4 ms·

If the employees had posted on twitter instead, he totally still would have fired them. Musk just wants to be able to speak without consequences, while he’s per

by seoaeu 4y ago

If the employees had posted on twitter instead, he totally still would have fired them. Musk just wants to be able to speak without consequences, while he’s perfectly happy to impose consequences on speech by his employees

toolz 4y ago
and it still wouldn't be hyprocritical - free speech has nothing to do with being able to say anything somewhere and avoid consequences. It only has to do with protecting your ability to say those things. If you call your friend mean things on twitter and your friend decides to stop talking to you, freedom of speech has not been violated.
- seoaeu 4y ago
  “Consequences for thee, not for me” feels pretty hypocritical. In this case Musk wants the consequences for speech be limited to things (like being fired) that he doesn’t have to worry about because he is rich.
  - toolz 4y ago
    If you're an employee at spacex and Musk uses internal communications to say something you don't like, you can leave spacex, which would be a consequence for musk's actions. So your point doesn't hold. He is not immune from the consequences of his speech in the exact same scenario. A job is little more than a business relationship where a person agrees to do labor in exchange for money. Either side of that relationship has the ability to terminate that relationship as a consequence of speech they might not like.
    - disintegore 4y ago
      The better approach is to form a union, in order to address the colossal power imbalance between SpaceX's executive committee and the people who do the actual work. It's likely you'll get fired for that as well, but it's better than leaving in "protest". Elon Musk probably spends 50x more time thinking about his hair plugs than he does about engineers departing his companies. Either way, to act like this "business relationship" is perfectly reciprocal is either naive or malintentioned.
      - toolz 4y ago
        I agree, unionization at face value seems to be a great tool to empower workers. As for reciprocity I don't think anyone is suggesting it's perfectly balanced. If you're using that phrasing as a device to suggest it's extremely unbalanced then I would wonder what data you're using to come to that conclusion. It is, after all an entirely voluntary relationship being formed in a country with no shortage of jobs.
arghnoname 4y ago
Yes, he would have fired them. Would he have banned them from twitter? That's the question when judging hypocrisy here.

by seoaeu 4y ago

toolz 4y ago

and it still wouldn't be hyprocritical - free speech has nothing to do with being able to say anything somewhere and avoid consequences. It only has to do with protecting your ability to say those things. If you call your friend mean things on twitter and your friend decides to stop talking to you, freedom of speech has not been violated.

seoaeu 4y ago
“Consequences for thee, not for me” feels pretty hypocritical. In this case Musk wants the consequences for speech be limited to things (like being fired) that he doesn’t have to worry about because he is rich.
- toolz 4y ago
  If you're an employee at spacex and Musk uses internal communications to say something you don't like, you can leave spacex, which would be a consequence for musk's actions. So your point doesn't hold. He is not immune from the consequences of his speech in the exact same scenario. A job is little more than a business relationship where a person agrees to do labor in exchange for money. Either side of that relationship has the ability to terminate that relationship as a consequence of speech they might not like.
  - disintegore 4y ago
    The better approach is to form a union, in order to address the colossal power imbalance between SpaceX's executive committee and the people who do the actual work. It's likely you'll get fired for that as well, but it's better than leaving in "protest". Elon Musk probably spends 50x more time thinking about his hair plugs than he does about engineers departing his companies. Either way, to act like this "business relationship" is perfectly reciprocal is either naive or malintentioned.
    - toolz 4y ago
      I agree, unionization at face value seems to be a great tool to empower workers. As for reciprocity I don't think anyone is suggesting it's perfectly balanced. If you're using that phrasing as a device to suggest it's extremely unbalanced then I would wonder what data you're using to come to that conclusion. It is, after all an entirely voluntary relationship being formed in a country with no shortage of jobs.

arghnoname 4y ago

Yes, he would have fired them. Would he have banned them from twitter? That's the question when judging hypocrisy here.