Amid Twitter buyout, Musk says free speech is simply "that which matches the law."
Read the whole story
Read the whole story
Elon Musk, Twitter’s next owner, provides his definition of “free speech”
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Yeah, protect free speech by suppressing free speech, great
Upvote
12
(12
/
0)
I find it curious. You want to make a big exception for speech that calls for boycotts. But you don't want to make an exception for speech that is designed to make marginalized groups uncomfortable and leave the platform. If you truly believe that speech that is intended to harm participation is bad, then you would be against both of these.
I would wonder why your belief is inconsistent, but I already know why. I've heard the excuses that people like yourself use, and I'm not impressed by them.
Upvote
14
(14
/
0)
Yes. Boycotts, and the calling for them, are free speech. There is no debate on that.
That's literally everything you can say. Just because government won't do anything to you, doesn't mean I have to just shrug my shoulders at people who say that trans people don't deserve rights
Yes, it is. And includes many things that most people don't want to be around, like support for white nationalism. It also, however, allows calls for boycotts of sites that do allow white nationalism.
It is, also, extremely telling that you think that white nationalism, homophobia, transphobia, and other assorted bigotry should be encouraged, but calls for boycotts over that should be shut down.
Upvote
17
(17
/
0)
Celery Man
Ars Legatus Legionis
We’ve got some chicken sausages and green beans frying up right now. Not the fanciest meal but hot damn do those sausages smell good.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Scary Devil Monastery
Ars Scholae Palatinae
There's a dynamic to be sure but it isn't exactly complex. Usually it's just some variant of Fuck You, Got Mine!. Or getting real upset when someone punctures their wishful dream of eventually getting theirs.
If you want to screw other people to get out on top, the GOP has you covered. If you're already rich, that is. It's that simple.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
Hang on a moment.
So imagine a white supremacist group uses their free speech to tweet about how good a white-only world would be, and how they wish they had some final answer get rid of all those annoying 'others.' Twitter places an ad for some pillow manufacturer next to those tweets and some non-white supremacists contact the pillow company to make them aware. The pillow company says they're happy to appear next to a pic of some guy with a swastika tattoo yelling that non-whites need to get out of his country. The non-white supremacists organise a boycott and you support Twitter banning them because they threaten Twitter's ad revenue?
Do I have that right? And you post Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance to support your point?
Or do you mean Musk would get rid of the white supremacists from Twitter, in my example?
Upvote
10
(11
/
-1)
If you allow speech that threatens the viability of your free speech platform, then it may cease to exist. To best protect it, you paradoxically might have to suppress that speech that threatens it. It's mostly a thought exercise, taking the principle of free speech to extremes, but it shows, like Popper's tolerance paradox, there is still room in a "maximum free speech" model to restrict some speech.
I doubt Elon's Twitter would come close to a total free speech model anyways.
Upvote
-11
(1
/
-12)
Scary Devil Monastery
Ars Scholae Palatinae
Interesting how the alt-right can't pose an argument without redefining english, innit? It's almost touching how they've started figuring out that their 'Freeze Peach' argument won't fly because of something called Popper's Paradox of Tolerance and as per usual they try to word salad that paradox into irrelevance...
Upvote
8
(9
/
-1)
So let me get this straight.
People can post whatever they like, and that's fine. Even if what they post is considered deeply offensive and hateful to others, causing those targeted to leave the platform.
When those targeted post calls for boycotts or similar, in an effort to get the platform to limit the posts they consider deeply offensive and hateful, causing advertisers to leave the platform, that's not okay.
Your justification for this is that boycotts of advertisers harm platform revenue, making the platform no longer viable or self-sustaining based on generated revenue. E.g. the (original) TOS is not a suicide pact, so the platform can implement restrictions and expand the scope of the TOS in order to keep the platform financially stable. Makes sense.
Please tell me, what do you think is going to happen to the platform's ad revenue, which you postulate is necessary to keep the platform viable, when all the people targeted by speech they deem offensive and/or hateful leave the platform? Users choosing to leave the platform en masse reduces ad revenue as much as (or more than) specific advertisers choosing to leave the platform.
Are you suggesting that the offended users be compelled to continue using the platform? If so, how would you implement that? If not, why is one class of revenue-reducing speech worth protecting while another class of revenue-reducing speech is worth banning?
Upvote
12
(12
/
0)
Hack-n-Slash
Ars Legatus Legionis
Again....
“Elves are wonderful. They provoke wonder.
Elves are marvellous. They cause marvels.
Elves are fantastic. They create fantasies.
Elves are glamorous. They project glamour.
Elves are enchanting. They weave enchantment.
Elves are terrific. They beget terror.
The thing about words is that meanings can twist just like a snake, and if you want to find snakes look for them behind words that have changed their meaning.
No one ever said elves are nice.
Elves are bad.”
― Terry Pratchett, Lords and Ladies
Upvote
14
(14
/
0)
Scary Devil Monastery
Ars Scholae Palatinae
And by now every time the alt-right tries to make an argument I think of Reacher Gilt. Except played by Ted Levine's "Buffalo Bill" rather than David Suchet.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
None of this is a thought exercise, everyone's view that Twitter will be a shithole if you allow unmoderated bigotry has examples of other websites that are shitholes because of that.
If someone wants to post a long screed about how LGBT people aren't full people then they can on 8chan, Gab, Parler, and some others. Those websites are shit with things worse than homophobia and most people don't want to associate with them. So you have people trying to turn the websites people do prefer to post on a little shittier. Why take a dump on top of the pile of horse crap in a field when you can do it in the entryway of a restaurant.
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
Popper meant you should refuse to tolerate the intolerant, in this example, the white supremacists. Banning the people who speak against the white supremacists is exactly the inverse of Popper's point. It creates a world where only the bigots speak, where only hateful messages are allowed.
You missed the point - and the imagery - of the little cartoon you posted.
Still, it'll be interesting to watch Twitter turn into the alt-right paradise and turn everyone else away. It's a strategy that worked wonders for Gab and Parler, and I hear Truth Social is doing really well.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
People have been targeted by offensive speech on Twitter for a long time now. Many people left. Those still on are quite addicted, especially the heavy users, and are unlikely to leave in large numbers. There are tools to help, which could be expanded.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ch ... ment-tools
Upvote
-17
(0
/
-17)
Their speech wouldn't be banned, just their boycott actions. They would be free to say whatever they want to the white supremacists directly. You know, engaging with bad ideas and people directly. It's the speech that harms the platform that would be shunned.
Upvote
-19
(0
/
-19)
Allowing bigoted speech to remain unchecked is what harms a platform, it's why the platforms that allow it never made it anywhere near mainstream social network levels.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
You have not proven that calls for boycotts "harm the platform". You have asserted that this is the case, but that's all it is: your assertion. A thing you choose to believe, not a thing that is true.
Unlike your entirely fictional harm, real harm has been demonstrated to be caused by allowing people to express bigotry. We have many examples of platforms that have gone this direction, and they turn into echo-chamber hellsites of bullshit in short order. They do not become places where white supremacists are challenged "directly". They become a place where white supremacists roam freely and unchecked, converting others to their bigoted views.
But of course, you don't care about demonstrable facts. No, your fictional harm is all that really matters to you.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Insofar as I may be heard by anything, which may or may not care what I say, I ask, if it matters, that you be forgiven for anything you may have done or failed to do which requires forgiveness. Conversely, if not forgiveness but something else may be required to insure any possible benefit for which you may be eligible after the destruction of your body, I ask that this, whatever it may be, be granted or withheld, as the case may be, in such a manner as to insure your receiving said benefit. I ask this in my capacity as your elected intermediary between yourself and that which may not be yourself, but which may have an interest in the matter of your receiving as much as it is possible for you to receive of this thing, and which may in some way be influenced by this ceremony.
Amen.
- Roger Zelazny, Agnostics Prayer-- Creatures of Light and Darkness
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
Freedom of association and freedom of speech are symbiotic. One does not exist without the other.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
No no no, don't you see?? It's the people that want me to stop
With apologies to HistoryDave
Upvote
3
(4
/
-1)
Speaking only for myself: allowing others to confront the speech is not unchecked speech. I still believe that direct confrontation of the speech is the best method to confronting hate.
I also believe that direct confrontation of the speaker is... well, not bad, but less than ideal because it converts no one, nor does it address the contents of the speech.
This is why I am an advocate for free speech. I believe that the best means of confronting hateful and bigoted speech is to confront it directly. I also believe that there are better ways and worse to do so, but this last isn't a matter of free speech.
I also believe that banning it entrenches it. Nazi Party v Skokie, IL typifies my stance, although that was an actual 1st Amendment case. While the 1st Amendment isn't a factor here, the principles I hold stem from that.
Even though it's fictional, I also feel it was well-expressed in the movie The American President starring Michael Douglas and Annette Bening. In the third act, Michael Douglas as the US President expresses (paraphrased) that America is hard. And, among other examples, he speaks of supporting someone speaking out that which you would spend your life opposing, and that then you can speak about freedom of speech.
Neither you, Twitter, YouTube, et al are obligated to support such speech. But I think the best method to fight it is to bring it into the light of day and to confront the false premises behind that speech.
And, again, there are types of speech that are not protected. Such as calls for race wars, direct threats against people, and doxxing people, even Justices of the US Supreme Court, the insurrection of Jan 6, 2020, etc. Nor is that a comprehensive list.
Upvote
-17
(1
/
-18)
Wait. Do I have to ask the indifferent staff where the restroom is, or can I just poop on the floor?
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Here's the beauty of reality. We don't have to "believe" things. We have evidence for things.
And the reality is this: direct confrontation of bigots by those they are bigoted against doesn't work. The latter requires the victims of bigotry to basically be attacked and just take it. The latter legitimizes the "debate" by having it actually happen and being required to take it seriously (notably their opposition does not take it seriously). And as long as the point remains "debatable", then people think that it is a legitimate question (the bigots won just by having the debate happen).
That's not a thing I "believe". That is what has been proven time and again.
Are people on 4chan or 8kun being deradicalized from bigotry? No. Why not? They're "free speech" platforms; people can say whatever bigoted or anti-bigoted thing they want. If your method worked, then those sites would be perfect breeding grounds for deradicalization. But they're not.
Until your "beliefs" can explain this objective reality, you will find these "beliefs" to be a hard sell. A hypothesis that predicts X, but then not-X is found in reality, is a bad hypothesis.
You have been asked many times before to provide evidence for your "beliefs", and you cannot. You simply choose to believe them based on... well, this is what you must believe to be true in order to be a free speech absolutist. Well, OK, but you have no right to tell those of us with actual evidence on our side that we're wrong.
Again, you can believe things. But reality tells a different story. Deplatforming works. Deplatforming of hateful bastards allows minoritized people to participate on platforms. Deplatforming of hateful bastards allows minoritized people to interact with normal people, getting them used to speaking with and interacting with them without constantly having to deal with bigotry and hate. Deplatforming fascists makes it harder for fascists to convert others. And so forth.
Yes, no bigots are convinced by being deplatformed. But they're bigots; most of them didn't reason themselves into their bigotry, so there was never any reasoning them out of their bigotry.
Do you honestly think that Elon fucking Musk would prohibit such speech? Maybe direct threats, but I highly doubt he'd do anything about the stuff leading to the insurrection, including what Trump and his ilk were saying and doing.
The problem is that you think these people are acting in good faith. They're not. They're fascists. For them, "free speech" is when they get to talk and their enemies are silent. Any claims to the contrary are merely to get their foot in the door.
Upvote
13
(14
/
-1)
People who engage in bigotry, white supremacy, etc know what people think about their views. Giving them a platform just gives them access to their targets. Telling them to go fuck themselves isn't going to phase them, however bigoted views targeted at marginalized groups have driven people to mental health problems and suicide. Them bringing that into a conversation drags every other conversation down and reduces engagement for people who aren't lousy bigots.
Upvote
9
(10
/
-1)
This in no way approaches anything resembling an answer to the question I asked you.
Are you suggesting that the offended users be compelled to continue using the platform? If so, how would you implement that? If not, why is one class of revenue-reducing speech worth protecting while another class of revenue-reducing speech is worth banning?
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
You don't know them. Not the people. The leaders, true. The people they're a different animal. They feel ignored (flyover country), denigrated (deplorables) and dismissed. They've turned to the only leaders talking to them. It's how Hitler came to power. Lenin. Mao. bin Laden. History is full of such examples.
But you don't want to hear this. So you won't. And this will just go on.
Upvote
-14
(1
/
-15)
Weren't you the one arguing, pre-insurrection, that they weren't fascists? So after their failed putsch proved how wrong you were, you've switched to defending fascist followers.
People who follow fascists leaders are deplorable. They have declared themselves such by following fascists. They've attacked innocent people physically in the name of a fascist lie.
Yes, history is full of such examples. Examples of people who bow down to authoritarian fascists, who attack in their name. Who want to hurt people because they're shitty human beings who feel better by making other people feel worse.
And yes, this is what the research tells us about right-wing authoritarians. They want to hurt people; give them a reason to devalue someone, and they'll take it.
But no, the behavior of right-wingers must ALWAYS be blamed on the left. The party of personal responsibility has no responsibility whatsoever for their own action. It's always the left's fault.
Seriously, fuck off with this bullshit. Blame rests with the fascists and their allies. Period, the end.
Oh, and remember: the idea that Trump supporters are poor rural folk from "flyover country" is a lie. The people who went to the insurrection weren't poor. They were largely middle-class shitbags, many of them from suburbia or exurbs.
Not that you will stop telling this lie to whomever you come across. It took an insurrection to get you to wake up to the fascism in your back yard. God only knows what it will take for you to realize that these people are not the destitute, forlorn denizens of rural America.
Upvote
10
(11
/
-1)
Because the primary concern of the platform(allegedly) is free speech, not revenue. If the goal was revenue maximization, your arguments would be making sense. Within the framework of maximizing free speech to the detriment of everything else, it does not.
Upvote
-19
(0
/
-19)
You mistake "revenue" for "participation". You treat the victims of bigotry as just bodies to market ads to, not actual living breathing human beings who ought to have "free speech" just like everyone else.
You have two groups: the bigots and their victims. Their victims cannot abide the bigots. And the goal of the bigots is to run their victims off the platform.
As a platform holder, if you allow the bigots free reign, they will drive their victims off the platform. If you instead prevent the bigots from being bigoted, they will either stop expressing bigotry or leave the platform. Either way, you have fewer people.
However, what is interesting is the nature of the platform after this culling. If you allow the bigots to drive off their victims, then you have a platform that has fewer voices on it. There's people there, but there is less speech because there are entire identity groups that cannot abide bigots. They cannot speak on any subject because they are not present.
By contrast, the only voices you lose if you kick out the bigots are... bigotry.
In one case, you have an absence of diversity of voices. In the other case, you have nearly complete diversity of voices, save the voices of the bigots.
If the goal is to maximize the number of people or the number of voices or anything related to the actual substance being communicated by this speech, the voices of bigots who want to run people off of platforms are the ones who need to be removed.
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
Only if you don't let the waiter push your stool in for you...
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)