13 ms·

Or more realistically, the first thing he’ll do is re-platform all those that got de-platformed. Trump 2024, here we go.

• mgiannopoulos 4y ago
  Honest question : In which ways has Musk given the impression he is pro-Trump?
  • mholm 4y ago
    He hasn't directly, but he has just mentioned Twitter becoming a free speech platform: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1518623997054918657 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1518623997054918657 "I hope that even my worst critics remain on Twitter, because that is what free speech means." which could imply that those banned for non-criminal speech would be reinstated.
    • the_doctah 4y ago
      That's not the same as being pro-Trump.
      • yccs27 4y ago
        Re-platforming Trump is also not the same as being pro-Trump. Edit: This is not about whether de-/replatforming is the right thing to do. Only about the fact that Musk can have (legitimate or illegitimate) reasons other than his political support of Trump.
        • robonerd 4y ago
          Correct. Just like Amazon selling the Communist Manifesto doesn't make Bezos a communist.
          • jacobsenscott 4y ago
            Incorrect. There is no equivalence. Selling books is different than actively targeting and lying to people you know will believe you.
            • ameister14 4y ago
              It appears you are mistaking 're-platforming Trump' (more similar to selling books) with actually being Trump (more similar to lying to people).
            • robonerd 4y ago
              Wait you lost me, who's lies are you talking about? Trump's, or Musk's? They've both lied a lot, but that similarity doesn't make Musk a Trump supporter.
              • jacobsenscott 4y ago
                I'm saying selling books that promote controversial or even heinous ideas is not the same thing as allowing someone to broadcast those ideas at will in real time.
                • robonerd 4y ago
                  Neither would make him a Trump supporter.
            • throwawaylinux 4y ago
              Do your politicians never lie or "actively target" people with misinformation?
              • jacobsenscott 4y ago
                It isn't binary - magnitude, intent, and frequency matter. "I did not have sex with that woman" doesn't threaten democracy. "The election was rigged." does.
        • kelnos 4y ago
          Parent upthread never claimed Musk was pro-Trump, just that Musk's views on freedom of speech and censorship would likely re-platform Trump, regardless of Musk's politics.
        • KerrAvon 4y ago
          It is, though. There's no need to re-platform Trump for "free speech" reasons. He can speak at ay time and people will hear him regardless of the forum. The asymmetry of the disinformation war markedly benefits the fascists. There is no need to bow down to them "because free speech."
        • jacobsenscott 4y ago
          It is though. Being removed from twitter isn't being censored. Twitter is a megaphone, not a public square. If I take my megaphone away from someone in the public square I'm not censoring them. They just need to find another, or get their own, or stand on a box and shout. They are still in the public square. If I hand my megaphone to someone I am explicitly endorsing them.
          • brigandish 4y ago
            > Twitter is a megaphone, not a public square. I agree but the analogy is still a bad fit. A better one would be a phone company back in the days of of AT&T's monopoly. If they kicked you off of their service then you'd lose access, in practical terms, to all those people. This was considered enough of a problem in the past that you weren't allowed to lose your phone service for the content of your speech, on or off of the phone. I think the analogy extends quite well when we consider the lengths other concerns have gone to in crushing competition, the Parler debacle being the most obvious.
            • tshaddox 4y ago
              Phone networks don’t really have any sort of fan-out speech amplification though (unless you’re talking about things like robocalling, which generally are regulated and aren’t considered protected the same as individuals).
              • brigandish 4y ago
                That amplification is the choice of the users (or should be, obviously Twitter likes to try and shape this). It's like me calling you and you liking what I have to say and then calling all your friends to tell them, modern tech makes that easier. Robocalling is more akin to running a script to spam users via a bot, wouldn't you say? The part of the analogy that holds, in my opinion, is the part where a monopoly concern can kick people off for the content of their speech. It wasn't right with telephone and it doesn't seem right with this but they are being treated differently. I'd say that's because speech is powerful so the logic goes that it must be curtailed, if you're against certain views. I'm someone who's confident that truth will win the day given a fair hearing, hence, I want freedom of speech.
        • donmcronald 4y ago
          Yeah. IMHO the thing people don't realize is that all of the wealth elite are only in it for themselves. They don't go against each other because ultimately they all have the same goal - more money for the wealthy elite no matter what the cost to the planet and everyone else, so a lot of their attitudes and goals are going to align regardless of political ideology. Completely unmoderated free speech is beneficial to them because regular people that can't even tell what's real or fake aren't ever going to organize to the point where the privileged positions of the elite are challenged. Trump starting Truth Social and Musk buying Twitter are literally the same thing to me. They're both tying to prevent any kind of unison or popular movements that could de-throne them from their positions as the ruling elite. They both also want to ensure their status as the loudest voice in the room can't be taken away because they use that to convince the average person they "deserve" to rule the world.
    • mancerayder 4y ago
      You associated here free speech with Trump and criminality? That's a deeply depressing take.
    • brigandish 4y ago
      Supporting everyone's right to speak does not make someone pro-Trump any more than it makes them anti-Trump. It's simply an entirely different concern.
      • dillondoyle 4y ago
        it's the definition of speech and arguments of what is protected vs dangerous. specifically Trump's access to the platform is de facto supporting or implicitly allowing Trump's right to lie, attack our Republic, spread violence. (if don't agree crosses into violent words, at least should agree definition something like: suggestively, dog whistle, saying it without saying)
        • rastignack 4y ago
          Did a judge confirm your allegations ? Are we still governed by the law ?
          • dillondoyle 4y ago
            Yes and yes he was impeached. the law of the constitution was followed. I don't believe anyone can make a good faith argument that his rhetoric did not incite violence. During the campaign, during BLM protests, and most important Jan 6
            • EricE 4y ago
              >Yes and yes he was impeached. But not convicted! Something you Trump obsessed seem to always leave out. So yeah, means nothing more than Clinton's impeachment. BLM? The summer of love? Surely you jest! And January 6 - sure you want to keep beating that drum? There is far more documented evidence of people on the FBI payroll inciting violence in the days leading up to January 6th than anyone in the Trump campaign, let alone of his followers. Indeed there is plenty of video of such wackos as Alex Jones and other right wing extremists telling people NOT to enter the capital. More video of capital police standing by or ushering people inside. I was watching it live on various live streams on January 6th because it smelled too good to be true. People being ushered inside by the capital police - that's one hell of an "insurrection". People walking between velvet ropes, not lighting shit on fire, spraying things with paint, knocking statues down. People walking inside of a public building and taking selfies. ZOMG! How will the republic survive?!? How many convictions have they gotten - after more than a year - of these "insurrectionists"? Zero. A few plea deals that are now unraveling. But sure, keep bang that "insurrectionist" drum.
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  • crate_barre 4y ago
    [flagged]
    • Slow_Hand 4y ago
      Disliking liberals doesn't equate to being pro-Trump.
    • api 4y ago
      There are quite a few libertarians, old school conservatives, and neoliberals that strongly dislike both new-generation liberalism/leftism and Trump and alt-right/NatCon ideology. People have this idea that there are only two possible points of view.
    • tomlin 4y ago
      Hating liberals and hating liberalism are two different things. You can yourself be a liberal and dislike the train you're riding on. I would count myself as one. I think a rational person would argue actions > words. Actions: building the world's largest EV fleet/tech, building alternative energy sources, investing in renewable tech. You're actually advocating for the "other investors", like the Saudi Prince. Imagine being a real, actual liberal and advocating for a government that behead women for "cheating" on their "husbands" – OVER – a billionaire building EVs. And if you are into words over actions, watch his TED talk. I don't see any reason why he would bring Trump back on. His main talking points were the invisibility of Twitter's algorithm. When pressed on being a "free speech absolutist", he conceded several points where it doesn't make sense to be an absolutist.
      • kelnos 4y ago
        > ... actions > words. Actions: building the world's largest EV fleet/tech, building alternative energy sources, investing in renewable tech. It's possible, of course, to hold different political views on different aspects of society. Musk might believe that we need to take better care of our planet, and also hedge against the possibility that we destroy it and need to find a new home. He can also believe that freedom of speech should be near-absolute, and that Trump (et al.) deserve to be allowed to be on Twitter. He can also believe that high taxes, large government, and business regulation of any kind is bad. None of these views are necessarily in conflict with each other, and many of them might be considered liberal, but they can still result in a dystopian future.
  • kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
    It can be a hedge for favorable treatment in the future. You think Google and Apple have dodged government scrutiny by luck alone?
    • dragonwriter 4y ago
      > You think Google and Apple have dodged government scrutiny No. I think they've been frequent, intense subjects of government scrutiny, including antitrust litigation.
  • dsl 4y ago
    Birds of a feather flock together.
  • truncate 4y ago
    He probably isn't. But IIRC he also didn't like the the billionaire tax plan. There is this incentive. I dunno enough to say if that's worth $43 billion.
  • Spooky23 4y ago
    He is certainly a big fan of using Twitter to illegally manipulate markets for personal gain. He may not be a supporter, but certainly has similar methods. Using mobs of useful idiots to flaunt the law is a bad thing.
  • DocTomoe 4y ago
    Musk is radically pro-free speech. Free speech necessarily includes speech that might be unpopular, or popular only with the "wrong" kind of people.
    • dragonwriter 4y ago
      > Musk is radically pro-free speech Musk overtly uses his companies to retaliate against people who criticize him; he's not at all radically free speech in the sense of believing the owner of a company should not fully utilize the company to promote views that serve their interests and suppress others.
      • DocTomoe 4y ago
        Just like people who cheered Twitter and other social media companies swinging the ban-hammer left and right in the last few years, I would like to remind you that freedom of speech does not mean absence of consequences. I still would be surprised if we saw Musk abusing his powers to make user-generated things disappear from Twitter.
        • dragonwriter 4y ago
          > Just like people who cheered Twitter and other social media companies swinging the ban-hammer left and right in the last few years, I would like to remind you that freedom of speech does not mean absence of consequences Except the description of Musk as pro-radical-free-speech and the benefits supposed to result therefrom rely entirely on the definition (otherwise problematic, sure) that free speech means exactly that, and specifically that private actors will not use their own freedom to materially retaliate against you for your unwelcome speech. Sure, you can maybe defend Musk being for “free speech” in exactly the sense that people claiming that Musk being for it will change Twitter say isn't “free speech”, and is the problem with the current approach at Twitter. But that...defeats the argument for Musk being a beneficial change.
  • Wistar 4y ago
    The NYT doesn't seem to know. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/16/business/elon-musk-politics-twitter.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/16/business/elon-musk-politi...
• ratsmack 4y ago
  I don't see why that would be a problem as long as he complies with all rules... or do you believe that Trump needs to be treated differently?
  • slg 4y ago
    Well he didn't follow the rules the first time and we should all know by now that Trump is going to change. So what does change, the rules or the equal application of the rules?
    • BurningFrog 4y ago
      Pretty sure Elon will change the rules.
      • ratsmack 4y ago
        I suspect they will be more fairly applied than what is currently done.
  • gorgoiler 4y ago
    If you have this crazy guy in town who keeps buying dozens of raw chickens and stuffing them into trash cans in the town square on the hottest summer days… and you are the one store in town selling raw chickens… you probably just ban the crazy guy, right? He can run for office. He can win office. But just no more chicken stuff please. It really upsets the community. It’s your chicken store and you can ban anyone you like, especially the weird chicken trash can guy.
    • brigandish 4y ago
      You have a guy in town that is powerful because many people support him. His opponents call him the "crazy chicken guy" and get him banned from the town square. They also try, and sometimes succeed, to get other people in the town banned from the square. Several business owners are fearful of this illiberal group. A Saudi prince and his family control access to the square, along with a group of incredibly rich investors. Criticism of them is strictly controlled. That would seem a more accurate depiction. Regardless, Trump has not been stuffing chickens into bins, you're comparing speech to actions other than speech in order to justify that speech being curtailed because you don't like it. Are you okay with the Saudi royal family controlling Twitter too?
• alex_young 4y ago
  I think removing Trump was an objectively positive move for a number of reasons, but Twitter’s bottom line isn’t one of them. Wouldn't Trump tweets drive a bunch of traffic and therefore ad revenue to the platform? Seems like an obvious move just from a business sense.
  • LightG 4y ago
    Probably, even just the prospect of it and the similar nonsense has encouraged me to leave the platform. They can have at it. Freedom of speech also means freedom to leave.
    • brigandish 4y ago
      > Freedom of speech also means freedom to leave. It does but you could also not look at his tweets. Shouldn't other people on the platform be able to decide whether they wish to see (or not see) the tweets they wish to?
      • dillondoyle 4y ago
        what about your friends retweeting. it's also about public good and legitimate intention to stop attacks on the foundations of our republic and stop the spread of dangerous (imho should. be libelous under law to combat) lies. complicated and can become paternalistic, deciding what is best for someone. but we do that (or used to, vaccines and mask pushback) all the time on other dangers.
        • brigandish 4y ago
          > what about your friends retweeting. You are able to block the account and then you wouldn't see retweets. If they screenshot something then you could shrug and get on with your day in the knowledge that you'd stopped most of the stuff, or block your friend. I'd give users more tools, like the one Twitter itself has, to rate accounts and shape the kind of tweets one can see. > it's also about public good and legitimate intention to stop attacks on the foundations of our republic and stop the spread of dangerous (imho should. be libelous under law to combat) lies. If stopping lies comes at the cost of undermining free speech for everyone, then it would be the thing undermining the republic, far more than a known liar lying. I rely on Mill for my views on bad men speaking bad things: > It is also often argued, and still oftener thought, that none but bad men would desire to weaken these salutary beliefs; and there can be nothing wrong, it is thought, in restraining bad men, and prohibiting what only such men would wish to practise. This mode of thinking makes the justification of restraints on discussion not a question of the truth of doctrines, but of their usefulness; and flatters itself by that means to escape the responsibility of claiming to be an infallible judge of opinions. But those who thus satisfy themselves, do not perceive that the assumption of infallibility is merely shifted from one point to another. The usefulness of an opinion is itself matter of opinion: as disputable, as open to discussion, and requiring discussion as much, as the opinion itself. There is the same need of an infallible judge of opinions to decide an opinion to be noxious, as to decide it to be false, unless the opinion condemned has full opportunity of defending itself. And it will not do to say that the heretic may be allowed to maintain the utility or harmlessness of his opinion, though forbidden to maintain its truth. The truth of an opinion is part of its utility. If we would know whether or not it is desirable that a proposition should be believed, is it possible to exclude the consideration of whether or not it is true?
• inasio 4y ago
  I think that would objectively be bad for Trump, what's the point then of his Truth Social app, the whole SPAC crazy valuation. Getting the popcorn ready.
• layer8 4y ago
  Trump already said he won’t rejoin Twitter even if Elon reinstantiates his account. Of course, one shouldn’t be surprised if he changes his mind at some point.
  • prawn 4y ago
    I don't think he could resist. One of his things seems to be high impact, low prep/effort things like tweets, rallies, etc. It'd be global news for minimal exertion.
• throwawaylinux 4y ago
  Do you think twitter was a significant factor in Trump's 2016 win?