4 ms·

Uninviting someone to a party would be curating his own life. Firing people is a lot more than that lol

by britch 4y ago

loceng 4y ago
Firing people at a private company is not anything near the same thing as censoring someone on what is said to be run a public square; and for example if he wants to allow Trump on, ideally with conditions or full-time oversight, if Twitter employees can't accept that and cause problems internally - who are then going against company policy - then they should be fired, no?
- danShumway 4y ago
  > Firing people at a private company is not anything near the same thing as censoring someone on what is said to be run a public square Being fired is exponentially more impactful and harmful for the average person than being banned from Twitter and has a much higher chilling effect on free speech than Twitter censorship does. I don't understand the logic being twisted around here -- Musk himself has complained about ruining people's livelihoods over political/social disagreements. Getting people fired because of their social media is one of the chief complaints people have about "cancel culture." If people aren't going to criticize Musk for attacking employees over blogposts, then it's going to be real hard for me to take them seriously whenever they talk about Twitter mobs.
  - loceng 4y ago
    You're conflating arguments here.
    - danShumway 4y ago
      I'm arguing that firing people over social media reveals a far more censorious attitude than blocking someone from a social media account, and it showcases that Musk primarily cares about freedom of speech in the abstract and is largely naive/hypocritical about what censorship is and what its effects are. I'm also arguing that it's silly to say that it's an existential problem for Twitter to do moderation because it's a public square while simultaneously saying that there's no problem with denying critics access to a place of business or firing them from their jobs. I will point out that "denying people access to a private place of business" is literally what Twitter does when it bans people. Musk has the right to fire employees that argue against company policy, but firing critics is an obvious characteristic of someone who does not actually have that radical of a view about free speech and mostly just likes to think to himself that he does. If you want to understand someone's views about free speech, don't look at how they react to far-away political discussions that largely don't affect their life, see how they react when the speech hits them closer to home. Every time that Musk actually takes offense over speech, I see him immediately lash out in a way that is uncharacteristic of a free speech advocate, and very often that takes the form of trying to financially or reputationally harm critics -- both of which are actions that are a heck of a lot worse than banning someone from Twitter.

Uninviting someone to a party would be curating his own life. Firing people is a lot more than that lol

by britch 4y ago

Uninviting someone to a party would be curating his own life. Firing people is a lot more than that lol

Firing people at a private company is not anything near the same thing as censoring someone on what is said to be run a public square; and for example if he wants to allow Trump on, ideally with conditions or full-time oversight, if Twitter employees can't accept that and cause problems internally - who are then going against company policy - then they should be fired, no?

danShumway 4y ago
> Firing people at a private company is not anything near the same thing as censoring someone on what is said to be run a public square Being fired is exponentially more impactful and harmful for the average person than being banned from Twitter and has a much higher chilling effect on free speech than Twitter censorship does. I don't understand the logic being twisted around here -- Musk himself has complained about ruining people's livelihoods over political/social disagreements. Getting people fired because of their social media is one of the chief complaints people have about "cancel culture." If people aren't going to criticize Musk for attacking employees over blogposts, then it's going to be real hard for me to take them seriously whenever they talk about Twitter mobs.
- loceng 4y ago
  You're conflating arguments here.
  - danShumway 4y ago
    I'm arguing that firing people over social media reveals a far more censorious attitude than blocking someone from a social media account, and it showcases that Musk primarily cares about freedom of speech in the abstract and is largely naive/hypocritical about what censorship is and what its effects are. I'm also arguing that it's silly to say that it's an existential problem for Twitter to do moderation because it's a public square while simultaneously saying that there's no problem with denying critics access to a place of business or firing them from their jobs. I will point out that "denying people access to a private place of business" is literally what Twitter does when it bans people. Musk has the right to fire employees that argue against company policy, but firing critics is an obvious characteristic of someone who does not actually have that radical of a view about free speech and mostly just likes to think to himself that he does. If you want to understand someone's views about free speech, don't look at how they react to far-away political discussions that largely don't affect their life, see how they react when the speech hits them closer to home. Every time that Musk actually takes offense over speech, I see him immediately lash out in a way that is uncharacteristic of a free speech advocate, and very often that takes the form of trying to financially or reputationally harm critics -- both of which are actions that are a heck of a lot worse than banning someone from Twitter.