6 ms·

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 t

by 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"?
        jacobsenscott 4y ago
        Nobody said that though. No sitting president tried to use it to topple the government. No political party made it the central plank in their platform. Degree matters.
        throwawaylinux 4y ago
        People absolutely did say that and tried to connect that with the election being illegitimate and took it much further for much longer than a few election audits. So what you're saying is that whatever you or your party claims "threatens democracy" -- justified with some vague and arbitrary standards you just invented and that you judge -- is what threatens democracy. And anything anybody else thinks is wrong. And by the way questioning election integrity and voicing concerns about that is not "threatening democracy" so that's just not some fundamental truth you've stumbled upon there either, other people can disagree about that. If your democracy is threatened by people voicing their concern about election procedures and results and must silence them to function, then it's not really much of a democracy. What about people concerned about voter suppression or gerrymandering or whatever? Do we need to silence them too? I'm sure you're going to come up with some other vague handwaving as to why those don't meet your criteria for silencing your political opponents. So now you see why pro-free-speech people don't like these kind of restrictions, because they can and are abused.
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.

by yccs27 4y ago

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"?
      - jacobsenscott 4y ago
        Nobody said that though. No sitting president tried to use it to topple the government. No political party made it the central plank in their platform. Degree matters.
        throwawaylinux 4y ago
        People absolutely did say that and tried to connect that with the election being illegitimate and took it much further for much longer than a few election audits. So what you're saying is that whatever you or your party claims "threatens democracy" -- justified with some vague and arbitrary standards you just invented and that you judge -- is what threatens democracy. And anything anybody else thinks is wrong. And by the way questioning election integrity and voicing concerns about that is not "threatening democracy" so that's just not some fundamental truth you've stumbled upon there either, other people can disagree about that. If your democracy is threatened by people voicing their concern about election procedures and results and must silence them to function, then it's not really much of a democracy. What about people concerned about voter suppression or gerrymandering or whatever? Do we need to silence them too? I'm sure you're going to come up with some other vague handwaving as to why those don't meet your criteria for silencing your political opponents. So now you see why pro-free-speech people don't like these kind of restrictions, because they can and are abused.

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.