8 ms·

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.
        throwawaylinux 4y ago
        How about "Trump colluded with Putin to hack the election"?
    - 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...

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.
        throwawaylinux 4y ago
        How about "Trump colluded with Putin to hack the election"?
  - 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...