3 ms·

Elon Musk, Twitter’s next owner, provides his definition of “free speech”

15 points by evo_9 5y ago

AftHurrahWinch 5y ago
The definition: "By "free speech", I simply mean that which matches the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law. If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect. Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people." ~ Elon Musk's pinned tweet
- ThrowawayR2 5y ago
  Ironically, considering all the angst about Twitter's purchase, that's a viewpoint that liberalism (the philosophy originating in the Enlightenment, not the casual label) would support. If Musk live up to his words, and granted maybe he won't, it should be considered a great victory for liberals.
  - AftHurrahWinch 5y ago
    Is that so? I could see Hobbes supporting the Musk definition of the principle of free speech ("that which matches the law") but not say Mill or Kant. Hobbes of course didn't support Free Speech and advocated for censorship of the press in Leviathan: “… it is annexed to the sovereignty to be judge of what opinions and doctrines are averse, and what conducing to peace; and consequently, on what occasions, how far, and what men are to be trusted withal in speaking to multitudes of people; and who shall examine the doctrines of all books before they be published." – Leviathan, p. 164 Yet Kant encourages you to just mute and block the fake news: '"such things as merely communicating his thoughts to them, telling or promising them something, whether what he says is true and sincere or untrue and insincere" do not constitute wrongdoing because "it is entirely up to them [the listeners] whether they want to believe him or not"' – Critique of Pure Reason, p. 238
- AftHurrahWinch 5y ago
  Beside the obvious point, being "that which matches the law" is not what any free speech advocate means when they talk about the principal of free speech... it's a definition with no basis in theory or literature... I'm interested to see how this works multinationally. How do you moderate to the "that which matches the law" standard for users in the United States and the United Kingdom, Germany and Russia, simultaneously? For example, how will Musk-Twitter implement this as a guideline for moderators? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_gay_propaganda_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_gay_propaganda_law Will moderation algorithms be applied to the region users set in their profile, or will it be based on IP range? Can I switch my profile settings to indicate I'm in the United States and benefit from looser restrictions? Can others set their profile settings to indicate they're in the U.K. and see a more filtered experience? Or perhaps Musk is just going to pick one country's legal regime and base moderation on their speech framework. If that's the route he takes though, he could just pick an arbitrary country with no speech codes. Given the resources he's investing in Twitter, maybe he can pick a tiny country like Kiribati, give each resident $1,000 in exchange for passing laws declaring that no speech codes apply to Twitter. Or for that matter, to enshrine in the law the fundamental principle that criticizing billionaires is lèse-majesté. It'd only cost $10 million and would, by Musk's definition, be Free Speech. Ultimately, I just hope that this doesn't distract Musk from his other goals, like making humanity a multi-planetary species. This whole Twitter thing seems like a silly side-quest.
Flankk 5y ago
Freedom of speech is not just some law for the government, it is a principle. The left wants to obey the letter of the law but not the spirit. Freedom of speech is recognized in international human rights law and by the United Nations. Nobody is saying racism and bigotry are good. But anyone saying censorship is the ideal solution should be met with a great degree of skepticism. I think this problem can be solved as simply as having an extra setting to toggle platform moderation. That way everyone gets what they want.
- car_analogy 5y ago
  > The left wants to obey the letter of the law but not the spirit. Not really - if that were so, they would have no complaints about Musk's purchase of Twitter.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Freedom of speech is not just some law for the government, it is a principle. The thing is that there are actually multiple different, and in some cases fundamentally opposed, principles that people use that name for. One is the principle of robust competition of ideas in the marketplace without government fingers on the scales, with ideas succeeding or failing in large part on their ability to convince people to expend effort and resources relaying them, which happens to be very closely aligned with the shape of the legal concept of free speech in the US. Another seems to be the idea that there should neither be public nor private consequences, including in other private parties decisions whether or not to relay your speech, to speech, even to the extent that enforcing this warrants active government action against recalcitrant private parties.
  - native_samples 5y ago
    This distinction only really comes up in the case of large idea distribution platforms like Twitter, where to have a marketplace of ideas you need an actual place for them to compete. This isn't a new debate or problem of course, just our generations version of it. For most of written history censorship was a giant fight over who got to have printing presses. The "free press" is an important concept that came out of this era, and is respected even in countries that don't have a First Amendment. With respect to lacking consequences for speech, what people actually want is a lack of consequences for exploring and taking part in the marketplace of ideas. That in turn only really comes up when one side or another decides that competing over ideas is too much like hard work, and it's easier to just punish people for not agreeing. The consequences aren't connected to actually losing any debate but simply taking part in the first place. That's a social issue that is only resolved ultimately through debates like these.
jfengel 5y ago
Spam is not against the law. (CAN-SPAM only applies to email.) Does that mean he's going to allow spam on Twitter? He's certainly allowed to. It's his web site (or will be). But there's a lot of users who will find the site unpleasant to use without spam filters.

15 points by evo_9 5y ago

The definition: "By "free speech", I simply mean that which matches the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law. If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect. Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people." ~ Elon Musk's pinned tweet

ThrowawayR2 5y ago
Ironically, considering all the angst about Twitter's purchase, that's a viewpoint that liberalism (the philosophy originating in the Enlightenment, not the casual label) would support. If Musk live up to his words, and granted maybe he won't, it should be considered a great victory for liberals.
- AftHurrahWinch 5y ago
  Is that so? I could see Hobbes supporting the Musk definition of the principle of free speech ("that which matches the law") but not say Mill or Kant. Hobbes of course didn't support Free Speech and advocated for censorship of the press in Leviathan: “… it is annexed to the sovereignty to be judge of what opinions and doctrines are averse, and what conducing to peace; and consequently, on what occasions, how far, and what men are to be trusted withal in speaking to multitudes of people; and who shall examine the doctrines of all books before they be published." – Leviathan, p. 164 Yet Kant encourages you to just mute and block the fake news: '"such things as merely communicating his thoughts to them, telling or promising them something, whether what he says is true and sincere or untrue and insincere" do not constitute wrongdoing because "it is entirely up to them [the listeners] whether they want to believe him or not"' – Critique of Pure Reason, p. 238
AftHurrahWinch 5y ago
Beside the obvious point, being "that which matches the law" is not what any free speech advocate means when they talk about the principal of free speech... it's a definition with no basis in theory or literature... I'm interested to see how this works multinationally. How do you moderate to the "that which matches the law" standard for users in the United States and the United Kingdom, Germany and Russia, simultaneously? For example, how will Musk-Twitter implement this as a guideline for moderators? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_gay_propaganda_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_gay_propaganda_law Will moderation algorithms be applied to the region users set in their profile, or will it be based on IP range? Can I switch my profile settings to indicate I'm in the United States and benefit from looser restrictions? Can others set their profile settings to indicate they're in the U.K. and see a more filtered experience? Or perhaps Musk is just going to pick one country's legal regime and base moderation on their speech framework. If that's the route he takes though, he could just pick an arbitrary country with no speech codes. Given the resources he's investing in Twitter, maybe he can pick a tiny country like Kiribati, give each resident $1,000 in exchange for passing laws declaring that no speech codes apply to Twitter. Or for that matter, to enshrine in the law the fundamental principle that criticizing billionaires is lèse-majesté. It'd only cost $10 million and would, by Musk's definition, be Free Speech. Ultimately, I just hope that this doesn't distract Musk from his other goals, like making humanity a multi-planetary species. This whole Twitter thing seems like a silly side-quest.

Flankk 5y ago

Freedom of speech is not just some law for the government, it is a principle. The left wants to obey the letter of the law but not the spirit. Freedom of speech is recognized in international human rights law and by the United Nations. Nobody is saying racism and bigotry are good. But anyone saying censorship is the ideal solution should be met with a great degree of skepticism. I think this problem can be solved as simply as having an extra setting to toggle platform moderation. That way everyone gets what they want.

car_analogy 5y ago
> The left wants to obey the letter of the law but not the spirit. Not really - if that were so, they would have no complaints about Musk's purchase of Twitter.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Freedom of speech is not just some law for the government, it is a principle. The thing is that there are actually multiple different, and in some cases fundamentally opposed, principles that people use that name for. One is the principle of robust competition of ideas in the marketplace without government fingers on the scales, with ideas succeeding or failing in large part on their ability to convince people to expend effort and resources relaying them, which happens to be very closely aligned with the shape of the legal concept of free speech in the US. Another seems to be the idea that there should neither be public nor private consequences, including in other private parties decisions whether or not to relay your speech, to speech, even to the extent that enforcing this warrants active government action against recalcitrant private parties.
- native_samples 5y ago
  This distinction only really comes up in the case of large idea distribution platforms like Twitter, where to have a marketplace of ideas you need an actual place for them to compete. This isn't a new debate or problem of course, just our generations version of it. For most of written history censorship was a giant fight over who got to have printing presses. The "free press" is an important concept that came out of this era, and is respected even in countries that don't have a First Amendment. With respect to lacking consequences for speech, what people actually want is a lack of consequences for exploring and taking part in the marketplace of ideas. That in turn only really comes up when one side or another decides that competing over ideas is too much like hard work, and it's easier to just punish people for not agreeing. The consequences aren't connected to actually losing any debate but simply taking part in the first place. That's a social issue that is only resolved ultimately through debates like these.

jfengel 5y ago

Spam is not against the law. (CAN-SPAM only applies to email.) Does that mean he's going to allow spam on Twitter? He's certainly allowed to. It's his web site (or will be). But there's a lot of users who will find the site unpleasant to use without spam filters.