9 ms·

This is good for Twitter, and good for the world. Musk's misguided approach to free speech, which says anything that is not explicitly illegal is allowed, would

This is good for Twitter, and good for the world. Musk's misguided approach to free speech, which says anything that is not explicitly illegal is allowed, would have made Twitter an open forum for spreading lies and hate. My guess is Musk never intended to buy Twitter. He needed an excuse for dumping billions of dollars' worth of TSLA at its peak (while at the same time faulting Bill Gates for shorting TSLA), and his proposal to buy Twitter provided a convenient cover.

Hamuko 4y ago
>This is good for Twitter Well, especially with that billion dollar termination fee (well, if they get it since Musk is probably gonna lawyer up now).
h2odragon 4y ago
> Musk's misguided approach to free speech, which says anything that is not explicitly illegal is allowed, would have made Twitter an open forum for spreading lies and hate. Twitter is of course currently known as a source of Truth and Harmony. "anything not illegal is allowed" sounds decent to me; if you want stuff illegal, make it illegal. If you want unwritten laws dreamt up by anonymous elites and enforced for random reason, go talk to Tipper Gore and the PMRC.
- plokiju 4y ago
  That includes spam though
  - oska 4y ago
    And he had another strategy for dealing with spam (verification of accounts). So I don't see your point.
- MallocVoidstar 4y ago
  >"anything not illegal is allowed" sounds decent to me; if you want stuff illegal, make it illegal. Twitter is based in the US, the 1st Amendment protects hate speech such as explicit support for genocide. I don't consider a social network full of genocide promotion to be a good thing.
  - petilon 4y ago
    Nope, 1st Amendment only means the government can't restrict your speech. Private companies can.
    - jcranmer 4y ago
      The argument GP is making is that if the government can't make it illegal, private companies shouldn't disallow it; the person you're replying to is pointing out that the First Amendment sets that bar far higher than GP probably realized.
    - rabite 4y ago
      This is not historically the reality of 1a jurisprudence. Before the Internet, the ruling was that private companies cannot restrict your speech in public view. See Marsh v. Alabama for this -- a company town was prohibited from barring picketing and pamphleting on private sidewalks. The exceptions to this were carved out in a court case regarding Compuserve, which was a subscription-only service. The stare decisis in this instance is on far shakier ground than Roe was.
      - joshuamorton 4y ago
        You have to register to use twitter. Marsh v Alabama had nothing to do with compuserve. That would matter if a website was truly a de facto public square, but given the whole registration thing, they're not. The compuserve case led to section 230 of the CDA being created, but again that doesn't have to do with Marsh v Alabama. To have that apply, you'd need to make the argument that Twitter both is, and intends to be a public square, and well, the fact that they have posted moderation policies makes it clear that they don't.
        rabite 4y ago
        Marsh was not the public square. It was the sidewalks of random streets. The company that owned them explicitly did not intend for them to be a public square. In contrast, the historical statements of Twitter make it very clear that they intended to be the public square, e.g. "free speech wing of the free speech party." Additionally, the assertions and decisions of the state in regards to social media indicate massive influence over politics that far exceeds any city street. They say people are denied their rights of free expression because Trump blocked them on Twitter, and that Russia successfully manipulated our elections because a few Russians bought a tiny amount of Facebook ads.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  "anything not illegal is allowed" sounds decent to me And there are numerous forums where that standard is applied; Twitter just happens not to be one of them because they like money.
- tzs 4y ago
  Have you spent much time on "anything not illegal is allowed" forums? Try to talk about popular movies are TV shows and you get things like this on such sites [1]. Want to discuss an episode of PBS Space Time such as this one [2]. Don't be surprised if this is the discussion you get [3]. What almost always happens on such forums is that the people there who aren't racists, sexists, antisemites, inane conspiracy theorists etc., leave, and the forum ends up being largely just such people. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20201225021055/https://voat.co/v/movies/4164913 https://web.archive.org/web/20201225021055/https://voat.co/v... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlXdsyctD50 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlXdsyctD50 [3] https://web.archive.org/web/20201223123156/https://voat.co/v/science/4152241 https://web.archive.org/web/20201223123156/https://voat.co/v...
  - everforward 4y ago
    I don't think Voat is really a fair comparison. Voat suffered from a flood of toxicity caused by Reddit banning toxic behaviors. From what I could tell, it was practically uninhabited before. Reddit itself was largely "anything not illegal is allowed" at the time (in part due to lax enforcement of the few rules they had), and was largely fine. The toxic communities sequestered themselves for the most part. Twitter would probably be much the same. The greater issue they'd have is the same Reddit had; it's hard to sell any advertising on a site where you can't guarantee ads won't show up next to racist/sexist/etc diatribes.
  - redox99 4y ago
    I unironically think that 4chan is better twitter, especially the smaller boards.
  - joshgroban 4y ago
    all white men are racist, sexist and antisemitic. That's patriarchy and systemic racism. You are looking for a platform without white men.
- joshuamorton 4y ago
  So when you say anything not illegal is allowed, do you mean that I can post porn anywhere? That spammers and bots can't be banned? Any remotely reasonable approach here has the state deciding which attributes can be used for moderation decision and which can't, which also isn't feasible.
  - redox99 4y ago
    > So when you say anything not illegal is allowed, do you mean that I can post porn anywhere? Can't you already do this on Twitter? You just need to mark it as sensitive. > That spammers and bots can't be banned? It would be like 4chan I assume, spam/bots are banned.
    - joshuamorton 4y ago
      But spam/bots are legal, so even 4chans moderation is too heavyhanded.
tick_tock_tick 4y ago
> Musk's misguided approach to free speech, which says anything that is not explicitly illegal is allowed What is free speech but that..... > would have made Twitter an open forum for spreading lies and hate. Like it isn't now. Twitter lets pretty much anything and everything except hate against specific subgroups they've decided are "protected". It really doesn't help there choices are entirely arbitrary with no internal consistency.
drexlspivey 4y ago
Why does he need a cover to sell his stock? He sold $10B+ last year without the twitter excuse. Also TSLA stock in March was at least 40% below it's peak
- petilon 4y ago
  > Why does he need a cover to sell his stock? Wouldn't he look to be a hypocrite otherwise? [1] [1] https://nypost.com/2022/05/31/elon-musk-calls-out-bill-gates-for-his-multi-billion-dollar-tesla-short-position/ https://nypost.com/2022/05/31/elon-musk-calls-out-bill-gates...
  - drexlspivey 4y ago
    I don’t see how, Gates is short TSLA and musk is the exact opposite, the biggest TSLA shareholder in the world
    - petilon 4y ago
      So, you don't see a conflict if Musk criticizes Gates for shorting TSLA (because Gates thinks it is overvalued) and then turning around and selling billions of dollars' worth of TSLA? I do. I think that qualifies has hypocrisy.
      - drexlspivey 4y ago
        no it would be hypocrisy if he was short too but he is massively long
        petilon 4y ago
        Look at this story: https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musk-sells-billions-of-dollars-in-tesla-stock-11651197227 https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musk-sells-billions-of-dol... The headline is: "Elon Musk Sells $8.5 Billion of Tesla Shares After Deal to Buy Twitter" The deal to buy Twitter gave Musk an excellent cover for selling billions of dollars' worth of TSLA. He doesn't need to sell all of TSLA. He sold a massive amount. If he didn't have this cover it would have looked like he thinks TSLA is overvalued (which in fact it is). Both Gates and Musk sold TSLA. Gates sold borrowed shares, Musk sold shares he owned. That's the only difference. Of course Musk still has tons of TSLA remaining. But that doesn't change the fact that both Gates and Musk did the same thing (sell TSLA) and yet Musk criticized Gates for it. What a hypocrite!
Banana699 4y ago
>spreading lies and hate It's very funny how those things came to be known as code words for the *true* offenses, which we all know very well. What a waste of perfectly good words that used to have meaning.
rappatic 4y ago
> Musk's misguided approach to free speech, which says anything that is not explicitly illegal is allowed That's what free speech is, whether or not you agree that such a policy of unrestricted free speech is constructive or beneficial.
- petilon 4y ago
  Disagree, there is no absolute freedom of speech, for example you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Also disagree that such unrestricted free speech is constructive or beneficial. Sacha Baron Cohen explains it best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymaWq5yZIYM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymaWq5yZIYM
  - filoleg 4y ago
    > You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. I am so tired of seeing this overplayed urban myth. The precedent you mention was set by Schenck v. United States in 1919, but it was partially overturned later in Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969 [0]. Which is the part that people who bring up this myth every time conveniently forget about. So no, you can yell "fire" in a crowded theater or whatever else you want, as long as it doesn't meet the legal standard for imminent lawless action (e.g., a riot). And the legal standard for imminent lawless action is much higher than you think it is. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
    - petilon 4y ago
      > as long as it doesn't meet the legal standard for imminent lawless action So there is no absolute free speech then. Which is the point of bringing up the "fire" example. If you're a visitor in my house there is no free speech at all. If you say something I don't like I'll legally kick you out. Private companies such as Twitter and Facebook have the same right. Their platform, their rules.
      - filoleg 4y ago
mft_ 4y ago
> Musk's misguided approach to free speech, which says anything that is not explicitly illegal is allowed Genuinely interested, and not just trying to argue: how would you otherwise define free speech? It sounds like you think free speech should have defined limits - which surely means it's not free speech any more?
- petilon 4y ago
  I am going to let Sacha Baron Cohen, of all people, answer your question [1]: Voltaire was right when he said "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." And social media lets authoritarians push absurdities to millions of people. President Trump using Twitter has spread conspiracy theories more than 1700 times to his 67 million followers. Freedom of speech is not freedom of reach. Sadly There will always be racists, misogynists, anti-Semites, and child abusers. We should not be giving bigots and pedophiles a free platform to amplify their views and target their victims. Zuckerberg says people should decide what's credible, not tech companies. When 2/3rds of millennials have not heard of Auschwitz how are they supposed to know what's true? There is such a thing as objective truth. Facts do exist. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymaWq5yZIYM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymaWq5yZIYM
  - mft_ 4y ago
    Unless I'm misunderstanding the quote, that's very much not answering my question: it discusses limiting reach (i.e. ability to disseminate one's views widely and easily) and explicitly not free speech itself?
    - petilon 4y ago
      Free speech doesn't have a single meaning. Freedom is relative. There is no right to absolute free speech anywhere. For example, you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. On social media owned by private corporations, "fire" isn't the only thing you aren't allowed to yell. Subverting democracy, inciting violence, propaganda from foreign governments pretending to be grassroots movement inside the US, etc., are all banned, and yet I would consider Twitter a free platform, albeit with sensible limits. But you're right, that's not absolute freedom.
kmlx 4y ago
> This is good for Twitter i think you are referring to twitter.com imo this is pretty bad for twitter the company. they’ve been flat for years, they’re current valuation is less than in 2013. they’ve lost the plot a while ago and seem to have been in a managed decline, probably because they were looking for buyers. > and good for the world you are overestimating how many people care about twitter outside of the US.

Hamuko 4y ago

>This is good for Twitter Well, especially with that billion dollar termination fee (well, if they get it since Musk is probably gonna lawyer up now).

h2odragon 4y ago

> Musk's misguided approach to free speech, which says anything that is not explicitly illegal is allowed, would have made Twitter an open forum for spreading lies and hate. Twitter is of course currently known as a source of Truth and Harmony. "anything not illegal is allowed" sounds decent to me; if you want stuff illegal, make it illegal. If you want unwritten laws dreamt up by anonymous elites and enforced for random reason, go talk to Tipper Gore and the PMRC.

plokiju 4y ago
That includes spam though
- oska 4y ago
  And he had another strategy for dealing with spam (verification of accounts). So I don't see your point.
MallocVoidstar 4y ago
>"anything not illegal is allowed" sounds decent to me; if you want stuff illegal, make it illegal. Twitter is based in the US, the 1st Amendment protects hate speech such as explicit support for genocide. I don't consider a social network full of genocide promotion to be a good thing.
- petilon 4y ago
  Nope, 1st Amendment only means the government can't restrict your speech. Private companies can.
  - jcranmer 4y ago
    The argument GP is making is that if the government can't make it illegal, private companies shouldn't disallow it; the person you're replying to is pointing out that the First Amendment sets that bar far higher than GP probably realized.
  - rabite 4y ago
    This is not historically the reality of 1a jurisprudence. Before the Internet, the ruling was that private companies cannot restrict your speech in public view. See Marsh v. Alabama for this -- a company town was prohibited from barring picketing and pamphleting on private sidewalks. The exceptions to this were carved out in a court case regarding Compuserve, which was a subscription-only service. The stare decisis in this instance is on far shakier ground than Roe was.
    - joshuamorton 4y ago
      You have to register to use twitter. Marsh v Alabama had nothing to do with compuserve. That would matter if a website was truly a de facto public square, but given the whole registration thing, they're not. The compuserve case led to section 230 of the CDA being created, but again that doesn't have to do with Marsh v Alabama. To have that apply, you'd need to make the argument that Twitter both is, and intends to be a public square, and well, the fact that they have posted moderation policies makes it clear that they don't.
      - rabite 4y ago
        Marsh was not the public square. It was the sidewalks of random streets. The company that owned them explicitly did not intend for them to be a public square. In contrast, the historical statements of Twitter make it very clear that they intended to be the public square, e.g. "free speech wing of the free speech party." Additionally, the assertions and decisions of the state in regards to social media indicate massive influence over politics that far exceeds any city street. They say people are denied their rights of free expression because Trump blocked them on Twitter, and that Russia successfully manipulated our elections because a few Russians bought a tiny amount of Facebook ads.
anigbrowl 4y ago
"anything not illegal is allowed" sounds decent to me And there are numerous forums where that standard is applied; Twitter just happens not to be one of them because they like money.
tzs 4y ago
Have you spent much time on "anything not illegal is allowed" forums? Try to talk about popular movies are TV shows and you get things like this on such sites [1]. Want to discuss an episode of PBS Space Time such as this one [2]. Don't be surprised if this is the discussion you get [3]. What almost always happens on such forums is that the people there who aren't racists, sexists, antisemites, inane conspiracy theorists etc., leave, and the forum ends up being largely just such people. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20201225021055/https://voat.co/v/movies/4164913 https://web.archive.org/web/20201225021055/https://voat.co/v... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlXdsyctD50 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlXdsyctD50 [3] https://web.archive.org/web/20201223123156/https://voat.co/v/science/4152241 https://web.archive.org/web/20201223123156/https://voat.co/v...
- everforward 4y ago
  I don't think Voat is really a fair comparison. Voat suffered from a flood of toxicity caused by Reddit banning toxic behaviors. From what I could tell, it was practically uninhabited before. Reddit itself was largely "anything not illegal is allowed" at the time (in part due to lax enforcement of the few rules they had), and was largely fine. The toxic communities sequestered themselves for the most part. Twitter would probably be much the same. The greater issue they'd have is the same Reddit had; it's hard to sell any advertising on a site where you can't guarantee ads won't show up next to racist/sexist/etc diatribes.
- redox99 4y ago
  I unironically think that 4chan is better twitter, especially the smaller boards.
- joshgroban 4y ago
  all white men are racist, sexist and antisemitic. That's patriarchy and systemic racism. You are looking for a platform without white men.
joshuamorton 4y ago
So when you say anything not illegal is allowed, do you mean that I can post porn anywhere? That spammers and bots can't be banned? Any remotely reasonable approach here has the state deciding which attributes can be used for moderation decision and which can't, which also isn't feasible.
- redox99 4y ago
  > So when you say anything not illegal is allowed, do you mean that I can post porn anywhere? Can't you already do this on Twitter? You just need to mark it as sensitive. > That spammers and bots can't be banned? It would be like 4chan I assume, spam/bots are banned.
  - joshuamorton 4y ago
    But spam/bots are legal, so even 4chans moderation is too heavyhanded.

tick_tock_tick 4y ago

> Musk's misguided approach to free speech, which says anything that is not explicitly illegal is allowed What is free speech but that..... > would have made Twitter an open forum for spreading lies and hate. Like it isn't now. Twitter lets pretty much anything and everything except hate against specific subgroups they've decided are "protected". It really doesn't help there choices are entirely arbitrary with no internal consistency.

drexlspivey 4y ago

Why does he need a cover to sell his stock? He sold $10B+ last year without the twitter excuse. Also TSLA stock in March was at least 40% below it's peak

petilon 4y ago
> Why does he need a cover to sell his stock? Wouldn't he look to be a hypocrite otherwise? [1] [1] https://nypost.com/2022/05/31/elon-musk-calls-out-bill-gates-for-his-multi-billion-dollar-tesla-short-position/ https://nypost.com/2022/05/31/elon-musk-calls-out-bill-gates...
- drexlspivey 4y ago
  I don’t see how, Gates is short TSLA and musk is the exact opposite, the biggest TSLA shareholder in the world
  - petilon 4y ago
    So, you don't see a conflict if Musk criticizes Gates for shorting TSLA (because Gates thinks it is overvalued) and then turning around and selling billions of dollars' worth of TSLA? I do. I think that qualifies has hypocrisy.
    - drexlspivey 4y ago
      no it would be hypocrisy if he was short too but he is massively long
      - petilon 4y ago
        Look at this story: https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musk-sells-billions-of-dollars-in-tesla-stock-11651197227 https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musk-sells-billions-of-dol... The headline is: "Elon Musk Sells $8.5 Billion of Tesla Shares After Deal to Buy Twitter" The deal to buy Twitter gave Musk an excellent cover for selling billions of dollars' worth of TSLA. He doesn't need to sell all of TSLA. He sold a massive amount. If he didn't have this cover it would have looked like he thinks TSLA is overvalued (which in fact it is). Both Gates and Musk sold TSLA. Gates sold borrowed shares, Musk sold shares he owned. That's the only difference. Of course Musk still has tons of TSLA remaining. But that doesn't change the fact that both Gates and Musk did the same thing (sell TSLA) and yet Musk criticized Gates for it. What a hypocrite!

Banana699 4y ago

>spreading lies and hate It's very funny how those things came to be known as code words for the *true* offenses, which we all know very well. What a waste of perfectly good words that used to have meaning.

rappatic 4y ago

> Musk's misguided approach to free speech, which says anything that is not explicitly illegal is allowed That's what free speech is, whether or not you agree that such a policy of unrestricted free speech is constructive or beneficial.

petilon 4y ago
Disagree, there is no absolute freedom of speech, for example you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Also disagree that such unrestricted free speech is constructive or beneficial. Sacha Baron Cohen explains it best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymaWq5yZIYM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymaWq5yZIYM
- filoleg 4y ago
  > You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. I am so tired of seeing this overplayed urban myth. The precedent you mention was set by Schenck v. United States in 1919, but it was partially overturned later in Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969 [0]. Which is the part that people who bring up this myth every time conveniently forget about. So no, you can yell "fire" in a crowded theater or whatever else you want, as long as it doesn't meet the legal standard for imminent lawless action (e.g., a riot). And the legal standard for imminent lawless action is much higher than you think it is. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
  - petilon 4y ago
    > as long as it doesn't meet the legal standard for imminent lawless action So there is no absolute free speech then. Which is the point of bringing up the "fire" example. If you're a visitor in my house there is no free speech at all. If you say something I don't like I'll legally kick you out. Private companies such as Twitter and Facebook have the same right. Their platform, their rules.
    - filoleg 4y ago

mft_ 4y ago

> Musk's misguided approach to free speech, which says anything that is not explicitly illegal is allowed Genuinely interested, and not just trying to argue: how would you otherwise define free speech? It sounds like you think free speech should have defined limits - which surely means it's not free speech any more?

petilon 4y ago
I am going to let Sacha Baron Cohen, of all people, answer your question [1]: Voltaire was right when he said "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." And social media lets authoritarians push absurdities to millions of people. President Trump using Twitter has spread conspiracy theories more than 1700 times to his 67 million followers. Freedom of speech is not freedom of reach. Sadly There will always be racists, misogynists, anti-Semites, and child abusers. We should not be giving bigots and pedophiles a free platform to amplify their views and target their victims. Zuckerberg says people should decide what's credible, not tech companies. When 2/3rds of millennials have not heard of Auschwitz how are they supposed to know what's true? There is such a thing as objective truth. Facts do exist. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymaWq5yZIYM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymaWq5yZIYM
- mft_ 4y ago
  Unless I'm misunderstanding the quote, that's very much not answering my question: it discusses limiting reach (i.e. ability to disseminate one's views widely and easily) and explicitly not free speech itself?
  - petilon 4y ago
    Free speech doesn't have a single meaning. Freedom is relative. There is no right to absolute free speech anywhere. For example, you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. On social media owned by private corporations, "fire" isn't the only thing you aren't allowed to yell. Subverting democracy, inciting violence, propaganda from foreign governments pretending to be grassroots movement inside the US, etc., are all banned, and yet I would consider Twitter a free platform, albeit with sensible limits. But you're right, that's not absolute freedom.

kmlx 4y ago

> This is good for Twitter i think you are referring to twitter.com imo this is pretty bad for twitter the company. they’ve been flat for years, they’re current valuation is less than in 2013. they’ve lost the plot a while ago and seem to have been in a managed decline, probably because they were looking for buyers. > and good for the world you are overestimating how many people care about twitter outside of the US.