3 ms·

Ah, all super balanced sources, but I'll bite. So your logic here is that because he fired subversive or insubordinate employees he will do the same on Twitter

Ah, all super balanced sources, but I'll bite. So your logic here is that because he fired subversive or insubordinate employees he will do the same on Twitter?

beaconstudios 5y ago
framing criticism as subversion or insubordination is pretty telling. this is the behaviour of a free speech absolutist? https://www.fastcompany.com/90208132/elon-musk-allegedly-silenced-an-online-critic-with-peter-thiels-playbook https://www.fastcompany.com/90208132/elon-musk-allegedly-sil... I don't doubt that if he thinks he can get away with it, he'll censor information on twitter that is harmful to the finely-crafted PR narratives he likes to make about himself and his companies. Like those battery fires and autopilot unforced/spontaneous crashes.
- awb 5y ago
  > this is the behaviour of a free speech absolutist? Because it’s just a catchy phrase that sounds good on paper. What’s a “free speech absolutist” position on spam, NDAs, calls to violence, libel, national security, fraud, false advertising, copyright infringement, personal privacy, etc.? I don’t know of any country, platform or person that follows an “absolutist” philosophy on free speech within any reasonable definition of the word “absolute”. Everyone is a “free speech exceptionist”, it’s just varying degrees of exceptions.
  - OrvalWintermute 5y ago
    > Everyone is a “free speech exceptionist”, it’s just varying degrees of exceptions ++ Exceptions for me, but not for thee!
  - UncleMeat 5y ago
    Yep. Every discussion I've ever had with a "free speech absolutist" has gone like this. "What are your thoughts on false advertising laws?" "That's fine, because fraud is a crime and therefore not speech" People have bucketed "things I think should be legal" as "speech" and "things I think should be illegal" as "not speech" and then this makes it trivial to say that all speech should be legal because the definition is circular.
nielsbot 5y ago
What is a balanced source you'd cite?
- IntelMiner 5y ago
  Given the undercurrent of their responses and initial remark. Breitbart or the like. Possibly with a remark of providing an 'equally biased on the other side' source
  - Larrikin 5y ago
    Often times the people who irrationally defend Musk and his companies, especially on this site, own stock in one or more of the various companies. Conservative or liberal criticism, real or imagined, doesn't matter since they just want to keep pushing the stock price up.

Ah, all super balanced sources, but I'll bite. So your logic here is that because he fired subversive or insubordinate employees he will do the same on Twitter?

beaconstudios 5y ago

framing criticism as subversion or insubordination is pretty telling. this is the behaviour of a free speech absolutist? https://www.fastcompany.com/90208132/elon-musk-allegedly-silenced-an-online-critic-with-peter-thiels-playbook https://www.fastcompany.com/90208132/elon-musk-allegedly-sil... I don't doubt that if he thinks he can get away with it, he'll censor information on twitter that is harmful to the finely-crafted PR narratives he likes to make about himself and his companies. Like those battery fires and autopilot unforced/spontaneous crashes.

awb 5y ago
> this is the behaviour of a free speech absolutist? Because it’s just a catchy phrase that sounds good on paper. What’s a “free speech absolutist” position on spam, NDAs, calls to violence, libel, national security, fraud, false advertising, copyright infringement, personal privacy, etc.? I don’t know of any country, platform or person that follows an “absolutist” philosophy on free speech within any reasonable definition of the word “absolute”. Everyone is a “free speech exceptionist”, it’s just varying degrees of exceptions.
- OrvalWintermute 5y ago
  > Everyone is a “free speech exceptionist”, it’s just varying degrees of exceptions ++ Exceptions for me, but not for thee!
- UncleMeat 5y ago
  Yep. Every discussion I've ever had with a "free speech absolutist" has gone like this. "What are your thoughts on false advertising laws?" "That's fine, because fraud is a crime and therefore not speech" People have bucketed "things I think should be legal" as "speech" and "things I think should be illegal" as "not speech" and then this makes it trivial to say that all speech should be legal because the definition is circular.

nielsbot 5y ago

What is a balanced source you'd cite?

IntelMiner 5y ago
Given the undercurrent of their responses and initial remark. Breitbart or the like. Possibly with a remark of providing an 'equally biased on the other side' source
- Larrikin 5y ago
  Often times the people who irrationally defend Musk and his companies, especially on this site, own stock in one or more of the various companies. Conservative or liberal criticism, real or imagined, doesn't matter since they just want to keep pushing the stock price up.