5 ms·

> and possibly publicly shame them, too You accidentally hit upon what "free speech" means when used by whales. If Musk berates and bullies an employee with en

> and possibly publicly shame them, too You accidentally hit upon what "free speech" means when used by whales. If Musk berates and bullies an employee with endless racist and sexist slurs, he'd get in trouble. But if he points his mook armies at that same employee and subjects them to the same abuse, it's all good. Just freedom of speech.

wholien 5y ago
> But if he points his mook armies at that same employee and subjects them to the same abuse, it's all good. Just freedom of speech. What does "points his mock armies at the same employee" mean here? Any examples?
- res0nat0r 5y ago
  https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/elon-musk-calls-out-twitter-executive-drawing-employee-backlash-11651118870 https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/elon-musk-calls-out-twitter...
  - AlchemistCamp 5y ago
    The WSJ has been busy: https://twitter.com/robbysoave/status/1519407686063988736 https://twitter.com/robbysoave/status/1519407686063988736
vorpalhex 5y ago
Yeah, like when Politico recently pointed out the FDA was told about infected baby formula months before several babies were killed by it. Obviously Politico is just gathering their mooks to subject the poor gentle souls of Abbott and the FDA to abuse. We can't disclose wrongdoing - think of the mean things people might say.
- chowells 5y ago
  This is missing the point so badly it seems almost intentional. Public outcry at the actions of the government is entirely different from incited bullying of individuals with no public presence.
  - gjsman-1000 5y ago
    "incited bullying of individuals with no public presence" Elon Musk never even mentioned her - he simply referred to Twitter's actions as "obviously incredibly inappropriate" and linked to an article that happened to mention her. > "bullying of individuals with no public presence" You can't be serious. This person is literally responsible for burying the Hunter Biden laptop story and is personally responsible for banning Trump. That's a public position whether you like it or not. I don't think anyone would think we can stop criticizing Putin the moment he exits office. Imagine if Jack Dorsey ran Twitter without a Twitter account. That would not negate your ability to criticize his leadership even if he never spoke.
  - decremental 5y ago
    She has a pretty big public presence. She was on the Joe Rogan podcast with Jack. Calling someone out for being terrible never seemed to bother anyone until apparently 5 seconds ago.
    - gkop 5y ago
      Huh? Punching down has never been considered classy.
macinjosh 5y ago
1. This "employee" is in a very high position and makes $17 million/year. 2. She is in charge of Twitter's censorship team. She can send an email and block and ban every single account that tweeted something abusive at her. I think she can handle some criticism.
- gjsman-1000 5y ago
  This "employee" is also the very person who chose to A.) Block President Trump and B.) Ban the story about Hunter Bidens's laptop from the New York Post, which was declared real by the NYT two years later. Furthermore, Elon did not berate her by name or handle, he just said that what Twitter did was "obviously incredibly inappropriate" with a link to a story mentioning her, even though he did not mention her by name. She's calling it abusive, not because Elon called her names (he never mentioned her, just the story) even though she was behind the biggest bans and censorship. She's upset that her power has been exposed and she might have some accountability for her decisions. For how powerful she is, imagine if we weren't allowed to criticize the President, or a member of Congress, or Jeff Bezos, or even Elon Musk himself because it might hurt their feelings. When you are in a position of that much power, criticism must come with it, and you don't get to complain about that.
  - Amezarak 5y ago
    Yes, this is totally bizarre. You have enormously powerful people shaping the public discourse not only crying foul at idea they might face the slightest bit of accountability, but also successfully lobbying other people to defend them from any public criticism. Then we have to listen to them sanctimoniously talk about how "disinformation" threatens democracy, or whatever! Faceless Twitter employees shaping political discourse during an election get a free pass, though? Meanwhile, these same people have no problem with using their power to shape and weaponize discourse against other people! For example, the news media regularly unmasks regular Twitter users simply for having a huge following with non-media approved opinions and then shrugs when they face death threats. But...don't you dare talk about the journalist that did it!
  - myko 5y ago

wholien 5y ago

> But if he points his mook armies at that same employee and subjects them to the same abuse, it's all good. Just freedom of speech. What does "points his mock armies at the same employee" mean here? Any examples?

res0nat0r 5y ago
https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/elon-musk-calls-out-twitter-executive-drawing-employee-backlash-11651118870 https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/elon-musk-calls-out-twitter...
- AlchemistCamp 5y ago
  The WSJ has been busy: https://twitter.com/robbysoave/status/1519407686063988736 https://twitter.com/robbysoave/status/1519407686063988736

vorpalhex 5y ago

Yeah, like when Politico recently pointed out the FDA was told about infected baby formula months before several babies were killed by it. Obviously Politico is just gathering their mooks to subject the poor gentle souls of Abbott and the FDA to abuse. We can't disclose wrongdoing - think of the mean things people might say.

chowells 5y ago
This is missing the point so badly it seems almost intentional. Public outcry at the actions of the government is entirely different from incited bullying of individuals with no public presence.
- gjsman-1000 5y ago
  "incited bullying of individuals with no public presence" Elon Musk never even mentioned her - he simply referred to Twitter's actions as "obviously incredibly inappropriate" and linked to an article that happened to mention her. > "bullying of individuals with no public presence" You can't be serious. This person is literally responsible for burying the Hunter Biden laptop story and is personally responsible for banning Trump. That's a public position whether you like it or not. I don't think anyone would think we can stop criticizing Putin the moment he exits office. Imagine if Jack Dorsey ran Twitter without a Twitter account. That would not negate your ability to criticize his leadership even if he never spoke.
- decremental 5y ago
  She has a pretty big public presence. She was on the Joe Rogan podcast with Jack. Calling someone out for being terrible never seemed to bother anyone until apparently 5 seconds ago.
  - gkop 5y ago
    Huh? Punching down has never been considered classy.

macinjosh 5y ago

1. This "employee" is in a very high position and makes $17 million/year. 2. She is in charge of Twitter's censorship team. She can send an email and block and ban every single account that tweeted something abusive at her. I think she can handle some criticism.

gjsman-1000 5y ago
This "employee" is also the very person who chose to A.) Block President Trump and B.) Ban the story about Hunter Bidens's laptop from the New York Post, which was declared real by the NYT two years later. Furthermore, Elon did not berate her by name or handle, he just said that what Twitter did was "obviously incredibly inappropriate" with a link to a story mentioning her, even though he did not mention her by name. She's calling it abusive, not because Elon called her names (he never mentioned her, just the story) even though she was behind the biggest bans and censorship. She's upset that her power has been exposed and she might have some accountability for her decisions. For how powerful she is, imagine if we weren't allowed to criticize the President, or a member of Congress, or Jeff Bezos, or even Elon Musk himself because it might hurt their feelings. When you are in a position of that much power, criticism must come with it, and you don't get to complain about that.
- Amezarak 5y ago
  Yes, this is totally bizarre. You have enormously powerful people shaping the public discourse not only crying foul at idea they might face the slightest bit of accountability, but also successfully lobbying other people to defend them from any public criticism. Then we have to listen to them sanctimoniously talk about how "disinformation" threatens democracy, or whatever! Faceless Twitter employees shaping political discourse during an election get a free pass, though? Meanwhile, these same people have no problem with using their power to shape and weaponize discourse against other people! For example, the news media regularly unmasks regular Twitter users simply for having a huge following with non-media approved opinions and then shrugs when they face death threats. But...don't you dare talk about the journalist that did it!
- myko 5y ago