3 ms·
So is what you're saying is your concept of freedom of speech is the correct version? You've also not backed up anything as to support your "much more likely"
by loceng 4y ago
So is what you're saying is your concept of freedom of speech is the correct version?
You've also not backed up anything as to support your "much more likely" claim.
Are people not allowed to be upset if a brand starts introducing content they don't want their children to be exposed to, whether you agree with that or not? They had a certain expectation or assumption, based on history, of a certain governance - and then that relatively quickly changed. I'm not saying it's rational, but they're trying to warn their herd of like-minded people - whether it is cultural or religious groups - that don't believe it is either healthy or safe to expose highly impressionable, easily manipulated minds, at such a young age - say before they develop critical thinking and enough of an identity on their own without undue external influence.
Do you support influencing, manipulation, of children and young teenagers towards permanently physically altering their body - like cutting off their breasts?
Elon so far only ban people who: 1) impersonated him without stating they are a parody account (Kathy Griffin was reinstated along with Jordan Peterson and The Babylon Bee yesterday), or 2) who broke company policy - arguably by publicly stating their qualm of him rather than directly going to him to try to settle it privately.
Perhaps your argument or stance is that he, as the lead, should continue to employ those who don't fall enough in-line, aligned enough with his order - his orders of how and where to steer the private ship called Twitter? That sounds like a very poorly operating ship that certainly would sink to a ship who's crew listen to a competent captain that they trust enough to work for; this isn't a situation where the employees at Twitter are employed there because of no other options - so can't argue for exploitation or abuse - undue stress.
Perhaps your level of distaste for Elon, perhaps it's envy, is that you're misinterpreting the situation as him dictating what's allowed on the neutral platform called the internet?
Thankfully, thank God, at least for now - and with much higher odds now that Elon owns Twitter, along with his Starlink constellation - the U.S. is a place that people can still communicate - even though there is a trend toward government with fascist policies to control information and the narrative. Thankfully anyone who disagrees with Elon - with the relatively free market capitalism in North America - can start their own competing platform to Twitter - assuming they are competent and sophisticated enough to have or garner the resources, including people necessary to rally, to support such an effort.
- tsimionescu 4y ago> So is what you're saying is your concept of freedom of speech is the correct version? You've also not backed up anything as to support your "much more likely" claim. First of all, Elon has always said that he intends to practice "freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach" - which he explains to mean "we won't ban your account, we will just stop showing your tweets to everyone if it's not the right kind of speech". So already this idea that he believes in absolute freedom of speech is obviously wrong. Secondly, he has a long history of seeking to silence his critics. Firing employees that publicly contradict him is mostly understandable; but accusing the rescue diver that said his ideas were stupid of pedophilia, and hiring PIs to try to "prove" it, is certainly not. Thirdly, freedom of speech is a relatively simple idea - it means that you believe people should be free to make their opinions known without being silenced or unduly punished for opinions. There are various complex issues related to the details of what it means to silence or unduly punish, and to cases where the freedom of speech of two individuals can come in conflict. But it is very clear that someone who supports freedom to express certain legal opinions and NOT other legal opinions is not in fact advocating for freedom of speech. > Are people not allowed to be upset if a brand starts introducing content they don't want their children to be exposed to, whether you agree with that or not? They are allowed, but they are not allowed to then also claim that they are pro free speech. > Do you support influencing, manipulation, of children and young teenagers towards permanently physically altering their body - like cutting off their breasts? No, and neither does anyone else beyond some demented extremists. I do support children and teenagers getting access to medicine that allows them to live the best life they can, and if their doctor and parents agree that involves puberty blockers, I support them having access to that.
- loceng 4y ago'First of all, Elon has always said that he intends to practice "freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach"' First sentence and you already moved goalpost.
- tsimionescu 4y agoMy point was that Elon's notion of separating "freedom of speech" from "freedom of reach" is already counter to the basic ideal of freedom of speech. By this same standard, the US government could claim that a law preventing sales of a particular book would not put them in breach of the 1st amendment, as they are still allowing the book to exist.