7 ms·

I've never had a twitter account and didn't plan on getting one. But if Musk is successful taking over twitter, my intent is to get a twitter account and start

I've never had a twitter account and didn't plan on getting one. But if Musk is successful taking over twitter, my intent is to get a twitter account and start posting the most grotesque and offensive things to see if Musk really is a free speech absolutist. My suspicion is that he is mostly interested in his free speech, not mine.

belter 5y ago
Here is something grotesque you can post: "Elon Musk says Tesla hopes to produce a robotaxi with no steering wheel or pedals in 2024" https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-tesla-build-robotaxi-without-wheel-pedals-in-2024-2022-4?international=true&r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-tesla-build-robota...
- macspoofing 5y ago
  Musk makes a lot of (insane) promises - like going to Mars in the next 5 years. Sure.
  - badwolf 5y ago
    or selling "Full self driving" packages in Teslas
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
ohmanjjj 5y ago
We are too.
macspoofing 5y ago
He is concerned with the Overton window being too tight.
openforce 5y ago
Lol, I don't think that is necessary. He has already bought his free speech with the ~9% stake.
NDizzle 5y ago
So you haven't cared about free speech at all until you want to lash out to spam others? Cool story, bro... I bet you and your legion of followers will love all your content. Then you'll bitch when people disallow you from commenting on their posts.. But I can't push my speech on others!!! This isn't my definition of free!!!
- tasty_freeze 5y ago
  Please tell me how you determined that I don't care about free speech at all from what I've said. All I said is I have never had a twitter account. I find the medium to not lead to productive dialog. The only interesting posts I've read are ones where someone essentially ignores the format and writes a long form comment over ten serial tweets. Limiting people to 140 characters (or 2x that now) leads to people spitting out punchy comments that lack any nuance. Rather than a dialog you get either echo chamber if the participants are in agreement, or if the participants are in opposition, a series of tweets attempting to land a body blow on the other.
jpdb 5y ago
I think that is a worthwhile test and agree banning things like spam or extremely grotesque content means you aren't a "free speech absolutist." However, banning some speech (such as those mentioned above) wouldn't necessarily put him in the camp of only being interested in his own free speech.
chasd00 5y ago
from what i understand, if your post is within the bounds of the law then you should be fine.
- flipbrad 5y ago
  Which country's law?
  - jimkleiber 5y ago
    This gets at a core issue for me: how do our national governments govern online spaces that transcend national boundaries? From what I understand, a large reason the US switched from the Articles of Confederation to the US Constitution was to help resolve inter-state conflict. I wonder if we can resolve inter-national conflict with our current confederation of nations.
    - falcolas 5y ago
      The articles of confederation was the Confederacy’s foundation document that codified how the Confederacy would be run. AKA “The South” in the US civil war. Edit: Yup, as pointed out by replies, I got my documents backwards. Sorry!
      - jimkleiber 5y ago
        No, it wasn't. > The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was an agreement among the 13 original states of the United States of America that served as its first frame of government. It was approved after much debate (between July 1776 and November 1777) by the Second Continental Congress on November 15, 1777, and sent to the states for ratification. The Articles of Confederation came into force on March 1, 1781, after ratification by all the states. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation Edit: I think you're thinking of the Constitution of the Confederate States: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Confederate_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Confeder...
nraynaud 5y ago
he has fired a lot of his own employees for what they said or posted online, no need to test him more. Some people think it's fair game to retaliate gainst your own employees because there is no free speech at a company, I would counter that it's a very narrow margin for someone who declared themselve "free speech absolutist" and didn't implement it in their own kingdom.
- shabier 5y ago
  > he has fired a lot of his own employees for what they said or posted online, no need to test him more. Twitter is not Tesla or SpaceX neither are they considered the same (at all). To expect him to treat everything the same across the board is a disingenuou unrealistic expectation.
  - 0x500x79 5y ago
    What about the reports that he canceled customer's orders after a blog post that they have made?
  - nraynaud 5y ago
    he used the term "absolutist", moreover those firings would probably be illegal in most civilized countries.
suction 5y ago
The true test will be if he has Trump's and other fascist's accounts reinstated.
- k1ko 5y ago
  Curious. How exactly do you reconcile the definition of fascism with your use of it?
  - theonething 5y ago
    They don't and can't. The word is bandied about by the left to the point of meaninglessness now.
Anon1096 5y ago
I don't think Musk has ever claimed to be a free speech "absolutist", he just wants free-er speech for things like political views.
- jmull 5y ago
  There's this: https://twitter.com/search?lang=en&q=absolutist%20(from%3Aelonmusk)&src=typed_query https://twitter.com/search?lang=en&q=absolutist%20(from%3Ael...
- zaptrem 5y ago
  https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1499976967105433600 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1499976967105433600 "Starlink has been told by some governments (not Ukraine) to block Russian news sources. We will not do so unless at gunpoint. Sorry to be a free speech absolutist."
  - dangerface 5y ago
    Not blocking Russia doesn't mean he is a free speech absolutist even if he says it. I know I can read minds.
  - dnissley 5y ago
    I read this as a tongue in cheek jab at people who like to use "free speech absolutist" as a negative descriptor.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- andechs 5y ago
  he just wants free-er speech for his OWN political views
WORMS_EAT_WORMS 5y ago
That's pretty hilarious, but I think saying offensive things (and offending people at their expense) to own Elon really is some derangement. I am assuming this is a joke. I don't get why people are so worked up about this. If you see Twitter, as Elon and millions of other people do, as the "public digital town hall", it is not unreasonable to verify people's identities and let them comment whatever they want so long it is legal. It does not mean that you or anyone have to subscribe or listen to their crap. If you don't see it that way, do people really not understand how others see that as gatekeeping, controlling, or dangerous? What is the purpose of Twitter than to you - basically television? To tune in and tune out? Then, open source the algorithms. Do the same people really not want to know why Twitter chose to show you X information? Wild.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  It's not derangement, it's a logical method of protesting if you think that it's valid to ban tweets on subjects like qanon, flat out (dangerous) lies, and stirring up violence on Congress on private platforms
  - WORMS_EAT_WORMS 5y ago
    Eh -- it's totally derangement. Protesting a cause at an innocent persons expense is immature. It also can escalate into real violence.
    - tasty_freeze 5y ago
      Thank you for reading my mind and calling me totally deranged. Very rational and not deranged of you. Here are some sample tweets I might want to post. "I'm not saying Elon has killed anyone, but he owns a lot of property where bodies could be buried. Why aren't the authorities looking into this?" "Fact: Tesla cars are killing more people than any other cause." Yes, it it is patently false, and that is the point. "People are saying that Elon is forcing his numerous lovers to get abortions. Does anyone know if this is true?" Hey, I'm just asking questions. I believe twitter accounts allow posting a very short description. I'd probably put something like "Testing the limits of twitter's free speech."
IAmNotAFix 5y ago
You need to have a significant following for this to have any relevance. If you have a significant following, you have a strong incentive not to post the most grotesque things.
- bilbo0s 5y ago
  You post things outrageous enough, believe me, a significant following will raise up around it. I think we're all about to witness the tragedy of the commons in real time if Musk buys twitter. Because there are literally thousands of people in college towns alone all across the US who will descend on Twitter and do this. Probably millions outside of college towns who will do the same. it's too bad. My bet is we'll end up filing this under "This is why we can't have nice things".
goatcode 5y ago
>the most grotesque and offensive things >mine You enjoy grotesque and offensive things?
- psyc 5y ago
  I am too sensitive for grotesque images, but I do greatly enjoy maximally offensive verbal comedy, if it’s funny to me.
  - goatcode 5y ago
    We can still be friends, then.
zionic 5y ago
Similar boat minus the last part. Never had a Twitter, but I’ll join as paying member if Elon buys it.
shockeychap 5y ago
I think that the characterization of "free speech absolutist" is misleading and facile, and this is reinforced by the idea of testing it with "the most grotesque and offensive things". Very few people are absolutists who would favor a platform that allows everything - kiddy porn and snuff films included. I think what Musk wants to see is the Overton Window opened up more than it is now, and that's not a bad thing.
- root_axis 5y ago
  Kiddy porn and snuff films are illegal. Musk is a self-described "free speech absolutist" in his own words so it's fair to hold him to that description, and while I do agree it's misleading, Musk is often misleading when it comes to his businesses, so I think the criticism is well earned.
- guerrilla 5y ago
  Well Musk may be misleading and facile, but that's how he describes himself in his own words.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
kjksf 5y ago
I think the flaw in this plans is that you assume that Musk will personally approve every tweet. There will be moderation. Musk talked about the need to improve Twitter's handling of spam, bots and scammers. So clearly if he owns Twitter he will direct the team to eliminate spam, bots and scammers as much as possible. If you get classified as those, you'll be booted off the island. And given that your stated purpose is malicious, I say that you should be.
chasing 5y ago
No need to bother, there are plenty of people who will be doing this for you. Your contributions will be mere drops in the grotesque and offensive ocean.
kyle_martin1 5y ago

belter 5y ago

Here is something grotesque you can post: "Elon Musk says Tesla hopes to produce a robotaxi with no steering wheel or pedals in 2024" https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-tesla-build-robotaxi-without-wheel-pedals-in-2024-2022-4?international=true&r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-tesla-build-robota...

macspoofing 5y ago
Musk makes a lot of (insane) promises - like going to Mars in the next 5 years. Sure.
- badwolf 5y ago
  or selling "Full self driving" packages in Teslas
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

ohmanjjj 5y ago

We are too.

macspoofing 5y ago

He is concerned with the Overton window being too tight.

openforce 5y ago

Lol, I don't think that is necessary. He has already bought his free speech with the ~9% stake.

NDizzle 5y ago

So you haven't cared about free speech at all until you want to lash out to spam others? Cool story, bro... I bet you and your legion of followers will love all your content. Then you'll bitch when people disallow you from commenting on their posts.. But I can't push my speech on others!!! This isn't my definition of free!!!

tasty_freeze 5y ago
Please tell me how you determined that I don't care about free speech at all from what I've said. All I said is I have never had a twitter account. I find the medium to not lead to productive dialog. The only interesting posts I've read are ones where someone essentially ignores the format and writes a long form comment over ten serial tweets. Limiting people to 140 characters (or 2x that now) leads to people spitting out punchy comments that lack any nuance. Rather than a dialog you get either echo chamber if the participants are in agreement, or if the participants are in opposition, a series of tweets attempting to land a body blow on the other.

jpdb 5y ago

I think that is a worthwhile test and agree banning things like spam or extremely grotesque content means you aren't a "free speech absolutist." However, banning some speech (such as those mentioned above) wouldn't necessarily put him in the camp of only being interested in his own free speech.

chasd00 5y ago

from what i understand, if your post is within the bounds of the law then you should be fine.

flipbrad 5y ago
Which country's law?
- jimkleiber 5y ago
  This gets at a core issue for me: how do our national governments govern online spaces that transcend national boundaries? From what I understand, a large reason the US switched from the Articles of Confederation to the US Constitution was to help resolve inter-state conflict. I wonder if we can resolve inter-national conflict with our current confederation of nations.
  - falcolas 5y ago
    The articles of confederation was the Confederacy’s foundation document that codified how the Confederacy would be run. AKA “The South” in the US civil war. Edit: Yup, as pointed out by replies, I got my documents backwards. Sorry!
    - jimkleiber 5y ago
      No, it wasn't. > The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was an agreement among the 13 original states of the United States of America that served as its first frame of government. It was approved after much debate (between July 1776 and November 1777) by the Second Continental Congress on November 15, 1777, and sent to the states for ratification. The Articles of Confederation came into force on March 1, 1781, after ratification by all the states. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation Edit: I think you're thinking of the Constitution of the Confederate States: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Confederate_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Confeder...

nraynaud 5y ago

he has fired a lot of his own employees for what they said or posted online, no need to test him more. Some people think it's fair game to retaliate gainst your own employees because there is no free speech at a company, I would counter that it's a very narrow margin for someone who declared themselve "free speech absolutist" and didn't implement it in their own kingdom.

shabier 5y ago
> he has fired a lot of his own employees for what they said or posted online, no need to test him more. Twitter is not Tesla or SpaceX neither are they considered the same (at all). To expect him to treat everything the same across the board is a disingenuou unrealistic expectation.
- 0x500x79 5y ago
  What about the reports that he canceled customer's orders after a blog post that they have made?
- nraynaud 5y ago
  he used the term "absolutist", moreover those firings would probably be illegal in most civilized countries.

suction 5y ago

The true test will be if he has Trump's and other fascist's accounts reinstated.

k1ko 5y ago
Curious. How exactly do you reconcile the definition of fascism with your use of it?
- theonething 5y ago
  They don't and can't. The word is bandied about by the left to the point of meaninglessness now.

Anon1096 5y ago

I don't think Musk has ever claimed to be a free speech "absolutist", he just wants free-er speech for things like political views.

jmull 5y ago
There's this: https://twitter.com/search?lang=en&q=absolutist%20(from%3Aelonmusk)&src=typed_query https://twitter.com/search?lang=en&q=absolutist%20(from%3Ael...
zaptrem 5y ago
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1499976967105433600 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1499976967105433600 "Starlink has been told by some governments (not Ukraine) to block Russian news sources. We will not do so unless at gunpoint. Sorry to be a free speech absolutist."
- dangerface 5y ago
  Not blocking Russia doesn't mean he is a free speech absolutist even if he says it. I know I can read minds.
- dnissley 5y ago
  I read this as a tongue in cheek jab at people who like to use "free speech absolutist" as a negative descriptor.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
andechs 5y ago
he just wants free-er speech for his OWN political views

WORMS_EAT_WORMS 5y ago

That's pretty hilarious, but I think saying offensive things (and offending people at their expense) to own Elon really is some derangement. I am assuming this is a joke. I don't get why people are so worked up about this. If you see Twitter, as Elon and millions of other people do, as the "public digital town hall", it is not unreasonable to verify people's identities and let them comment whatever they want so long it is legal. It does not mean that you or anyone have to subscribe or listen to their crap. If you don't see it that way, do people really not understand how others see that as gatekeeping, controlling, or dangerous? What is the purpose of Twitter than to you - basically television? To tune in and tune out? Then, open source the algorithms. Do the same people really not want to know why Twitter chose to show you X information? Wild.

stjohnswarts 5y ago
It's not derangement, it's a logical method of protesting if you think that it's valid to ban tweets on subjects like qanon, flat out (dangerous) lies, and stirring up violence on Congress on private platforms
- WORMS_EAT_WORMS 5y ago
  Eh -- it's totally derangement. Protesting a cause at an innocent persons expense is immature. It also can escalate into real violence.
  - tasty_freeze 5y ago
    Thank you for reading my mind and calling me totally deranged. Very rational and not deranged of you. Here are some sample tweets I might want to post. "I'm not saying Elon has killed anyone, but he owns a lot of property where bodies could be buried. Why aren't the authorities looking into this?" "Fact: Tesla cars are killing more people than any other cause." Yes, it it is patently false, and that is the point. "People are saying that Elon is forcing his numerous lovers to get abortions. Does anyone know if this is true?" Hey, I'm just asking questions. I believe twitter accounts allow posting a very short description. I'd probably put something like "Testing the limits of twitter's free speech."

IAmNotAFix 5y ago

You need to have a significant following for this to have any relevance. If you have a significant following, you have a strong incentive not to post the most grotesque things.

bilbo0s 5y ago
You post things outrageous enough, believe me, a significant following will raise up around it. I think we're all about to witness the tragedy of the commons in real time if Musk buys twitter. Because there are literally thousands of people in college towns alone all across the US who will descend on Twitter and do this. Probably millions outside of college towns who will do the same. it's too bad. My bet is we'll end up filing this under "This is why we can't have nice things".

goatcode 5y ago

>the most grotesque and offensive things >mine You enjoy grotesque and offensive things?

psyc 5y ago
I am too sensitive for grotesque images, but I do greatly enjoy maximally offensive verbal comedy, if it’s funny to me.
- goatcode 5y ago
  We can still be friends, then.

zionic 5y ago

Similar boat minus the last part. Never had a Twitter, but I’ll join as paying member if Elon buys it.

shockeychap 5y ago

I think that the characterization of "free speech absolutist" is misleading and facile, and this is reinforced by the idea of testing it with "the most grotesque and offensive things". Very few people are absolutists who would favor a platform that allows everything - kiddy porn and snuff films included. I think what Musk wants to see is the Overton Window opened up more than it is now, and that's not a bad thing.

root_axis 5y ago
Kiddy porn and snuff films are illegal. Musk is a self-described "free speech absolutist" in his own words so it's fair to hold him to that description, and while I do agree it's misleading, Musk is often misleading when it comes to his businesses, so I think the criticism is well earned.
guerrilla 5y ago
Well Musk may be misleading and facile, but that's how he describes himself in his own words.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

kjksf 5y ago

I think the flaw in this plans is that you assume that Musk will personally approve every tweet. There will be moderation. Musk talked about the need to improve Twitter's handling of spam, bots and scammers. So clearly if he owns Twitter he will direct the team to eliminate spam, bots and scammers as much as possible. If you get classified as those, you'll be booted off the island. And given that your stated purpose is malicious, I say that you should be.

chasing 5y ago

No need to bother, there are plenty of people who will be doing this for you. Your contributions will be mere drops in the grotesque and offensive ocean.

kyle_martin1 5y ago