one... but the first few pages nobody mentioned the dispute than led to the creation of 8chan. 4chan had a policy of 'whatever is legal is ok' for a long time. It wasn't the hate speech, racial slurs, or misinformation that got banned... that stuff is still rampant.

No, the dispute occurred over pictures of little kids and underage teenagers in extremely skimpy/revealing outfits, and coordinated harassment campaigns. While most people would think those things illegal, they generally fall a few nanometers away from the legal/illegal line.

So if Musk is to be believed, you're now going to be free to post pictures of kids in thong swimsuits and other extremely revealing clothing in "modeling" shoots. Naturally it's the party calling everyone else pedophiles that wants this. The same kinds of people who founded the QAnon movement on 8chan. Where they went to escape 4chan's "oppressive" free speech restriction on sexualization of minors.

 

[Deleted member 276317]

Ahh, for a second I thought one of you was capable of approaching this debate in good faith.

Well, I guess that is total wishful thinking.

What debate?

I'm honestly asking. I haven't really seen anything resembling much of a debate from you. Just attempted barbs back and forth with some people.

I even answered the question you asked several pages ago, and then told you later that I answered it when you complained that nobody had. You failed to address either count, and just continued to try and trade barbs.

So, honestly. What debate do you think you're having with anyone here? Because honestly I don't see one. I just see a lot of shit being flung, equally by you and at you.

No one is trying to debate me!

I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard.

It's not that hard really.

So, are you on board with corporations filtering the truth for you? I think it's worth exploring that particular question.

Every single source you can name is some kind of filter.

And if the choice is between a very, very wealthy individual, and various organizations with various agendas, I'll take the variety every time.

So far, Musk has demonstrated that he's unfit to filter anything whereas a number of "corporate" entities have repeatedly demonstrated their broad commitment to considered, factual reporting with educated editorialization.

Personally, I think you're mostly after attention.

 

[DarthSlack]

You don't even know my ideas about free speech!

ORLY?

But twitter also supressed actual news during the 2020 election.

You sure seem awfully familiar with freeze peachers talking points. Not winning any smart points here bub.

 

[Fancy Internet Person]

"Internet Edgelord Asshole" isn't novel anymore. Nobody cares.

 

[Jordan83]

Okay, well that's an answer. It is quite a libertarian answer, but that doesn't make it morally flawed, although not what I expected.

The point is, just about every single online service out there already does some form of filtering. Should they all be prevented from doing so? And if not, why not?

Or to ask it a different way - why should Twitter be treated differently than the rest, and be compelled to not filter or moderate as they see fit? What makes them special in that regard that they can't be granted the same authority over their own platform as others are?

 

[Statistical]

There's a lot of comments so I didn't read every one... but the first few pages nobody mentioned the dispute than led to the creation of 8chan. 4chan had a policy of 'whatever is legal is ok' for a long time. It wasn't the hate speech, racial slurs, or misinformation that got banned... that stuff is still rampant.

No, the dispute occurred over pictures of little kids and underage teenagers in extremely skimpy/revealing outfits, and coordinated harassment campaigns. While most people would think those things illegal, they generally fall a few nanometers away from the legal/illegal line.

So if Musk is to be believed, you're now going to be free to post pictures of kids in thong swimsuits and other extremely revealing clothing in "modeling" shoots. Naturally it's the party calling everyone else pedophiles that wants this. The same kinds of people who founded the QAnon movement on 8chan. Where they went to escape 4chan's "oppressive" free speech restriction on sexualization of minors.

If Elon Musk does that I will be disgusted with him. God I hope you're wrong.

He literally said everything that isn't illegal should be allowed. As in zero moderation beyond criminal offenses. That encompasses huge swathes of pretty horrible shit.

For example someone describing a hypothetical situations where transgendered persons (or insert other targeted minority) should be rounded up and put into gas chambers is horrible ... but not illegal. It falls just short of "incite or produce imminent lawless action" as defined in Brandenburg.

Also "everything but illegal" is horrific for another reason. Let's take the fact that you are a Nazi. Now you claim you aren't and if that were true yes libel is illegal however if the moderation standard is not illegal well such claims are allowed until such time as you win in court that you aren't a Nazi. Ergo until you do until twitter-chan rules you are a Nazi you gross Nazi bastard. Of course someone with more power has quite massive power in such situations and a poor Nazi like yourself no so much power.

Welcome to neo-fuedalism.

 

[fafalone]

There's a lot of comments so I didn't read every one... but the first few pages nobody mentioned the dispute than led to the creation of 8chan. 4chan had a policy of 'whatever is legal is ok' for a long time. It wasn't the hate speech, racial slurs, or misinformation that got banned... that stuff is still rampant.

No, the dispute occurred over pictures of little kids and underage teenagers in extremely skimpy/revealing outfits, and coordinated harassment campaigns. While most people would think those things illegal, they generally fall a few nanometers away from the legal/illegal line.

So if Musk is to be believed, you're now going to be free to post pictures of kids in thong swimsuits and other extremely revealing clothing in "modeling" shoots. Naturally it's the party calling everyone else pedophiles that wants this. The same kinds of people who founded the QAnon movement on 8chan. Where they went to escape 4chan's "oppressive" free speech restriction on sexualization of minors.

If Elon Musk does that I will be disgusted with him. God I hope you're wrong.

It actually goes even farther. Our laws make a distinction between sexual and non-sexual nudity; the latter is allowed. Which makes sense in certain contexts... you shouldn't be putting parents in jail for baby bath time photos, or censoring the award-winning Napalm Girl photo showing the horrors of the Vietnam War. But that rule also covers other things; the full nude photo shoots of 10 year old Brooke Shields were ruled in court to not constitute child pornography, so presumably, you're free to post those and things like it too under Elon Musk's 'whatever is legal is allowed' bullshit.

 

[Statistical]

The point is, just about every single online service out there already does some form of filtering.

I would add with good reason because no moderation always ends up an 8-chan cesspool even 4-chan as gross as it is has a few lines it won't allow to be crossed. I dont' care the site or the original topic of discussion zero moderation ends up 8-chan. Real world experiment proving the Nazi bar scenario.

 

[Fancy Internet Person]

The point is, just about every single online service out there already does some form of filtering.

I would add with good reason because no moderation always ends up an 8-chan cesspool even 4-chan as gross as it is has a few lines it won't allow to be crossed.

Only 8-chan was gross enough to produce the QAnon antisemitic bigotry that Republicans can't get enough of.

 

[Jordan83]

The point is, just about every single online service out there already does some form of filtering.

I would add with good reason because no moderation always ends up an 8-chan cesspool even 4-chan as gross as it is has a few lines it won't allow to be crossed.

I agree! It is with good reason! I am in favor of moderation.

I'm struggling to understand why some people seemingly feel that Twitter should have their ability to moderate as they see fit revoked, especially if they don't feel that all platforms should have their ability to moderate revoked.

Or to say it another way, why should Twitter be stripped of their right to association? And if they should be stripped of it, should every online service be stripped of it? If not, why not?

I'm not connecting the logical dots.

 

[Statistical]

The point is, just about every single online service out there already does some form of filtering.

I would add with good reason because no moderation always ends up an 8-chan cesspool even 4-chan as gross as it is has a few lines it won't allow to be crossed.

I agree! It is with good reason! I am in favor of moderation.

I'm struggling to understand why some people seemingly feel that Twitter should have their ability to moderate as they see fit revoked, especially if they don't feel that all platforms should have their ability to moderate revoked.

Or to say it another way, why should Twitter be stripped of their right to association? And if they should be stripped of it, should every online service be stripped of it? If not, why not?

I'm not connecting the logical dots.

So far everyone single one eventually broke down under pressure and leaked that they wanted to make racial, religious, or gendered (to include transgender) slurs without consequence. That is essentially the entire "freeze peach" movement to include their lord and savior St Elon. He didn't really start flocking to the alt-right 8-chan edgelord banner until his girlfriend left him for a transwomen.

 

[Statistical]

I'm opposed to censorship of what is called fake news or disinformation.

I have a newstory about how you are a nazi transphobic pedo so you believe that should be carried without moderation everywhere in graphic detail right and you accept that nothing short of you winning in court is sufficient to get it taken down (even if your life is ruined by then)? I mean you say it is fake but you also say fake news shouldn't be censored. I mean it's no more fake than the Hunter Biden laptop story.

Maybe these absolute lines you are trying to draw don't work and anyone older than 12 understands that. Maybe moderation is actually hard and messy and requires work and effort and yes sometimes they get it wrong which is probably why it is good there is no one global moderation center and this is done on a site by site basis.

One thing I have found about Trumpers is they want simple neat perfect solutions and the world is messy. All the interesting parts are hard and messy. Yet they refuse to accept that and want the one sentence bumper sticker slogans enacted as law or policy.

 

[Jordan83]

Okay, well that's an answer. It is quite a libertarian answer, but that doesn't make it morally flawed, although not what I expected.

The point is, just about every single online service out there already does some form of filtering. Should they all be prevented from doing so? And if not, why not?

Or to ask it a different way - why should Twitter be treated differently than the rest, and be compelled to not filter or moderate as they see fit? What makes them special in that regard that they can't be granted the same authority over their own platform as others are?

I'm opposed to censorship of what is called fake news or disinformation.

All that other moderation shit is probably fine, maybe even a good idea. I'm a little leery about it still, but since it is a private platform I have to agree it's not really my concern.

But to re-iterate my actual concern, it is the decision that something is fake news and then censoring a news site. In my opinion that is way out of line. Twitter has the power to make shit disappear. Sure that sounds terrific when its the NY Post and the story seems like horseshit, but how many political reversals before you regret your apathy?

I can tell you how many, 1.

So if you can think past next Thursday, you might sense a threat lurking in the background of corporate censorship.

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to explain to me how exactly "Twitter has the power to make shit disappear."

Twitter can make anything they want disappear from their platform. But a great swath of the world is not Twitter. I see no great threat to the world from Twitter removing something from their platform. None at all.

 

[Jordan83]

Okay, well that's an answer. It is quite a libertarian answer, but that doesn't make it morally flawed, although not what I expected.

The point is, just about every single online service out there already does some form of filtering. Should they all be prevented from doing so? And if not, why not?

Or to ask it a different way - why should Twitter be treated differently than the rest, and be compelled to not filter or moderate as they see fit? What makes them special in that regard that they can't be granted the same authority over their own platform as others are?

I'm opposed to censorship of what is called fake news or disinformation.

All that other moderation shit is probably fine, maybe even a good idea. I'm a little leery about it still, but since it is a private platform I have to agree it's not really my concern.

But to re-iterate my actual concern, it is the decision that something is fake news and then censoring a news site. In my opinion that is way out of line. Twitter has the power to make shit disappear. Sure that sounds terrific when its the NY Post and the story seems like horseshit, but how many political reversals before you regret your apathy?

I can tell you how many, 1.

So if you can think past next Thursday, you might sense a threat lurking in the background of corporate censorship.

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to explain to me how exactly "Twitter has the power to make shit disappear."

Twitter can make anything they want disappear from their platform. But a great swath of the world is not Twitter. I see no great threat to the world from Twitter removing something from their platform. None at all.

None at all? That's certainly a confident position. Well, it seems like you've got it all figured out.

Enlighten me, then. How exactly does Twitter removing something from their platform pose a great threat to the world? Because I'm honestly not connecting the dots.

 

[jhodge]

I wonder if we'd extradite a US citizen to the EU on hate speech charges?

Almost certainly not - extradition generally requires dual criminality. There are probably exceptions, but I doubt that’s one of them.

 

[Deleted member 276317]

Well, this isn't hopeless, but it is certainly not going all that well.

I have to put my children to bed now so I must be going. But I'm very disappointed in all of you.

Nothing happens after you leave.

 

[Deleted member 817175]

Well, this isn't hopeless, but it is certainly not going all that well.

I have to put my children to bed now so I must be going. But I'm very disappointed in all of you.

That's the scariest thing you've posted so far.

 

[ready_load$81]

A few weeks back, I finally made a Twitter account to see what's up. Looks like I'll be retiring it.

Why did you feel the need to "finally make a Twitter account to see what's up" ... it's the same thing it's always been. A loudspeaker for idiots.

 

[terrydactyl]

He said he is buying Coca Cola next and putting cocaine back in it. Now the libs have a reason to support him too.

No we don't. (Also... "libs"? Really? Grow up.)

Relax, why so serious?. You guys may have lost Twitter but still have Reddit and FB to go virtue signal on.

I'm curious. What is the one thing you are most excited about being allowed to do on Twitter under Musk that you aren't now "because of the libs"?

Speak freely without being censored or be jumped on by oversensitive morons?

This gets to the heart of it. THEY don't want to be censored, they just want "oversensitive morons" to be censored.

 

[terrydactyl]

I'm opposed to censorship of what is called fake news or disinformation.

I have a newstory about how you are a nazi transphobic pedo so you believe that should be carried without moderation everywhere in graphic detail right and you accept that nothing short of you winning in court is sufficient to get it taken down (even if your life is ruined by then)? I mean you say it is fake but you also say fake news shouldn't be censored. I mean it's no more fake than the Hunter Biden laptop story.

Maybe these absolute lines you are trying to draw don't work and anyone older than 12 understands that. Maybe moderation is actually hard and messy and requires work and effort and yes sometimes they get it wrong which is probably why it is good there is no one global moderation center and this is done on a site by site basis.

One thing I have found about Trumpers is they want simple neat perfect solutions and the world is messy. All the interesting parts are hard and messy. Yet they refuse to accept that and want the one sentence bumper sticker slogans enacted as law or policy.

In short, he's in favor of fake news and disinformation.

 

[Hack-n-Slash]

If I believed for a second you clowns cared about democracy I would say that is an effective counterfactual to your arguments.

Anyone else wondering why "counterfactual" is suddenly showing up in the vocabulary word-list of the newly-imported dimbulbs? Someone want to trace which pundit used it recently?

 

[Hack-n-Slash]

It's not transphobic though.

Actually, it is, it's textbook. And it's not welcome in our forum. You can think whatever you like, speak your mind on things, and if it's against our guidelines we'll show you the door. Twitter can do that too, as can any other website. How they choose to enforce their own rules is their business, how Elon will change things is his, but as long as I have a say in it here I won't tolerate that kind of bigotry.

Couldn't care less who you voted for in the last election, what kind of milk or nut juice you put on your cereal, if your hair is blue or you're totally bald, if you like cats or dogs or can't stand pets.

But in our forum you will respect people's basic humanity. Straight, gay, trans, non-binary, whatever works for you, it's okay here. If you can't handle that then you're welcome to go away.

 

[Hack-n-Slash]

It's not transphobic though.

Actually, it is, it's textbook. And it's not welcome in our forum. You can think whatever you like, speak your mind on things, and if it's against our guidelines we'll show you the door. Twitter can do that too, as can any other website. How they choose to enforce their own rules is their business, how Elon will change things is his, but as long as I have a say in it here I won't tolerate that kind of bigotry.

Couldn't care less who you voted for in the last election, what kind of milk or nut juice you put on your cereal, if your hair is blue or you're totally bald, if you like cats or dogs or can't stand pets.

But in our forum you will respect people's basic humanity. Straight, gay, trans, non-binary, whatever works for you, it's okay here. If you can't handle that then you're welcome to go away.

Please note that the guy you just banned just registered a new account here and admitted it. Terminate with prejudice.

memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=853348

Yes yes, I saw it, it's deleted, and I had to edit a bunch of people who quoted it already.

Please, don't give these sad little snowflakes attention by responding to their tantrum. I will simply delete their account and one stupid post and life will go on like they were never here. And if they keep doing it I will keep deleting them, because I am paid to do it and will happily do my job, and they're the losers with no life wasting their time.

Dammit, Aurich. There's only so many different photos of Stone Delicious IPA in a glass, y'know!

 

[Deleted member 388703]

A lot of people got banned. Some like Pewdiepie got their account back but again, being censored over a tiny spicy comment is stupid and not democratic at all.

So. Question. You hold a party at your house. I come over. Your kids are there. Do you believe it is wrong for you to ask me to stop talking about sex, and cussing loudly in front of your kids?

No not really, but I don't see where you're trying to get at with this. Unlike Twitter, my house is not a social media nor a place for everyone to interact. I'm not claiming to be the place where "your voice matter". So what's your point again?

So what part of your opinions can't be heard on Twitter right now? You still haven't said.

Does it happen to involve billionaire leftist bankers who are always sticking their big noses in where they don't belong?

It's not just about me, Musk's poll asking people whether the site adhered to the principle of free speech returned a big NO.

The one and only thing Musk's disingenuous poll proved is rmthat the najority of respondents, like you, don't understand shit about free speech.

 

[nimelennar]

A few weeks back, I finally made a Twitter account to see what's up. Looks like I'll be retiring it.

Why did you feel the need to "finally make a Twitter account to see what's up" ... it's the same thing it's always been. A loudspeaker for idiots.

To be fair, up until recently, it's been pretty usable for people who weren't logged in, and now it... just isn't. I had some workarounds that worked to let me follow the few accounts I was actually interested in, but those eventually stopped working, too.

So, if someone did actually finally decide to look at it, an account would be pretty much mandatory to do so.

 

[nimelennar]

A lot of people got banned. Some like Pewdiepie got their account back but again, being censored over a tiny spicy comment is stupid and not democratic at all.

So. Question. You hold a party at your house. I come over. Your kids are there. Do you believe it is wrong for you to ask me to stop talking about sex, and cussing loudly in front of your kids?

No not really, but I don't see where you're trying to get at with this. Unlike Twitter, my house is not a social media nor a place for everyone to interact. I'm not claiming to be the place where "your voice matter". So what's your point again?

So what part of your opinions can't be heard on Twitter right now? You still haven't said.

Does it happen to involve billionaire leftist bankers who are always sticking their big noses in where they don't belong?

It's not just about me, Musk's poll asking people whether the site adhered to the principle of free speech returned a big NO.

The one and only thing Musk's disingenuous poll proved is rmthat the najority of respondents, like you, don't understand shit about free speech.

You know you're beating a dead banned horse, right?

 

[gsgrego]

Well, this isn't hopeless, but it is certainly not going all that well.

I have to put my children to bed now so I must be going. But I'm very disappointed in all of you.

Good for you. Maybe you can think of your kids reading a news article on the pros of pedophilia thanks to twitter, because that is the exact kind of "not illegal" news you are in favor of. I mean, by your argument the kids should decide what information is best. And if that hits too close to home for you. Too bad. The people you want to unleash racism and anti trans messages on deal with worse for themselves and their kids every day.

 

[mpfaff]

Well, this isn't hopeless, but it is certainly not going all that well.

I have to put my children to bed now so I must be going. But I'm very disappointed in all of you.

You showed up calling people virgins and expect respect? If you wanted to have a real conversation then maybe you should have started one. I really hope you're raising your kids to be better to people than you.

Also your points were answered pages ago. Only banning illegal things and not doing anything to maintain community standards gets you 8kun. No restrictions gets you a shithole where the bigots and people you wouldn't leave your kids alone with are the core, because everyone else leaves.

From 8kun's Wikipedia page:

8chan was created in October 2013 by computer programmer Fredrick Brennan.[17][18][19] Brennan created the website after observing what he perceived to be rapidly escalating surveillance and a loss of free speech on the Internet.[5] Brennan, who considered the imageboard 4chan to have grown into authoritarianism, described 8chan as a "free-speech-friendly" alternative,[5] and originally conceptualized the site while experiencing a psychedelic mushrooms trip.[18][6]

No experience or programming knowledge is necessary for users to create their own boards.[1] Since as early as March 2014, its FAQ has stated only one rule that is to be globally enforced: "Do not post, request, or link to any content illegal in the United States of America. Do not create boards with the sole purpose of posting or spreading such content."[1] Brennan claimed that, while he found some of the content posted by users to be "reprehensible", he felt personally obligated to uphold the site's integrity by tolerating discussion he does not necessarily support regardless of his moral stance.[5]

The language there isn't terribly far off from Musk's when referring to twitter, and unsurprisingly it's a shithole that filled up with Nazis and pedophiles.

 

[Gary Patterson]

I'm opposed to censorship of what is called fake news or disinformation.

All media, from the lowliest town newspaper to the globe-spanning empires, all of them review stories to see if they're fit for publication. They all have their own criteria, but they're generally looking for something that will play well to their viewers, is ideally true and won't cause repercussions to their company. They look for red flags that indicate a story should be shelved and maybe investigated a bit further before publishing.

All of them do it. Every single one.

The story about the laptop has so many red flags that even I can see it from the other side of the planet, and I'm not even trying to be interested in it. The first most obvious problem is that there's no unarguable provenance for the thing. It could have been owned by a politician's son, or maybe not. There's no record of where it went, who held it and the story that it was dropped off for repair and forgotten about seems strange to me (who forgets a laptop that they care enough to drop in for repair?)

It's a story that any news media would be very concerned with, especially right before an election. Get it wrong and there could be serious consequences. Better to spike it for now, look for confirmation and publish if facts are established.

That the story never made it into news media outside of a very small number of opinion pieces indicates that it's not a real story.

Occam's razor tends to cut away any other explanation. Every media outlet would dearly love a scoop like that, but it had to be bulletproof. Twitter could refuse to carry the story, but that wouldn't stop Fox News from putting it to air in their actual news pieces (and not the entertainment pieces that pretend to be opeds but for which Fox' own lawyers argued are too unbelievable to be taken seriously).

Any argument that this story was suppressed by Twitter needs to take in the same refusal to publish of every real news organisation, many of whom skew right and all of whom would profit greatly from publication. Again, the only reason they would all refuse to publish is that it's just not believable, the facts aren't shown and it looks like a clumsy political operation that will cause any publisher a lot of legal trouble down the line.