4 ms·

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 sp

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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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.

ThrowawayR2 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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.