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

 

[DavidT256]

This might be a dumb theory (and I welcome an explanation as to why is isn’t possible…) But is it possible that this might still be an elaborate “pump-and-dump” scheme?

Maybe it would go something like this?
- Elon buys a bunch of Twitter stock.
- Elon announces his intention to buy Twitter.
- The (still publicly traded) stock price continues to climb towards the proposed sale price.
- Elon quietly starts selling the Twitter shares he previously bought. The price-per-share is now significantly higher than the price he originally paid.
- Something causes the deal to fall apart. Possibly Elon deliberately does controversial stuff, which results in the shareholders rejecting the sale.
- Elon made several billion dollars from Twitter stocks, but he didn’t (technically) back out of the deal.

This might be completely unrealistic. And it would almost certainly be illegal. But Elon has demonstrated that he doesn’t care what the SEC thinks.
Is this possible?

 

[Derecho Imminent]

This might be a dumb theory (and I welcome an explanation as to why is isn’t possible…) But is it possible that this might still be an elaborate “pump-and-dump” scheme?

Maybe it would go something like this?
- Elon buys a bunch of Twitter stock.
- Elon announces his intention to buy Twitter.
- The (still publicly traded) stock price continues to climb towards the proposed sale price.
- Elon quietly starts selling the Twitter shares he previously bought. The price-per-share is now significantly higher than the price he originally paid.
- Something causes the deal to fall apart. Possibly Elon deliberately does controversial stuff, which results in the shareholders rejecting the sale.
- Elon made several billion dollars from Twitter stocks, but he didn’t (technically) back out of the deal.

This might be completely unrealistic. And it would almost certainly be illegal. But Elon has demonstrated that he doesn’t care what the SEC thinks.
Is this possible?

Was thinking along the same lines. If the EU starts looking too harshly at him that would also be a good excuse to back out of the deal.
edit: though after giving it some more thought, isnt there a clause that if he backs out he has to pay twitter compensation? So yea that wont work. Nevermind.

 

[Bondles_9]

LOL. Spot on as always.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46DBT_6KSzg

Why is it that all right wingers sell snake oil?

Because the snake oil companies are the only ones left willing to sponsor them

 

[wastrel]

I guess it's time to make twitter join the ranks of those other fabulous social media sites/apps like MySpace, Hotmail, AOL, and other forgettable social media services.

HoTMaiL? ...maybe you're thinking of MSN? (Hotmail never went away; it's called Outlook nowadays.)

 

[drachasor]

Musk really just wants to be able to bully people and lie on twitter with impunity and he has way too much money and too little sense.

 

[gsgrego]

Just because a company CAN moderate and "censor" content within the laws in the United States doesn't mean it SHOULD.

I take Musk's comments to mean that he believes that speech allowed by the US government, should be allowed on the platform. Essentially taking the first amendment and everything that comes with it and applying it to Twitter.

Personally I believe companies that act as platforms for speech and act as a digital town square should try to allow for as many voices as possible and use censorship and moderation as a last resort. I'm also the type of person that thinks movie studios shouldn't be censoring their movies to allow them to be shown in other countries.

I don't think Musk will just turn off content moderation when the deal finally closes. I expect that to continue, and become more transparent. I do think things like bans for "misinformation" will go away. In a free society the truth is only knowable as such when lies are allowed to be exposed in daylight.

Where is Digital Town?

I've always hated the "digital town square" nonsense. Because first off town squares still exist and if there are Nazis marching around a town square in Charlottesville it won't fuck with my night out in Cincinnati. Secondly the town square is public land maintained by the government and paid for by the taxpayers.

If there's a Nazi on Twitter and I don't follow them, it won't fuck with my use of the service.

*sends dm, gets retweeted by your friends, and on and on

 

[gsgrego]

"Musk was referring to an October 2020 incident in which "Twitter temporarily blocked a New York Post story on Democratic nominee Joe Biden's son Hunter that it said violated a policy against posting hacked materials. The company did not suspend the entire news organization but did prevent it from tweeting for a period of time."

In that case, Twitter quickly changed its policy on sharing hacked materials after facing criticism for blocking links to the New York Post story, so Musk's criticism referred to a policy that no longer exists."

The problem with that revisionist framing is that it was in the final weeks leading to the 2020 election. Blocking that news materially altered the information that people were taking to the polls when they cast their vote. Glossing over the blatant manipulation of an election by Twitter is not good journalism. Twitter took the heat for it but the election was over by the time it all settled and the action made it very clear that Twitter was vulnerable to outside speech manipulation. In either case, the real problem was manipulation of media to block a story that would impact the results of an election. We can't know if it was Twitter's liberal employees, the DNC, Biden's campaign or some other force but what we do know is that major corruption stories on the eve of the election would have changed some number of votes. 8M? Probably not but who knows. It was a highly contested election.

Hahaha. Okay. So first things first. You believe that despite every right wing tv show, website, and radio station blaring that 1000x a day each that because it wasn't spreading as easily on twitter that people did not know about it?

Second. The news at the time was based on nothing more than unfounded rumors being pushed by giuliani and trump.

Finally. Unless anyone actually connects any activity of bidens ADULT SON to biden himself none of it matters. Hunter is not part of the white house, he is not part of government.

 

[Auie]

Finally, a platform where I can post my Elon Musk x little furry boy erotic fanfiction without fear of having it censored.

Right???

Alt-right????

 

[gsgrego]

Just because a company CAN moderate and "censor" content within the laws in the United States doesn't mean it SHOULD.

I take Musk's comments to mean that he believes that speech allowed by the US government, should be allowed on the platform. Essentially taking the first amendment and everything that comes with it and applying it to Twitter.

Personally I believe companies that act as platforms for speech and act as a digital town square should try to allow for as many voices as possible and use censorship and moderation as a last resort. I'm also the type of person that thinks movie studios shouldn't be censoring their movies to allow them to be shown in other countries.

I don't think Musk will just turn off content moderation when the deal finally closes. I expect that to continue, and become more transparent. I do think things like bans for "misinformation" will go away. In a free society the truth is only knowable as such when lies are allowed to be exposed in daylight.

Where is Digital Town?

I've always hated the "digital town square" nonsense. Because first off town squares still exist and if there are Nazis marching around a town square in Charlottesville it won't fuck with my night out in Cincinnati. Secondly the town square is public land maintained by the government and paid for by the taxpayers.

If there's a Nazi on Twitter and I don't follow them, it won't fuck with my use of the service.

*sends dm, gets retweeted by your friends, and on and on

Just imagine the damage they could do with an unrestricted communication system that doesn't verify anybody. Like the mail system, where anybody can send you mail. An electronic version, where the best you can hope for is a software filter system that tries to keep the crap out but can't stop everything. I'll like to call it e-mail. It would probably only last a couple months before the Nazis take over though right?

You choose some pretty horrible comparisons. Sending mail has an expense and thus a barrier. It would also require a decent amount of time to send enough mail frequently enough to do anything.

So not really comparative to twitter in any way at all.

As for email. Same thing applies. Either you have to go through the same hoops as the scammers do or you have to be very careful on the amount of emails you send and the contents to avoid the filters and automatic spam protection. Like mail it also requires you to have your target(s) address.

So again, not really comparative.

This also misses a large psychological factor which is attention. No one trolling people or bullying people want to do it where no one can see what they did and where they cannot get notoriety for it.

Please come bask when your grasp how and why twitter actually works.

 

[gsgrego]

"Musk was referring to an October 2020 incident in which "Twitter temporarily blocked a New York Post story on Democratic nominee Joe Biden's son Hunter that it said violated a policy against posting hacked materials. The company did not suspend the entire news organization but did prevent it from tweeting for a period of time."

In that case, Twitter quickly changed its policy on sharing hacked materials after facing criticism for blocking links to the New York Post story, so Musk's criticism referred to a policy that no longer exists."

The problem with that revisionist framing is that it was in the final weeks leading to the 2020 election. Blocking that news materially altered the information that people were taking to the polls when they cast their vote. Glossing over the blatant manipulation of an election by Twitter is not good journalism. Twitter took the heat for it but the election was over by the time it all settled and the action made it very clear that Twitter was vulnerable to outside speech manipulation. In either case, the real problem was manipulation of media to block a story that would impact the results of an election. We can't know if it was Twitter's liberal employees, the DNC, Biden's campaign or some other force but what we do know is that major corruption stories on the eve of the election would have changed some number of votes. 8M? Probably not but who knows. It was a highly contested election.

Hahaha. Okay. So first things first. You believe that despite every right wing tv show, website, and radio station blaring that 1000x a day each that because it wasn't spreading as easily on twitter that people did not know about it?

Second. The news at the time was based on nothing more than unfounded rumors being pushed by giuliani and trump.

Finally. Unless anyone actually connects any activity of bidens ADULT SON to biden himself none of it matters. Hunter is not part of the white house, he is not part of government.

It may not matter to YOU. Ignoring the story would have been defensible. Smearing it as Russian disinformation with zero evidence was election manipulation.

I sure would have liked to know about the email from November 2015 sent by the head of the board of directors of Burisma requesting that Hunter Biden stop the investigation into the company’s owner.

Especially when a few weeks later, Joe Biden reached out to then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko asking him to remove the prosecutor that was involved in the Burisma investigation.

... Oh look. Lies. See, over in reality that didn't happen.

 

[gsgrego]

Guy who canceled a customer's Tesla order because "he was rude" has thoughts on censorship at a private non-governmental business.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... rs-model-x

I thought freedom of speech was not freedom from consequences.

True which is why the poster was pointing out how Elon is nothing more than a hypocrite. He demands no consequences for speech until he dislike the speech directed at him. Alex Jones' website says the same thing in its ToS, yet when he was banned from Twitter he decried it as censorship.

That whooshing sound was the original poster's point clearly going over your head.

No, it's the thump of the poster's point falling flat on its face.

Musk hasn't called for an end to his speech, nor silencing of same. He opted to not do business with a customer who clearly had no interest in resolution. It's called firing the customer, and is a perfectly legitimate (and ethical) response to a customer complaining in such an entitled fashion.

So consequences are okay as long as they are ones you like.

Also, Donald Trump has not been silenced by being banned from Twitter. He's still showing up on TV, in newspaper interviews, press releases, at political rallies, etc. For someone who has supposedly been silenced, he sure seems quite capable of speaking to millions of people.

And I'll just say, I'm fine with a company firing a customer. I've dealt with that on many times. No one here is claiming that Elon and Tesla didn't have the right to stop doing business with that person. But Elon declares himself a "free speech absolutist" while not actually living up to his supposed ideals. And that is what is being called out.

I absolutely adore the intellectual contortions of The Left on this. What you ignore is the intent behind those so-called "consequences."

Musk cut ties with a potential customer. So far, no one has shown the least bit of evidence that aMusk nor anyone affiliated with him took action against the blogger's speech, nor his ability to speak out. Which IS a direct result and intent of actions taken by The Left.

Had Musk done likewise, I'd have nothing to say about The Left's bleating about this miniscule item. He did not.

So.. let me get this right. You are arguing that by responding to and acting on only the customers speech that he did not take action against his speech... lol.

 

[GreyAreaUK]

Especially when a few weeks later, Joe Biden reached out to then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko asking him to remove the prosecutor that was involved in the Burisma investigation.

I love how you try to frame this as something Joe did by himself, instead of it being a Governmental decision that had the backing of the entire EU behind it.

 

[PentyPesu]

Guy who canceled a customer's Tesla order because "he was rude" has thoughts on censorship at a private non-governmental business.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... rs-model-x

I thought freedom of speech was not freedom from consequences.

True which is why the poster was pointing out how Elon is nothing more than a hypocrite. He demands no consequences for speech until he dislike the speech directed at him. Alex Jones' website says the same thing in its ToS, yet when he was banned from Twitter he decried it as censorship.

That whooshing sound was the original poster's point clearly going over your head.

No, it's the thump of the poster's point falling flat on its face.

Musk hasn't called for an end to his speech, nor silencing of same. He opted to not do business with a customer who clearly had no interest in resolution. It's called firing the customer, and is a perfectly legitimate (and ethical) response to a customer complaining in such an entitled fashion.

So consequences are okay as long as they are ones you like.

Also, Donald Trump has not been silenced by being banned from Twitter. He's still showing up on TV, in newspaper interviews, press releases, at political rallies, etc. For someone who has supposedly been silenced, he sure seems quite capable of speaking to millions of people.

And I'll just say, I'm fine with a company firing a customer. I've dealt with that on many times. No one here is claiming that Elon and Tesla didn't have the right to stop doing business with that person. But Elon declares himself a "free speech absolutist" while not actually living up to his supposed ideals. And that is what is being called out.

I absolutely adore the intellectual contortions of The Left on this. What you ignore is the intent behind those so-called "consequences."

Musk cut ties with a potential customer. So far, no one has shown the least bit of evidence that aMusk nor anyone affiliated with him took action against the blogger's speech, nor his ability to speak out. Which IS a direct result and intent of actions taken by The Left.

Had Musk done likewise, I'd have nothing to say about The Left's bleating about this miniscule item. He did not.

Yes, he cut ties with the customer over their speech. He even plainly stated so. So the only one doing mental contortions is you. Musk claims to be a "free speech absolutist." His actions prove that's a lie.

Also it's quaint when people such as yourself claim that anyone that disagrees with the far-right is somehow "The Left." I hate to break it to you, but I'm not a "leftist" (a word basically devoid of all meaning when flung around by the far-right) and I frankly don't need to be one to know Musk is full of shit and this far-right blather about "free speech" is BS.

 

[GreyAreaUK]

He didn't act on the customer's speech.

Apart from the bit where he quite clearly did.

 

[gsgrego]

He didn't act on the customer's speech. Deliberate misattribution noted.

Are you seriously trying to argue that acting on, aka taking an action in response to something is not acting on it? Musk made a direct reaction to the customers speech and that was to retaliate and punish him for it. Musk acted on that mans speech.

 

[PentyPesu]

He didn't act on the customer's speech. Deliberate misattribution noted.

Are you seriously trying to argue that acting on, aka taking an action in response to something is not acting on it? Musk made a direct reaction to the customers speech and that was to retaliate and punish him for it. Musk acted on that mans speech.

Who you gonna believe? O/Siris or your lying eyes.

 

[PentyPesu]

Just because a company CAN moderate and "censor" content within the laws in the United States doesn't mean it SHOULD.

I take Musk's comments to mean that he believes that speech allowed by the US government, should be allowed on the platform. Essentially taking the first amendment and everything that comes with it and applying it to Twitter.

Personally I believe companies that act as platforms for speech and act as a digital town square should try to allow for as many voices as possible and use censorship and moderation as a last resort. I'm also the type of person that thinks movie studios shouldn't be censoring their movies to allow them to be shown in other countries.

I don't think Musk will just turn off content moderation when the deal finally closes. I expect that to continue, and become more transparent. I do think things like bans for "misinformation" will go away. In a free society the truth is only knowable as such when lies are allowed to be exposed in daylight.

Where is Digital Town?

I've always hated the "digital town square" nonsense. Because first off town squares still exist and if there are Nazis marching around a town square in Charlottesville it won't fuck with my night out in Cincinnati. Secondly the town square is public land maintained by the government and paid for by the taxpayers.

If there's a Nazi on Twitter and I don't follow them, it won't fuck with my use of the service.

*sends dm, gets retweeted by your friends, and on and on

Just imagine the damage they could do with an unrestricted communication system that doesn't verify anybody. Like the mail system, where anybody can send you mail. An electronic version, where the best you can hope for is a software filter system that tries to keep the crap out but can't stop everything. I'll like to call it e-mail. It would probably only last a couple months before the Nazis take over though right?

You think the mail system is unregulated? You're joking, right? Feel free to try mail credible death threats, a bomb or anthrax to someone through the system and see how "unrestricted" it really is when the FBI comes knocking at your door.

 

[gsgrego]

Yes, he cut ties with the customer over their speech. He even plainly stated so. So the only one doing mental contortions is you. Musk claims to be a "free speech absolutist." His actions prove that's a lie.

Also it's quaint when people such as yourself claim that anyone that disagrees with the far-right is somehow "The Left." I hate to break it to you, but I'm not a "leftist" (a word basically devoid of all meaning when flung around by the far-right) and I frankly don't need to be one to know Musk is full of shit and this far-right blather about "free speech" is BS.

Freedom of Speech does not mean freedom from consequences. Free speech absolutists argue for your right to speak, not for your right to be immune to any consequences. I have a feeling if we were talking about Alex Jones getting banned you would be able to understand.

Go back through the freaking quotes. That has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about here.

 

[theSeb]

Kara Swisher on Elon Musk:

The idea that people working on important things can't be bad people has to be the dumbest logical leap ever.

The Nazis had lots of very smart people working on ways to destroy the armies of the free world and cover all of Europe and probably Africa in a genocidal dark age.

So one might want to remind her that the stereotypical example of fascism in the 20th century even had people working on such important things as <gasp> rockets.

No one who speaks German could be an evil man.

 

[GreyAreaUK]

Freedom of Speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

Except that Musk is arguing that the only consequences should be those dictated by law, despite him not actually living up to that ideal. In other words, Elon Musk is a hypocrite.

 

[PentyPesu]

Yes, he cut ties with the customer over their speech. He even plainly stated so. So the only one doing mental contortions is you. Musk claims to be a "free speech absolutist." His actions prove that's a lie.

Also it's quaint when people such as yourself claim that anyone that disagrees with the far-right is somehow "The Left." I hate to break it to you, but I'm not a "leftist" (a word basically devoid of all meaning when flung around by the far-right) and I frankly don't need to be one to know Musk is full of shit and this far-right blather about "free speech" is BS.

Freedom of Speech does not mean freedom from consequences. Free speech absolutists argue for your right to speak, not for your right to be immune to any consequences. I have a feeling if we were talking about Alex Jones getting banned you would be able to understand.

Where did I state anywhere that Freedom of Speech meant no consequences or that Tesla wasn't allowed to cancel the customer's order? Oh right, I didn't. But thank you for this worthless post that reiterates what I've already stated.

Also if Musk thinks that free speech can have consequences then him and the rest of the far-right need to STFU about being banned for violating Twitter's rules. That's the consequences of their speech.

 

[gsgrego]

Yes, he cut ties with the customer over their speech. He even plainly stated so. So the only one doing mental contortions is you. Musk claims to be a "free speech absolutist." His actions prove that's a lie.

Also it's quaint when people such as yourself claim that anyone that disagrees with the far-right is somehow "The Left." I hate to break it to you, but I'm not a "leftist" (a word basically devoid of all meaning when flung around by the far-right) and I frankly don't need to be one to know Musk is full of shit and this far-right blather about "free speech" is BS.

Freedom of Speech does not mean freedom from consequences. Free speech absolutists argue for your right to speak, not for your right to be immune to any consequences. I have a feeling if we were talking about Alex Jones getting banned you would be able to understand.

Go back through the freaking quotes. That has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about here.

Cutting ties with a customer does not impair their right to speak. If in the future he removes someone from Twitter, that argument might have some merit.

What argument?

 

[GreyAreaUK]

Cutting ties with a customer does not impair their right to speak. If in the future he removes someone from Twitter, that argument might have some merit.

That's a lovely straw man you're building.

 

[PentyPesu]

Yes, he cut ties with the customer over their speech. He even plainly stated so. So the only one doing mental contortions is you. Musk claims to be a "free speech absolutist." His actions prove that's a lie.

Also it's quaint when people such as yourself claim that anyone that disagrees with the far-right is somehow "The Left." I hate to break it to you, but I'm not a "leftist" (a word basically devoid of all meaning when flung around by the far-right) and I frankly don't need to be one to know Musk is full of shit and this far-right blather about "free speech" is BS.

Freedom of Speech does not mean freedom from consequences. Free speech absolutists argue for your right to speak, not for your right to be immune to any consequences. I have a feeling if we were talking about Alex Jones getting banned you would be able to understand.

Go back through the freaking quotes. That has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about here.

Cutting ties with a customer does not impair their right to speak. If in the future he removes someone from Twitter, that argument might have some merit.

Banning someone from Twitter doesn't either. If it did, why is Donald Trump still able to appear on TV, in newspaper interviews, issue press releases and hold political rallies if his speech is being impaired?

 

[GreyAreaUK]

The argument that Musk has shown he actually doesn't support free speech.

And if only his own actions didn't actually prove that to be true...