6 ms·

Free speech is about opposing restrictions in the public sphere though. If the employees had made a public letter to the internet (not an internal mailing list)

by daenz 4y ago

Free speech is about opposing restrictions in the public sphere though. If the employees had made a public letter to the internet (not an internal mailing list), using their own resources (not company's resources), it would be a different situation. If a guest in your house started screaming at you, it wouldn't be a paradox of free speech to tell them to get out.

MPSimmons 4y ago
Okay cool, now explain why Twitter shouldn't ban people.
- daenz 4y ago
  The (controversial) argument is that Twitter has produced a public sphere. It's not legally a public sphere, but a de facto one, which is why people like Musk want to treat it as such.
  - nerdix 4y ago
    How can a public square be privately owned? And why doesn't Twitter have the same rights that you outlined in another comment: the right to not have to tolerate a private citizen, the right to prevent someone from saying whatever they want on your private property. Basically, why doesn't Twitter have the same association and private property rights as Musk?
    - daenz 4y ago
      >And why doesn't Twitter have the same rights that you outlined They do have those rights, which is why they can ban people. The argument is that they've produced a de facto public square, not a legal one, because it's where a massive amount of "public" discourse takes place. Musk is trying to buy them to make their product more consistent with a legal public square. Personally I think it can't be done without the government getting involved at some point.
    - jfdbcv 4y ago
      Due to the way the internet evolved, it is now the case that the majority of discourse flows through a handful of private companies. If you are a private company absolutist, I guess you could argue that these companies have the same rights to prevent people from saying whatever they want on private property. Others believe that these platforms are large and powerful enough to warrant a different set of views and regulatory scrutiny.
dtjb 4y ago
Musk has publicly claimed that he is a free speech absolutist.
- daenz 4y ago
  This[0] appears to be a good explanation of what a "free speech absolutist" is, and it isn't "you have to allow free speech in all settings by everyone" 0. https://www.liberties.eu/en/stories/free-speech-absolutist/44213 https://www.liberties.eu/en/stories/free-speech-absolutist/4...
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    What's it called when "free speech in all settings [is enjoyed] by everyone"?
    - daenz 4y ago
      I don't think there is a phrase for it, but I can see why it would be a common misunderstanding to think that that is "free speech absolutism." As far as I know, there is no concept that requires a private citizen (A) tolerate another private citizen (B) saying whatever they want on A's property. Maybe some form of anarchy.
      - kelseyfrog 4y ago
        Thanks for bouncing the idea around. Sounds like naming such an idea would be a powerful shortcut to reach the root of many free speech discussions. Since I'm not above coining neologisms, "speech anarchy" will be the term I will use going forward.
  - notahacker 4y ago
    In fairness, that explanation also agrees that Musk's extension of "free speech absolutist" extends to apolitical speech and an rights to be heard on social media no matter what corporations might think is inconsistent with his longstanding policy of punishing and trying to silence internal and sometimes external critics of his company...
KptMarchewa 4y ago
Free speech is about opposing government restrictions in the public sphere though.
- alphabettsy 4y ago
  Not as Musk often describes it.
- lkjdsklf 4y ago
  No. That's the first amendment. Free speech and the first amendment are not the same thing.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
evolve2k 4y ago
It was a public letter aka “Open Letter”. https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/16/23170228/spacex-elon-musk-internal-open-letter-behavior https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/16/23170228/spacex-elon-musk... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_letter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_letter
scollet 4y ago
Employees have a natural imperative to use and abuse their companies' resources. Where the fuck did you grow up?

by daenz 4y ago

MPSimmons 4y ago

Okay cool, now explain why Twitter shouldn't ban people.

daenz 4y ago
The (controversial) argument is that Twitter has produced a public sphere. It's not legally a public sphere, but a de facto one, which is why people like Musk want to treat it as such.
- nerdix 4y ago
  How can a public square be privately owned? And why doesn't Twitter have the same rights that you outlined in another comment: the right to not have to tolerate a private citizen, the right to prevent someone from saying whatever they want on your private property. Basically, why doesn't Twitter have the same association and private property rights as Musk?
  - daenz 4y ago
    >And why doesn't Twitter have the same rights that you outlined They do have those rights, which is why they can ban people. The argument is that they've produced a de facto public square, not a legal one, because it's where a massive amount of "public" discourse takes place. Musk is trying to buy them to make their product more consistent with a legal public square. Personally I think it can't be done without the government getting involved at some point.
  - jfdbcv 4y ago
    Due to the way the internet evolved, it is now the case that the majority of discourse flows through a handful of private companies. If you are a private company absolutist, I guess you could argue that these companies have the same rights to prevent people from saying whatever they want on private property. Others believe that these platforms are large and powerful enough to warrant a different set of views and regulatory scrutiny.

dtjb 4y ago

Musk has publicly claimed that he is a free speech absolutist.

daenz 4y ago
This[0] appears to be a good explanation of what a "free speech absolutist" is, and it isn't "you have to allow free speech in all settings by everyone" 0. https://www.liberties.eu/en/stories/free-speech-absolutist/44213 https://www.liberties.eu/en/stories/free-speech-absolutist/4...
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  What's it called when "free speech in all settings [is enjoyed] by everyone"?
  - daenz 4y ago
    I don't think there is a phrase for it, but I can see why it would be a common misunderstanding to think that that is "free speech absolutism." As far as I know, there is no concept that requires a private citizen (A) tolerate another private citizen (B) saying whatever they want on A's property. Maybe some form of anarchy.
    - kelseyfrog 4y ago
      Thanks for bouncing the idea around. Sounds like naming such an idea would be a powerful shortcut to reach the root of many free speech discussions. Since I'm not above coining neologisms, "speech anarchy" will be the term I will use going forward.
- notahacker 4y ago
  In fairness, that explanation also agrees that Musk's extension of "free speech absolutist" extends to apolitical speech and an rights to be heard on social media no matter what corporations might think is inconsistent with his longstanding policy of punishing and trying to silence internal and sometimes external critics of his company...

KptMarchewa 4y ago

Free speech is about opposing government restrictions in the public sphere though.

alphabettsy 4y ago
Not as Musk often describes it.
lkjdsklf 4y ago
No. That's the first amendment. Free speech and the first amendment are not the same thing.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

evolve2k 4y ago

It was a public letter aka “Open Letter”. https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/16/23170228/spacex-elon-musk-internal-open-letter-behavior https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/16/23170228/spacex-elon-musk... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_letter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_letter

scollet 4y ago

Employees have a natural imperative to use and abuse their companies' resources. Where the fuck did you grow up?