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

 

[Adreaver]

Recent reports show Sean Hannity acting as part of the executive administration. Should First Amendment principles now be imposed on Fox News, restricting them from not allowing alternative viewpoints?

Does that mean everything he said in support of any political candidate is a Hatch Act violation?

 

[Chemical Tribe]

One cannot put a price on the outrage, the woke outrage on display in this Arstechnica forum. It’s epic and I must say quite enjoyable to read.
Musk lives rent free in the minds of these woke people.

It was fun seeing these people go from "no private platform is obligated to host your speech, biatch!" to "whaaa! a private platform is getting a new owner and the new owner will make changes to what they host that I don't like!" practically overnight.

Personally, I don't think Elon Musk will allow people to proverbially shit on the floor (like 4chan does for example). After all, Twitter has to make money to pay back the leveraged buyout loans, which means it has to remain attractive to advertisers. I'd be more worried about what will happen during the transition period (considering Twitter has already gone into "code freeze").

The real reason the wokes are annoyed so much is that they want the ability for them to say everything they want on Twitter (up to and including stating that "all they want for Christmas is white genocide" or stating they have the urge to "kneecap white men") while everyone else must be subjected to much higher scrutiny (reaching censorship levels).

The kind of "moderation" we get on Ars is a good indicator of what those people mean by "moderation". For example, yesterday I was banned from Ars for posting "stupid meme images", despite the fact other users are allowed post equally stupid My Little Pony meme images on nearly every thread. When I contacted the mods about it, they said the pony memes were "grandfathered in".

In plain English, wokes want the ability for themselves to proverbially shit on the floor, but not for anyone else. Elon Musk has promised to keep everyone to the same standards, and unsurprisingly the wokes are losing their minds.

Two quick things: first, did you actually read the article you linked to about "white genocide," which is not actually a thing outside of racist fever dreams? Because the professor was poking fun at a thing that the alt-right believes to be happening, which isn't actually happening. You know that, right? That "white genocide" complaints come from racists, unable to accept a world where they're not the majority, not in charge, and not socially acceptable any longer, right?

Ah... yes, the Schrödinger joker, aka posting vile stuff and then maybe say it's a joke depending on how people react.

Admit it, you've been shown to be completely wrong, and thus should admit it. Though I already know you won't, proven by your rants about San Francisco.

Funny too how everyone but you has been downvoted to oblivion but you still manage to get some upvotes. Funny too that people's replies to you follow that same trend.

 

[mpfaff]

One cannot put a price on the outrage, the woke outrage on display in this Arstechnica forum. It’s epic and I must say quite enjoyable to read.
Musk lives rent free in the minds of these woke people.

It was fun seeing these people go from "no private platform is obligated to host your speech, biatch!" to "whaaa! a private platform is getting a new owner and the new owner will make changes to what they host that I don't like!" practically overnight.

Personally, I don't think Elon Musk will allow people to proverbially shit on the floor (like 4chan does for example). After all, Twitter has to make money to pay back the leveraged buyout loans, which means it has to remain attractive to advertisers. I'd be more worried about what will happen during the transition period (considering Twitter has already gone into "code freeze").

The real reason the wokes are annoyed so much is that they want the ability for them to say everything they want on Twitter (up to and including stating that "all they want for Christmas is white genocide" or stating they have the urge to "kneecap white men") while everyone else must be subjected to much higher scrutiny (reaching censorship levels).

The kind of "moderation" we get on Ars is a good indicator of what those people mean by "moderation". For example, yesterday I was banned from Ars for posting "stupid meme images", despite the fact other users are allowed post equally stupid My Little Pony meme images on nearly every thread. When I contacted the mods about it, they said the pony memes were "grandfathered in".

In plain English, wokes want the ability for themselves to proverbially shit on the floor, but not for anyone else. Elon Musk has promised to keep everyone to the same standards, and unsurprisingly the wokes are losing their minds.

Do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you say stupid shit like "the wokes"? Also Elon has been clear, if it's legal then its fine. Which is the same policy 8chan has, a place that has turned out just great.

So the question everyone has been asking is this: What can't you say on Twitter now that you really want to say?

Kashmir citizens could look forwards to their posts on being attacked by India were pruned in a pretty timely matter.

If you suggested therapeutics over vaccination you could look forwards to an account suspension or ban. Moreover suggesting that a person didn't need a vaccine immediately after becoming sick also earned you the same treatment.

The Unity Party was banned from Twitter in 2020.

The covid therapeutics nonsense was largely junk science people plugging drugs that didn't work or that bleach shit. The rest of it is outside the United States and won't be protected by the Musk owned twitter, because he's also said he's complying with the laws of other countries too.

You're calling Peter McCullough a junk scientist?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_A._McCullough

If he was peddling hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 then he was peddling junk science, it also appears from that wikipedia article he was an anti-vaxxer. So yeah, sometimes doctors can peddle junk science, you can always find a few that do.

 

[Deleted member 807857]

Well, then,... I admire you even more than before knowing this. Good on you for doing this. Stop the bullying and aggression as soon as it starts.

We have at least four things in common: 6' 4" height, liberal, weapon ownership, and the a fearlessness (or at least willingness) for needed confrontational defense.

I really appreciate it that he now knows that "democrat" is not synonymous with "coward" or "snowflake."

Keep up the good fight.

You guys have two inches on me. Otherwise, this Club is somewhat bigger than I'd have thought it to be.

I've even got the felony battery charges to prove it.

(In one of the two cases, I was *absolutely* guilty as charged, and did my bit; in the other, the only time I've ever actually lawyered up, I was both not guilty and innocent. *taps head* I've also been 'not guilty' a few times when the government couldn't or didn't do their job.)

It's been awhile since I've had cuffs on, though, and I vastly prefer being a law abiding citizen to who I was then.

I'm 6' 3", so count me in that club also.

6'3" here too. Phew. I was starting to feel short.*

Although I will admit that my 12-gauges have a totally liberal wuss "not a stand-your-ground state" load -- the first two shells are beanbags.

* Not entirely surprised at the overrepresentation of taller folks. Totally fits my preconceived notion slash hypothesis that there is at least some correlation between being short and being an asshole -- it's never the 7 footer that starts the barfight, it's the 5'5" dipshit in platforms.

My mom worked ambulance squads back in the 70s and that's one thing she always told us - short guys were faaaar more likely to cause problems.

*Humorous Interjection*
My brother and I both are the same height, while my mom is barely over 5ft tall. We were standing on either side of her one day and started playfully picking on her about "ya feel like you're in a canyon, Ma? How's the weather down there? Ain't gettin' scared are ya?"

She smiled sweetly, then flung her fists out and caught both of us directly in the crotch, instantly dropping both of us to the ground. "Not scared in the least, bitches" she said as she stepped over us and calmy walked away.

 

[Deleted member 817175]

One cannot put a price on the outrage, the woke outrage on display in this Arstechnica forum. It’s epic and I must say quite enjoyable to read.
Musk lives rent free in the minds of these woke people.

It was fun seeing these people go from "no private platform is obligated to host your speech, biatch!" to "whaaa! a private platform is getting a new owner and the new owner will make changes to what they host that I don't like!" practically overnight.

Personally, I don't think Elon Musk will allow people to proverbially shit on the floor (like 4chan does for example). After all, Twitter has to make money to pay back the leveraged buyout loans, which means it has to remain attractive to advertisers. I'd be more worried about what will happen during the transition period (considering Twitter has already gone into "code freeze").

The real reason the wokes are annoyed so much is that they want the ability for them to say everything they want on Twitter (up to and including stating that "all they want for Christmas is white genocide" or stating they have the urge to "kneecap white men") while everyone else must be subjected to much higher scrutiny (reaching censorship levels).

The kind of "moderation" we get on Ars is a good indicator of what those people mean by "moderation". For example, yesterday I was banned from Ars for posting "stupid meme images", despite the fact other users are allowed post equally stupid My Little Pony meme images on nearly every thread. When I contacted the mods about it, they said the pony memes were "grandfathered in".

In plain English, wokes want the ability for themselves to proverbially shit on the floor, but not for anyone else. Elon Musk has promised to keep everyone to the same standards, and unsurprisingly the wokes are losing their minds.

Do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you say stupid shit like "the wokes"? Also Elon has been clear, if it's legal then its fine. Which is the same policy 8chan has, a place that has turned out just great.

So the question everyone has been asking is this: What can't you say on Twitter now that you really want to say?

Kashmir citizens could look forwards to their posts on being attacked by India were pruned in a pretty timely matter.

If you suggested therapeutics over vaccination you could look forwards to an account suspension or ban. Moreover suggesting that a person didn't need a vaccine immediately after becoming sick also earned you the same treatment.

The Unity Party was banned from Twitter in 2020.

The covid therapeutics nonsense was largely junk science people plugging drugs that didn't work or that bleach shit. The rest of it is outside the United States and won't be protected by the Musk owned twitter, because he's also said he's complying with the laws of other countries too.

You're calling Peter McCullough a junk scientist?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_A._McCullough

He wouldn't be the only quack who happened to have a cardiology license.

 

[graylshaped]

Recent reports show Sean Hannity acting as part of the executive administration. Should First Amendment principles now be imposed on Fox News, restricting them from not allowing alternative viewpoints?

Does that mean everything he said in support of any political candidate is a Hatch Act violation?

It might, but we saw few years ago no one gives any actual farts about enforcing the Hatch Act.

 

[mpfaff]

One cannot put a price on the outrage, the woke outrage on display in this Arstechnica forum. It’s epic and I must say quite enjoyable to read.
Musk lives rent free in the minds of these woke people.

It was fun seeing these people go from "no private platform is obligated to host your speech, biatch!" to "whaaa! a private platform is getting a new owner and the new owner will make changes to what they host that I don't like!" practically overnight.

Personally, I don't think Elon Musk will allow people to proverbially shit on the floor (like 4chan does for example). After all, Twitter has to make money to pay back the leveraged buyout loans, which means it has to remain attractive to advertisers. I'd be more worried about what will happen during the transition period (considering Twitter has already gone into "code freeze").

The real reason the wokes are annoyed so much is that they want the ability for them to say everything they want on Twitter (up to and including stating that "all they want for Christmas is white genocide" or stating they have the urge to "kneecap white men") while everyone else must be subjected to much higher scrutiny (reaching censorship levels).

The kind of "moderation" we get on Ars is a good indicator of what those people mean by "moderation". For example, yesterday I was banned from Ars for posting "stupid meme images", despite the fact other users are allowed post equally stupid My Little Pony meme images on nearly every thread. When I contacted the mods about it, they said the pony memes were "grandfathered in".

In plain English, wokes want the ability for themselves to proverbially shit on the floor, but not for anyone else. Elon Musk has promised to keep everyone to the same standards, and unsurprisingly the wokes are losing their minds.

Two quick things: first, did you actually read the article you linked to about "white genocide," which is not actually a thing outside of racist fever dreams? Because the professor was poking fun at a thing that the alt-right believes to be happening, which isn't actually happening. You know that, right? That "white genocide" complaints come from racists, unable to accept a world where they're not the majority, not in charge, and not socially acceptable any longer, right?

Ah... yes, the Schrödinger joker, aka posting vile stuff and then maybe say it's a joke depending on how people react.

Admit it, you've been shown to be completely wrong, and thus should admit it. Though I already know you won't, proven by your rants about San Francisco.

Funny too how everyone but you has been downvoted to oblivion but you still manage to get some upvotes. Funny too that people's replies to you follow that same trend.

It's how they argue. I had a couple downvotes on my responses calling white genocide an idiotic fake concept. An argument against that fact means you're coming very close to pushing white supremacist talking points, which gets you banned. So you get drive by posts that skirt the line and the occasional single digit downvotes.

 

[Sjoerd Verweij]

"Everyone should go out and kneecap white men!" is a call to violence. "Everyday I resist the urge to kneecap white men" is a tone deaf and stupid statement to make, but it isn't calling for violence. If anything, it is calling for people to resist violent impulses.

Gotta love the absolute shitfit people are having over someone saying "part of me wants to hurt white people every day". It's just new to them; you weren't supposed to be able to say that -- not without a healthy helpin' of lynchin' loving, anyway.

Never seems to occur to them that they're only getting a taste of what colored, non-Christian, non-cis, non-hetero people get every fucking day. They can come cry to me when they are brigaded with outright calls for them to be closeted, deported or killed.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

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

 

[Sjoerd Verweij]

Talk about "doesn't contribute".

Are there mirrors in your house?

 

[Deleted member 807857]

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

If what I said back then is so stupid, Chemical Tribe wouldn't have it living in their head rent-free and feel the urge to mention it literally every time they see my username (even in unrelated discussions about video codecs).

I am a pest to people's comfort zones (on both sides btw), I can admit that.

So *nobody* likes you and you're proud of that?
Weird flex, but you do you, I guess.

 

[kurkosdr]

One cannot put a price on the outrage, the woke outrage on display in this Arstechnica forum. It’s epic and I must say quite enjoyable to read.
Musk lives rent free in the minds of these woke people.

It was fun seeing these people go from "no private platform is obligated to host your speech, biatch!" to "whaaa! a private platform is getting a new owner and the new owner will make changes to what they host that I don't like!" practically overnight.

Personally, I don't think Elon Musk will allow people to proverbially shit on the floor (like 4chan does for example). After all, Twitter has to make money to pay back the leveraged buyout loans, which means it has to remain attractive to advertisers. I'd be more worried about what will happen during the transition period (considering Twitter has already gone into "code freeze").

The real reason the wokes are annoyed so much is that they want the ability for them to say everything they want on Twitter (up to and including stating that "all they want for Christmas is white genocide" or stating they have the urge to "kneecap white men") while everyone else must be subjected to much higher scrutiny (reaching censorship levels).

The kind of "moderation" we get on Ars is a good indicator of what those people mean by "moderation". For example, yesterday I was banned from Ars for posting "stupid meme images", despite the fact other users are allowed post equally stupid My Little Pony meme images on nearly every thread. When I contacted the mods about it, they said the pony memes were "grandfathered in".

In plain English, wokes want the ability for themselves to proverbially shit on the floor, but not for anyone else. Elon Musk has promised to keep everyone to the same standards, and unsurprisingly the wokes are losing their minds.

Two quick things: first, did you actually read the article you linked to about "white genocide," which is not actually a thing outside of racist fever dreams? Because the professor was poking fun at a thing that the alt-right believes to be happening, which isn't actually happening. You know that, right? That "white genocide" complaints come from racists, unable to accept a world where they're not the majority, not in charge, and not socially acceptable any longer, right?

Ah... yes, the Schrödinger joker, aka posting vile stuff and then maybe say it's a joke depending on how people react.

Admit it, you've been shown to be completely wrong, and thus should admit it. Though I already know you won't, proven by your rants about San Francisco.

Funny too how everyone but you has been downvoted to oblivion but you still manage to get some upvotes. Funny too that people's replies to you follow that same trend.

It's how they argue. I had a couple downvotes on my responses calling white genocide an idiotic fake concept. An argument against that fact means you're coming very close to pushing white supremacist talking points, which gets you banned. So you get drive by posts that skirt the line and the occasional single digit downvotes.

White genocide is generally an idiotic fake concept, but the fact that Tweet was made right after the 2016 elections (you know, the supposed "whitelash") and after the "mostly peaceful" post-election riots of 2016, is certainly suspicious (even if you don't like Trump, I don't).

Also, nobody cares if this dude was using the term ironically before, it was against the platform's rules and should have been taken down anyway.

And that's why I downvoted you.

 

[Deleted member 388703]

Spoiler

One cannot put a price on the outrage, the woke outrage on display in this Arstechnica forum. It’s epic and I must say quite enjoyable to read.
Musk lives rent free in the minds of these woke people.

It was fun seeing these people go from "no private platform is obligated to host your speech, biatch!" to "whaaa! a private platform is getting a new owner and the new owner will make changes to what they host that I don't like!" practically overnight.

Personally, I don't think Elon Musk will allow people to proverbially shit on the floor (like 4chan does for example). After all, Twitter has to make money to pay back the leveraged buyout loans, which means it has to remain attractive to advertisers. I'd be more worried about what will happen during the transition period (considering Twitter has already gone into "code freeze").

The real reason the wokes are annoyed so much is that they want the ability for them to say everything they want on Twitter (up to and including stating that "all they want for Christmas is white genocide" or stating they have the urge to "kneecap white men") while everyone else must be subjected to much higher scrutiny (reaching censorship levels).

The kind of "moderation" we get on Ars is a good indicator of what those people mean by "moderation". For example, yesterday I was banned from Ars for posting "stupid meme images", despite the fact other users are allowed post equally stupid My Little Pony meme images on nearly every thread. When I contacted the mods about it, they said the pony memes were "grandfathered in".

In plain English, wokes want the ability for themselves to proverbially shit on the floor, but not for anyone else. Elon Musk has promised to keep everyone to the same standards, and unsurprisingly the wokes are losing their minds.

What those of us who, unlike you, understand and support the concept of free speech understand is the difference between the right to do something, and doing the right thing.

Not a single pweson who was pointing out the fact twitter had the right to moderate as they see fit is saying they don't now.

What we're pointing out is that that Musk wants to change twitter from its currently doing the right thing of maximising free speech, to minmising participation in free speech by limiting who can take part in it.

Hippocracy - when ignorant trolls like kuroksdr claim that treating similar situations similarly and different situations differently is hypocrisy.

 

[woodelf]

Hooray Freeze Peach.

Spam is not illegal
Bots are not illegal
Russian disinformation is not illegal
Racial slurs are not illegal
Rants targeting transgender persons are not illegal.
Gross memes to dehumanize the targets of right wing hate aren't illegal.
Demanding that minorities go back to "their own countries" aren't illegal.
Falsehoods aren't illegal (except in very narrow circumstances).

So make them illegal by forcing politicians to change the law instead of private companies to support a political agenda.

Except for spam (which is commercial speech and this easier to regulate), it's nearly impossible to make any of those categories of speech illegal, due to the First Amendment. People have tried, for most of them.

As for passing a Constitutional Amendment... Yeah, good luck with that. I doubt you could even get enough support in both houses of Congress and in enough states, to pass something simple like an enforcement mechanism for the Emoluments Clause (which, as Trump demonstrated, is sorely needed, as he was able to ignore it without any penalty).

Don't be so blithe about Constitutional Amendments being unreachable. You only need the support of enough states. State legislatures can call for a constitutional convention and then ratify amendments without Congress, and we're very close to having the necessary 3/4 of states with the necessary GOP control to pull it off.

That's something of an exaggeration.

Assuming that ratification of a constitutional amendment doesn't require gubernatorial sign-off, Republicans have full control of 28 state legislatures.

That's only 56%; they're ten states short of having enough control to unilaterally pass an amendment. Say they get the three split states, Alaska, Nebraska, and Minnesota, to get them to 31; can you credibly name seven Democratically-controlled states that are in danger of flipping to have Republican control of both houses, to get them the rest of the way there?

My bad—when conservatives first started making serious noises about a new constitutional convention, the GOP had more control. And I hadn't updated my mental data. After the 2016 elections, they had control of 31 legislatures, and one house in 7 more. And actually, it was 32 (plus 7 halves), because NE's legislature is officially nonpartisan but is pretty clearly controlled by GOPs. Looking at the trends at the time, the idea of them gaining complete control of 2 more of those 7 looked pretty plausible. And if all 7 of the partially-controlled went GOP, there's your 3/4ths.

Things have gotten slightly better on this front. But unfortunately who controls state legislatures tends to have as much or more to do with gerrymandering than with voter demographics, so I don't think we're out of the woods yet.

 

[Deleted member 807857]

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

If what I said back then is so stupid, Chemical Tribe wouldn't have it living in their head rent-free and feel the urge to mention it literally every time they see my username (even in unrelated discussions about video codecs).

I am a pest to people's comfort zones (on both sides btw), I can admit that.

So *nobody* likes you and you're proud of that?
Weird flex, but you do you, I guess.

I know, but I like it that way. At least online.

*Pats you on the head*
Of course you do.

 

[woodelf]

In plain English, wokes want the ability for themselves to proverbially shit on the floor, but not for anyone else.

Remember kids, with the right, it is always -- ALWAYS -- projection.

How many tweets calling for genociding or kneecapping a certain group of people (other than "white people" and "white men") were made and stayed up?

I don't know. But since you apparently do, why don't you tell us? I mean, you do have hard data, collected with a solid methodology to prevent sampling bias, and reviewed by a third party to be sure your analysis isn't producing misleading conclusions, right? You're not just asking rhetorical questions to redirect the conversation because you don't actually have any data to back up your assertions, are you?

 

[woodelf]

One cannot put a price on the outrage, the woke outrage on display in this Arstechnica forum. It’s epic and I must say quite enjoyable to read.
Musk lives rent free in the minds of these woke people.

It was fun seeing these people go from "no private platform is obligated to host your speech, biatch!" to "whaaa! a private platform is getting a new owner and the new owner will make changes to what they host that I don't like!" practically overnight.

Personally, I don't think Elon Musk will allow people to proverbially shit on the floor (like 4chan does for example). After all, Twitter has to make money to pay back the leveraged buyout loans, which means it has to remain attractive to advertisers. I'd be more worried about what will happen during the transition period (considering Twitter has already gone into "code freeze").

The real reason the wokes are annoyed so much is that they want the ability for them to say everything they want on Twitter (up to and including stating that "all they want for Christmas is white genocide" or stating they have the urge to "kneecap white men") while everyone else must be subjected to much higher scrutiny (reaching censorship levels).

The kind of "moderation" we get on Ars is a good indicator of what those people mean by "moderation". For example, yesterday I was banned from Ars for posting "stupid meme images", despite the fact other users are allowed post equally stupid My Little Pony meme images on nearly every thread. When I contacted the mods about it, they said the pony memes were "grandfathered in".

In plain English, wokes want the ability for themselves to proverbially shit on the floor, but not for anyone else. Elon Musk has promised to keep everyone to the same standards, and unsurprisingly the wokes are losing their minds.

Two quick things: first, did you actually read the article you linked to about "white genocide," which is not actually a thing outside of racist fever dreams? Because the professor was poking fun at a thing that the alt-right believes to be happening, which isn't actually happening. You know that, right? That "white genocide" complaints come from racists, unable to accept a world where they're not the majority, not in charge, and not socially acceptable any longer, right?

Ah... yes, the Schrödinger joker, aka posting vile stuff and then maybe say it's a joke depending on how people react.

Schrödinger's joke is a real thing, but it takes some contextual analysis to identify it. Good evidence for it: the statement in question is in close alignment with other things they have said, particularly things that the have insisted were not jokes.

This professor apparently has a lengthy track record of being against white supremacy and for multiculturalism and cultural understanding, and seems to be BIPOC—what's your evidence that they were serious when promoting a white supremacist fantasy?

 

[Sjoerd Verweij]

Because I am right and you don't want to admit it. [...] You can explain it away all you want, but you know I am right. This is why I penetrate bubbles like Ars Technica. I make people think beyond their comfort zone, even if they won't change their minds right away.

My goodness, you are truly a misunderstood genius, aren't you? I can't wait what great points you're going to bring up about San Francisco...

open-air drug markets

I hate to break this to you, but every city in the world has open-air drug markets.

above-average shoplifting rates

45th in the nation. Go talk to Salt Lake City, bub.

above-average car smashing numbers

Yep, a definite concern. Like with all big cities. You know what would help? If other cities wouldn't hound their homeless until they leave, then call it a job well done.

it's proof that a city has failed in law enforcement

Or, hear me out here, it's a sign that they focus on more important things. Like, I don't know, violent crime? Where's your outrage at St. Louis, Detroit, Baltimore, Memphis, Little Rock, Milwaukee, Rockford, Cleveland, Stockton, Albuquerque, Springfield, Indianapolis, Oakland, San Bernardino, Anchorage, Nashville, Lansing, New Orleans, LA, Minneapolis, Chicago, on and on and on? All cities with several times more violent crime than San Francisco.

Could it be that you're just a idiot and didn't know this? Or are you just trying to make a cheap, asinine political point and hoped everyone is stupid enough not to notice?

 

[Deleted member 276317]

[SNIP]
This is why I penetrate bubbles like Ars Technica. I make people think beyond their comfort zone, even if they won't change their minds right away.

Everyone loves a crusader!

 

[kurkosdr]

One cannot put a price on the outrage, the woke outrage on display in this Arstechnica forum. It’s epic and I must say quite enjoyable to read.
Musk lives rent free in the minds of these woke people.

It was fun seeing these people go from "no private platform is obligated to host your speech, biatch!" to "whaaa! a private platform is getting a new owner and the new owner will make changes to what they host that I don't like!" practically overnight.

Personally, I don't think Elon Musk will allow people to proverbially shit on the floor (like 4chan does for example). After all, Twitter has to make money to pay back the leveraged buyout loans, which means it has to remain attractive to advertisers. I'd be more worried about what will happen during the transition period (considering Twitter has already gone into "code freeze").

The real reason the wokes are annoyed so much is that they want the ability for them to say everything they want on Twitter (up to and including stating that "all they want for Christmas is white genocide" or stating they have the urge to "kneecap white men") while everyone else must be subjected to much higher scrutiny (reaching censorship levels).

The kind of "moderation" we get on Ars is a good indicator of what those people mean by "moderation". For example, yesterday I was banned from Ars for posting "stupid meme images", despite the fact other users are allowed post equally stupid My Little Pony meme images on nearly every thread. When I contacted the mods about it, they said the pony memes were "grandfathered in".

In plain English, wokes want the ability for themselves to proverbially shit on the floor, but not for anyone else. Elon Musk has promised to keep everyone to the same standards, and unsurprisingly the wokes are losing their minds.

Do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you say stupid shit like "the wokes"? Also Elon has been clear, if it's legal then its fine. Which is the same policy 8chan has, a place that has turned out just great.

Now, bickering aside, let me tell you what I think about that:

Most people have a wrong idea of what kind of speech is legal. For example, you can't call for violence against a certain group of people and claim it's "free speech". You can't slander people and call it "free speech". You can't spread blatant disinformation either and call it "free speech" (in most jurisdictions at least). Just because platforms like 4chan or 8chan adopt a "see no evil" modus operandi, it doesn't make it legal.

So no, chances are Elon Musk won't allow the kind of "free speech" that 4chan and 8chan are notorious for. And don't forget that Twitter has to make money to pay back the leveraged buyout loans, which means it has to remain attractive to advertisers, which is another reason why there will be limits on the kind of speech allowed.

 

[Steve65]

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.

 

[s73v3r]

One cannot put a price on the outrage, the woke outrage on display in this Arstechnica forum. It’s epic and I must say quite enjoyable to read.
Musk lives rent free in the minds of these woke people.

It was fun seeing these people go from "no private platform is obligated to host your speech, biatch!" to "whaaa! a private platform is getting a new owner and the new owner will make changes to what they host that I don't like!" practically overnight.

Personally, I don't think Elon Musk will allow people to proverbially shit on the floor (like 4chan does for example). After all, Twitter has to make money to pay back the leveraged buyout loans, which means it has to remain attractive to advertisers. I'd be more worried about what will happen during the transition period (considering Twitter has already gone into "code freeze").

The real reason the wokes are annoyed so much is that they want the ability for them to say everything they want on Twitter (up to and including stating that "all they want for Christmas is white genocide" or stating they have the urge to "kneecap white men") while everyone else must be subjected to much higher scrutiny (reaching censorship levels).

The kind of "moderation" we get on Ars is a good indicator of what those people mean by "moderation". For example, yesterday I was banned from Ars for posting "stupid meme images", despite the fact other users are allowed post equally stupid My Little Pony meme images on nearly every thread. When I contacted the mods about it, they said the pony memes were "grandfathered in".

In plain English, wokes want the ability for themselves to proverbially shit on the floor, but not for anyone else. Elon Musk has promised to keep everyone to the same standards, and unsurprisingly the wokes are losing their minds.

Do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you say stupid shit like "the wokes"? Also Elon has been clear, if it's legal then its fine. Which is the same policy 8chan has, a place that has turned out just great.

So the question everyone has been asking is this: What can't you say on Twitter now that you really want to say?

Kashmir citizens could look forwards to their posts on being attacked by India were pruned in a pretty timely matter.

If you suggested therapeutics over vaccination you could look forwards to an account suspension or ban. Moreover suggesting that a person didn't need a vaccine immediately after becoming sick also earned you the same treatment.

The Unity Party was banned from Twitter in 2020.

The covid therapeutics nonsense was largely junk science people plugging drugs that didn't work or that bleach shit. The rest of it is outside the United States and won't be protected by the Musk owned twitter, because he's also said he's complying with the laws of other countries too.

You're calling Peter McCullough a junk scientist?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_A._McCullough

Abso-fucking-lutely.

 

[woodelf]

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

If what I said back then is so stupid, Chemical Tribe wouldn't have it living in their head rent-free and feel the urge to mention it literally every time they see my username (even in unrelated discussions about video codecs).

Oh. You're confusing "memorable" with "correct".

It could just as easily be "wow! I still can't get over just how wrong that person was—I mean just amazingly, stupefyingly, colossally wrong. Every time I see their name, all I can think about is 'how can anyone be that wrong?!'"

 

[Sjoerd Verweij]

Most people have a wrong idea of what kind of speech is legal.

Uhuh.

You can't spread blatant disinformation either and call it "free speech" (in most jurisdictions at least).

Sigh.

Yes, yes you can. What do you think Fox News is and does?

 

[s73v3r]

One cannot put a price on the outrage, the woke outrage on display in this Arstechnica forum. It’s epic and I must say quite enjoyable to read.
Musk lives rent free in the minds of these woke people.

It was fun seeing these people go from "no private platform is obligated to host your speech, biatch!" to "whaaa! a private platform is getting a new owner and the new owner will make changes to what they host that I don't like!" practically overnight.

Personally, I don't think Elon Musk will allow people to proverbially shit on the floor (like 4chan does for example). After all, Twitter has to make money to pay back the leveraged buyout loans, which means it has to remain attractive to advertisers. I'd be more worried about what will happen during the transition period (considering Twitter has already gone into "code freeze").

The real reason the wokes are annoyed so much is that they want the ability for them to say everything they want on Twitter (up to and including stating that "all they want for Christmas is white genocide" or stating they have the urge to "kneecap white men") while everyone else must be subjected to much higher scrutiny (reaching censorship levels).

The kind of "moderation" we get on Ars is a good indicator of what those people mean by "moderation". For example, yesterday I was banned from Ars for posting "stupid meme images", despite the fact other users are allowed post equally stupid My Little Pony meme images on nearly every thread. When I contacted the mods about it, they said the pony memes were "grandfathered in".

In plain English, wokes want the ability for themselves to proverbially shit on the floor, but not for anyone else. Elon Musk has promised to keep everyone to the same standards, and unsurprisingly the wokes are losing their minds.

Do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you say stupid shit like "the wokes"? Also Elon has been clear, if it's legal then its fine. Which is the same policy 8chan has, a place that has turned out just great.

Now, bickering aside

Why do you get to bicker and others don't? You're the one whining about "both sides" bullshit.

Most people have a wrong idea of what kind of speech is legal.

No, we know quite well what kind of speech is legal. Saying the N-Word is completely legal. Transphobic horseshit is completely legal.

You can't spread blatant disinformation either and call it "free speech"

In the US, you absolutely can. There is literally no law against spreading disinformation, and as such, Musk would allow it on his Twitter.

So no, chances are Elon Musk won't allow the kind of "free speech" that 4chan and 8chan are notorious for.

The majority of terrible things they're known for, the racism, the bigotry, the disinformation, is all perfectly legal. So yes, Musk would gladly allow that on his Twitter.

And don't forget that Twitter has to make money to pay back the leveraged buyout loans, which means it has to remain attractive to advertisers, which is another reason why there will be limits on the kind of speech allowed.

Except one of Musk's aims with Twitter is to wean them off advertising and come up with new business models. Likely so that he can service the loans and allow transphobic bullshit.

 

[ZippyPeanut]

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?

 

[kurkosdr]

One cannot put a price on the outrage, the woke outrage on display in this Arstechnica forum. It’s epic and I must say quite enjoyable to read.
Musk lives rent free in the minds of these woke people.

It was fun seeing these people go from "no private platform is obligated to host your speech, biatch!" to "whaaa! a private platform is getting a new owner and the new owner will make changes to what they host that I don't like!" practically overnight.

Personally, I don't think Elon Musk will allow people to proverbially shit on the floor (like 4chan does for example). After all, Twitter has to make money to pay back the leveraged buyout loans, which means it has to remain attractive to advertisers. I'd be more worried about what will happen during the transition period (considering Twitter has already gone into "code freeze").

The real reason the wokes are annoyed so much is that they want the ability for them to say everything they want on Twitter (up to and including stating that "all they want for Christmas is white genocide" or stating they have the urge to "kneecap white men") while everyone else must be subjected to much higher scrutiny (reaching censorship levels).

The kind of "moderation" we get on Ars is a good indicator of what those people mean by "moderation". For example, yesterday I was banned from Ars for posting "stupid meme images", despite the fact other users are allowed post equally stupid My Little Pony meme images on nearly every thread. When I contacted the mods about it, they said the pony memes were "grandfathered in".

In plain English, wokes want the ability for themselves to proverbially shit on the floor, but not for anyone else. Elon Musk has promised to keep everyone to the same standards, and unsurprisingly the wokes are losing their minds.

Do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you say stupid shit like "the wokes"? Also Elon has been clear, if it's legal then its fine. Which is the same policy 8chan has, a place that has turned out just great.

Now, bickering aside

Why do you get to bicker and others don't? You're the one whining about "both sides" bullshit.

Most people have a wrong idea of what kind of speech is legal.

No, we know quite well what kind of speech is legal. Saying the N-Word is completely legal. Transphobic horseshit is completely legal.

You can't spread blatant disinformation either and call it "free speech"

In the US, you absolutely can. There is literally no law against spreading disinformation, and as such, Musk would allow it on his Twitter.

So no, chances are Elon Musk won't allow the kind of "free speech" that 4chan and 8chan are notorious for.

The majority of terrible things they're known for, the racism, the bigotry, the disinformation, is all perfectly legal. So yes, Musk would gladly allow that on his Twitter.

And don't forget that Twitter has to make money to pay back the leveraged buyout loans, which means it has to remain attractive to advertisers, which is another reason why there will be limits on the kind of speech allowed.

Except one of Musk's aims with Twitter is to wean them off advertising and come up with new business models. Likely so that he can service the loans and allow transphobic bullshit.

Keep in mind Twitter is not bound only to US law, but several other legal systems, including but not limited to the laws of several EU countries too, which do have stricter laws on speech. Keep in mind that Elon Musk hasn't committed to US law, just "law". So, he is probably referring to a "common denominator" good for the legal systems of most democratic countries. Simply put, allowing the place to turn to a "chan" website would literally cause legal trouble in at least some jurisdictions that Twitter has offices in and which are major markets. Those "chan" websites can do it because they are fairly obscure (edit: and US-based only), but Twitter is the place where head-of-governments make announcements, so it can't get away that easily.

Also, a Twitter subscription will not fully replace advertiser income, so Twitter will have to remain attractive to advertisers at least for the foreseeable future.

 

[woodelf]

One cannot put a price on the outrage, the woke outrage on display in this Arstechnica forum. It’s epic and I must say quite enjoyable to read.
Musk lives rent free in the minds of these woke people.

It was fun seeing these people go from "no private platform is obligated to host your speech, biatch!" to "whaaa! a private platform is getting a new owner and the new owner will make changes to what they host that I don't like!" practically overnight.

Personally, I don't think Elon Musk will allow people to proverbially shit on the floor (like 4chan does for example). After all, Twitter has to make money to pay back the leveraged buyout loans, which means it has to remain attractive to advertisers. I'd be more worried about what will happen during the transition period (considering Twitter has already gone into "code freeze").

The real reason the wokes are annoyed so much is that they want the ability for them to say everything they want on Twitter (up to and including stating that "all they want for Christmas is white genocide" or stating they have the urge to "kneecap white men") while everyone else must be subjected to much higher scrutiny (reaching censorship levels).

The kind of "moderation" we get on Ars is a good indicator of what those people mean by "moderation". For example, yesterday I was banned from Ars for posting "stupid meme images", despite the fact other users are allowed post equally stupid My Little Pony meme images on nearly every thread. When I contacted the mods about it, they said the pony memes were "grandfathered in".

In plain English, wokes want the ability for themselves to proverbially shit on the floor, but not for anyone else. Elon Musk has promised to keep everyone to the same standards, and unsurprisingly the wokes are losing their minds.

Do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you say stupid shit like "the wokes"? Also Elon has been clear, if it's legal then its fine. Which is the same policy 8chan has, a place that has turned out just great.

So the question everyone has been asking is this: What can't you say on Twitter now that you really want to say?

Kashmir citizens could look forwards to their posts on being attacked by India were pruned in a pretty timely matter.

If you suggested therapeutics over vaccination you could look forwards to an account suspension or ban. Moreover suggesting that a person didn't need a vaccine immediately after becoming sick also earned you the same treatment.

The Unity Party was banned from Twitter in 2020.

The covid therapeutics nonsense was largely junk science people plugging drugs that didn't work or that bleach shit. The rest of it is outside the United States and won't be protected by the Musk owned twitter, because he's also said he's complying with the laws of other countries too.

You're calling Peter McCullough a junk scientist?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_A._McCullough

As someone else pointed out, that's pretty much what the article you linked to says.

But, also, I want to address an important misconception here: "doctor" is not a subset of "scientist". Most doctors don't do research. Most doctors don't really use the scientific method in their day-to-day work. Yes, science underpins medicine, and (hopefully) underpins everything they do when treating patients. Yes, most doctors are using deductive reasoning when diagnosing people, and are hopefully using Bayesian analysis and similar when deciding on treatment plans. But there's a lot more to science than that, and, trust me, even many very good doctors are lousy scientists, and would be lousy researchers. In some cases for very good reasons, like wanting to provide the best possible care for their patients, right now, rather than trialing various treatments in the hopes that other patients in the (distant) future can get even better treatments.

Regardless, getting through medical school, and even being good at providing medical care, don't require being good at the scientific method. Plus, there are all the doctors who are merely "adequate". And then there are the doctors who are simply behind the times on the latest (and not-so-latest) research.

I've worked very closely with doctors and other medical staff for a dozen years, so I wasn't at all surprised during the pandemic that a whole lot of doctors were making national news for their unscientific, and sometimes anti-scientific, responses. Because doctors are not scientists. And the provision of medical care is not the practice of science—it is the application of the results of the practice of science. Also, don't underestimate the power of God syndrome among especially very skilled doctors to convince them that when they say one thing and all the scientific research says another, it is that all the researchers are wrong. I don't have inside knowledge of this [edit: "this" is "the specific doctors making disprovable statements about covid-19"], but for a lot of the doctors like McCullough who made the news for contrarian views during the pandemic, it sure looks like this is a case of them being certain that they were right, and the "scientists in the lab" would eventually "catch up" to their "brilliance" and figure out exactly how the doctor was right all along. Probably reinforced with a dose of "well, none of my patients on hydroxychloroquine have died", or similar non-scientific nonsense.

 

[gsgrego]

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.

None of what you said has anything to do with what I said or what my point was. You failed massively at reading comprehension.

 

[graylshaped]

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

I bother, therefore I am?

 

[Deleted member 276317]

To try to end the back and forth, I'll try to explain what I think is O/Siris' position:

Speech itself is the only thing not to be interfered with. That Musk terminated a business relationship, does not affect the customer's ability to continue to complain. Therefore, even though many might judge that kind of retaliation for speech to be in violation of the principle, since no speech is suppressed, there's no violation of the principle.

Basically, you can do anything (legal) you want so long as the customer's ability to speak is not affected.

I think it's a bit of motivated reasoning to narrow the context as to what constitutes adherence to the principle and probably can't survive careful scrutiny as a guiding principle but there it is.

 

[Chemical Tribe]

(Off topic, but since you mentioned it and since you keep mentioning it all the time...)

I am glad that these posts of mine from months ago live in your head rent-free since then and that you are bringing them up literally every time you see my username. You once brought them up in a completely unrelated thread about video codecs. You know why? Because I am right and you don't want to admit it.

Haha, no. I only remembered it was you because you started posting shit again.

If a city has open-air drug markets, above-average shoplifting rates, and above-average car smashing numbers (they even have a name for the broken glass caused by all those car smashings: "San Fransisco snow") it's proof that a city has failed in law enforcement. You can explain it away all you want, but you know I am right.

Hey guys, the guy who was shown to be wrong is....still wrong.

This is why I penetrate bubbles like Ars Technica. I make people think beyond their comfort zone, even if they won't change their minds right away.

No, you are just a run of the mill idiot who doesn't even live in the US and pretends to know anything by reading bull shit right wing media.

Funny too that you also don't deny the allegation that you are using sock puppet accounts to downvote.

Spoiler alert/pro tip, no one here is going to change their minds on a subject without facts. And you have NONE.

 

[graylshaped]

To try to end the back and forth, I'll try to explain what I think is O/Siris' position:

Speech itself is the only thing not to be interfered with. That Musk terminated a business relationship, does not affect the customer's ability to continue to complain. Therefore, even though many might judge that kind of retaliation for speech to be in violation of the principle, since no speech is suppressed, there's no violation of the principle.

Basically, you can do anything (legal) you want so long as the customer's ability to speak is not affected.

I think it's a bit of motivated reasoning to narrow the context as to what constitutes adherence to the principle and probably can't survive careful scrutiny as a guiding principle but there it is.

You put more thought into your post than he ever has put into anything he has spewed here. His position is "I am right!" while farting juicily over every dialogue on which he has ever commented.

Let's not overthink it.

 

[s73v3r]

Funny too that you also don't deny the allegation that you are using sock puppet accounts to downvote.

I dismissed the allegation. Something to do with facts.

Nothing you've ever posted has had anything to do with facts.

 

[nimelennar]

Spoiler

One cannot put a price on the outrage, the woke outrage on display in this Arstechnica forum. It’s epic and I must say quite enjoyable to read.
Musk lives rent free in the minds of these woke people.

It was fun seeing these people go from "no private platform is obligated to host your speech, biatch!" to "whaaa! a private platform is getting a new owner and the new owner will make changes to what they host that I don't like!" practically overnight.

Personally, I don't think Elon Musk will allow people to proverbially shit on the floor (like 4chan does for example). After all, Twitter has to make money to pay back the leveraged buyout loans, which means it has to remain attractive to advertisers. I'd be more worried about what will happen during the transition period (considering Twitter has already gone into "code freeze").

The real reason the wokes are annoyed so much is that they want the ability for them to say everything they want on Twitter (up to and including stating that "all they want for Christmas is white genocide" or stating they have the urge to "kneecap white men") while everyone else must be subjected to much higher scrutiny (reaching censorship levels).

The kind of "moderation" we get on Ars is a good indicator of what those people mean by "moderation". For example, yesterday I was banned from Ars for posting "stupid meme images", despite the fact other users are allowed post equally stupid My Little Pony meme images on nearly every thread. When I contacted the mods about it, they said the pony memes were "grandfathered in".

In plain English, wokes want the ability for themselves to proverbially shit on the floor, but not for anyone else. Elon Musk has promised to keep everyone to the same standards, and unsurprisingly the wokes are losing their minds.

What those of us who, unlike you, understand and support the concept of free speech understand is the difference between the right to do something, and doing the right thing.

Not a single pweson who was pointing out the fact twitter had the right to moderate as they see fit is saying they don't now.

What we're pointing out is that that Musk wants to change twitter from its currently doing the right thing of maximising free speech, to minmising participation in free speech by limiting who can take part in it.

Hippocracy - when ignorant trolls like kuroksdr claim that treating similar situations similarly and different situations differently is hypocrisy.

I thought "hippocracy" was the word to describe the Ars forums after a topic hits page 10. That is, "ruled by ponies."

 

[watermeloncup]

Spoiler

One cannot put a price on the outrage, the woke outrage on display in this Arstechnica forum. It’s epic and I must say quite enjoyable to read.
Musk lives rent free in the minds of these woke people.

It was fun seeing these people go from "no private platform is obligated to host your speech, biatch!" to "whaaa! a private platform is getting a new owner and the new owner will make changes to what they host that I don't like!" practically overnight.

Personally, I don't think Elon Musk will allow people to proverbially shit on the floor (like 4chan does for example). After all, Twitter has to make money to pay back the leveraged buyout loans, which means it has to remain attractive to advertisers. I'd be more worried about what will happen during the transition period (considering Twitter has already gone into "code freeze").

The real reason the wokes are annoyed so much is that they want the ability for them to say everything they want on Twitter (up to and including stating that "all they want for Christmas is white genocide" or stating they have the urge to "kneecap white men") while everyone else must be subjected to much higher scrutiny (reaching censorship levels).

The kind of "moderation" we get on Ars is a good indicator of what those people mean by "moderation". For example, yesterday I was banned from Ars for posting "stupid meme images", despite the fact other users are allowed post equally stupid My Little Pony meme images on nearly every thread. When I contacted the mods about it, they said the pony memes were "grandfathered in".

In plain English, wokes want the ability for themselves to proverbially shit on the floor, but not for anyone else. Elon Musk has promised to keep everyone to the same standards, and unsurprisingly the wokes are losing their minds.

What those of us who, unlike you, understand and support the concept of free speech understand is the difference between the right to do something, and doing the right thing.

Not a single pweson who was pointing out the fact twitter had the right to moderate as they see fit is saying they don't now.

What we're pointing out is that that Musk wants to change twitter from its currently doing the right thing of maximising free speech, to minmising participation in free speech by limiting who can take part in it.

Hippocracy - when ignorant trolls like kuroksdr claim that treating similar situations similarly and different situations differently is hypocrisy.

I thought "hippocracy" was the word to describe the Ars forums after a topic hits page 10. That is, "ruled by ponies."

I hate how the Ars forums are ruled by hippopotamuses.