4 ms·

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

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 5y 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?
- bduerst 5y ago
  Please cite how you can't criticize Saudi families on Twitter.
  - brigandish 5y ago
    > Please cite how you can't criticize Saudi families on Twitter. That wasn't the claim, if it was one. This is what I wrote: > 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. We know that certain critical speech is suppressed on the platform, part of the problem is we don't know how much (hence Musk's wish to increase transparency). That does not, however, mean that all criticism is stopped at source. Do you reject, for example, the existence of shadow bans? If not, do you think they are only used against trolls? As to citations… I'm not giving a viva. If you want me to clarify things I write, you can ask in a normal way.
    - andrepd 5y ago
      >Musk's wish to increase transparency What makes you think that his ownership will increase transparency. He has sued whistleblowers, he has sued and insulted and bullied people he disagrees with, he employs gilded-age tactics against workers who want to unionise... Words are cheap (especially when you're virtue signalling about things which don't impact your bottom line), but actions speak louder.
      - brigandish 5y ago
        > he has sued and insulted and bullied people he disagrees with, he employs gilded-age tactics against workers who want to unionise... Those aren't related to transparency. > He has sued whistleblowers, The logic is that Tesla/Musk are suing whistleblowers to silence them because of embarrassing information. Why would Twitter's algorithms be embarrassing to Musk? Or its moderation policies? > Words are cheap (especially when you're virtue signalling about things which don't impact your bottom line), but actions speak louder. Exactly, all the more reason to treat words as a special case and not restrict them.
- gorgoiler 5y ago
  Thank you for the thoughtful rebuttal. It’s definitely making me rethink my analogy within your framework. Long live HN.
- xmprt 5y ago
  > you're comparing speech to actions other than speech in order to justify that speech being curtailed because you don't like it I think it's more than this. Trump's tweets have had significant real world consequences. Questioning the integrity of the US elections based on no real evidence eventually led to an insurrection at the US Capitol. When someone's speech is actively dangerous, it makes sense to block it, akin to shouting fire in a crowded theater.
  - brigandish 5y ago
    > When someone's speech is actively dangerous, it makes sense to block it I can see a thousand ways that could be misused in the aid of authoritarianism. Try speaking it in a German accent, perhaps with "vhere iz your mister Churchill?", and I'm sure you'll see the problem. > akin to shouting fire in a crowded theater That was the example given by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr for the clear and present danger test[1] in Schenk vs United States[2]: > The ruling established that Congress has more latitude in limiting speech in times of war than in peacetime and set out the clear and present danger test, in which Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. indicated that the most stringent interpretations of the First Amendment would not protect a person who causes public panic by shouting “Fire!” in a theater when no fire exists. I don't see how that test would apply to Trump, even in wartime. [1] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/898/clear-and-present-danger-test https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/898/clear-and-prese... [2] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/193/schenck-v-united-states https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/193/schenck-v-unite...
- andrepd 5y ago
  So because Saudi prince + rich investors are bad, it's better to have one centibillionaire own it instead?
  - brigandish 5y ago
    > it's better to have one centibillionaire own it instead Did I write that? I find it endlessly fascinating when people think in black and white and come back with some kind of false dilemma because I was able to make an entirely legitimate and obvious criticism. I've a better question: is there anyone worse to own Twitter than the Saudi royal family? I think so but there aren't many.

brigandish 5y 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?

bduerst 5y ago
Please cite how you can't criticize Saudi families on Twitter.
- brigandish 5y ago
  > Please cite how you can't criticize Saudi families on Twitter. That wasn't the claim, if it was one. This is what I wrote: > 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. We know that certain critical speech is suppressed on the platform, part of the problem is we don't know how much (hence Musk's wish to increase transparency). That does not, however, mean that all criticism is stopped at source. Do you reject, for example, the existence of shadow bans? If not, do you think they are only used against trolls? As to citations… I'm not giving a viva. If you want me to clarify things I write, you can ask in a normal way.
  - andrepd 5y ago
    >Musk's wish to increase transparency What makes you think that his ownership will increase transparency. He has sued whistleblowers, he has sued and insulted and bullied people he disagrees with, he employs gilded-age tactics against workers who want to unionise... Words are cheap (especially when you're virtue signalling about things which don't impact your bottom line), but actions speak louder.
    - brigandish 5y ago
      > he has sued and insulted and bullied people he disagrees with, he employs gilded-age tactics against workers who want to unionise... Those aren't related to transparency. > He has sued whistleblowers, The logic is that Tesla/Musk are suing whistleblowers to silence them because of embarrassing information. Why would Twitter's algorithms be embarrassing to Musk? Or its moderation policies? > Words are cheap (especially when you're virtue signalling about things which don't impact your bottom line), but actions speak louder. Exactly, all the more reason to treat words as a special case and not restrict them.
gorgoiler 5y ago
Thank you for the thoughtful rebuttal. It’s definitely making me rethink my analogy within your framework. Long live HN.
xmprt 5y ago
> you're comparing speech to actions other than speech in order to justify that speech being curtailed because you don't like it I think it's more than this. Trump's tweets have had significant real world consequences. Questioning the integrity of the US elections based on no real evidence eventually led to an insurrection at the US Capitol. When someone's speech is actively dangerous, it makes sense to block it, akin to shouting fire in a crowded theater.
- brigandish 5y ago
  > When someone's speech is actively dangerous, it makes sense to block it I can see a thousand ways that could be misused in the aid of authoritarianism. Try speaking it in a German accent, perhaps with "vhere iz your mister Churchill?", and I'm sure you'll see the problem. > akin to shouting fire in a crowded theater That was the example given by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr for the clear and present danger test[1] in Schenk vs United States[2]: > The ruling established that Congress has more latitude in limiting speech in times of war than in peacetime and set out the clear and present danger test, in which Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. indicated that the most stringent interpretations of the First Amendment would not protect a person who causes public panic by shouting “Fire!” in a theater when no fire exists. I don't see how that test would apply to Trump, even in wartime. [1] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/898/clear-and-present-danger-test https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/898/clear-and-prese... [2] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/193/schenck-v-united-states https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/193/schenck-v-unite...
andrepd 5y ago
So because Saudi prince + rich investors are bad, it's better to have one centibillionaire own it instead?
- brigandish 5y ago
  > it's better to have one centibillionaire own it instead Did I write that? I find it endlessly fascinating when people think in black and white and come back with some kind of false dilemma because I was able to make an entirely legitimate and obvious criticism. I've a better question: is there anyone worse to own Twitter than the Saudi royal family? I think so but there aren't many.