16 ms·

Doesn't banning Kanye West from the platform go against his whole "free speech" thing? The absolutists say that there should just be more free speech to drown o

Doesn't banning Kanye West from the platform go against his whole "free speech" thing? The absolutists say that there should just be more free speech to drown out the hateful speech. Why isn't he just encouraging people to drown it out instead? I find the unlimited free speech arguments to be disingenuous and lazy most of the time. There's always a limit to speech, and it's not easy to find. That doesn't mean we shouldn't explore the space to find it (and that we'll have to acknowledge it's a dynamic and changing boundary).

encryptluks2 4y ago
Yes it does, at least in the United States... but I imagine he determined that free speech has limits in other parts of the world.
- AftHurrahWinch 4y ago
  > I imagine he determined that free speech has limits in other parts of the world How unfortunate that we're left to imagine this, rather than having the new ownership articulate a content moderation policy that reflects their curation decisions.
- ncallaway 4y ago
  But Twitter has long supported allowing speech in different regions based on local laws. For example, I had set my region to Germany because Twitter would automatically block more content for German users (due to Nazi content being illegal in Germany). So, is your imaginary conclusion that Elon has changed Twitter's policy from: "speech is restricted for users in a locale according to the local laws" to "speech is restricted platform wide according based on the most restrictive laws that exist in the world"? It would seem very anti-free speech to me if this new system allows China to determine which content is available on Twitter, or we impose the UK's onerous libel laws on all American users.
  - encryptluks2 4y ago
    I believe he's changed it based on whatever he is feeling at the moment is the best choice, which could change tomorrow. I honestly don't think he has a clue what he is doing or what free speech actually is. The picture Ye posted is not illegal in the United States and so therefore it appears he no longer supports free speech.
dragontamer 4y ago
We all know Elon Musk is going to relearn the entire moderation curve. We're just amused that the dude thinks he is a genius, but is unable to think a step or two ahead. The rules will come down, because they have to. If it took "Ye" posting a Swastika and saying Hitler was awesome to convince Elon then so be it. Elon will meet many, many other people who will push the moderation curve towards where everyone else has settled.
- prox 4y ago
  Anyone who has ever moderated knows that allowing a free-speech-for-all, while seemingly a noble ideal, turns into something that nobody needs nor wants. Communication becomes noisy, the topics tend to favour a lowest denominator of quality, and more akin to a soapbox arena then a place of pure speech. The solution it seems to me is in the name : moderation. Instead of unfiltered thoughts, we moderate so we can more clearly communicate. In that sense the word censorship loses all meaning : because meaning should be conveyed carefully, especially when topics are sensitive. And so often online people aren’t sensitive at all, for many reasons that seem evident. Source : moderated several chatrooms for many years.
  - bink 4y ago
    It makes me wonder if Elon finally got around to reading the parable about kicking the "nice nazi" out of your bar. https://www.reddit.com/r/TalesFromYourServer/comments/hsiisw/kicking_a_nazi_out_as_soon_as_they_walk_in/ https://www.reddit.com/r/TalesFromYourServer/comments/hsiisw...
  - ilyt 4y ago
    >Anyone who has ever moderated knows that allowing a free-speech-for-all, while seemingly a noble ideal, turns into something that nobody needs nor wants. Communication becomes noisy, the topics tend to favour a lowest denominator of quality, and more akin to a soapbox arena then a place of pure speech. That was the case before acquisition. Just the lowest common denominator biased towards whatever political views twitter mods held
tj-teej 4y ago
It only goes against his "free speech thing" if his "free speech thing" was actually a coherent ideology. Instead his "free speech absolutism" is a brand, it's there to signal what kind of person he is, it's not a set of principles and therefore cannot stand up to scrutiny.
- halfjoking 4y ago
  Musk has repeatedly said that inciting violence will be banned while other forms of speech will be allowed. So I think he has a coherent ideology, but it still depends on a judgment call. When Kanye says he "loves Nazis" one could make the judgment he's endorsing violence against Jews because the context involves the history of what Nazis did. When Trump said on Jan 6th he wants his supporters to "fight" to "stop the steal" a lot of people took that as endorsing violence to storm the capitol. I think that's less clear-cut than Nazi endorsement, but other people disagree. Main thing I care about is "covid misinformation" is no longer banned. So Twitter won't ban an epidemiologist who posts a clinical study saying mRNA vaccines lower sperm counts anymore. https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/06/im-an-md-suspended-by-twitter-for-tweeting-a-link-to-a-scientific-article-on-covid-19-vaccine-lowering-sperm-counts/ https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/06/im-an-md-suspended-by-... Bans like that were just absurd.
  - fallingknife 4y ago
    There is a legal definition to fall back on in the case of inciting violence, and what Kanye said doesn't come close. Not that Twitter is obligated to hold to that definition, but I think it's pretty misleading to say you are for "free speech" and then define "inciting violence" so broadly as to have virtually no meaning.
  - cjbgkagh 4y ago
    Incitement AFAIK requires eminence, it would not include publicly declaring a fondness of certain people, even if those people were violent. If that were so everyone wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt or declaring a fondness for The Communist Manifesto would also be incitement. The real reason is that Kayne was booted is that he toxic waste and having him on Twitter would have damaged the Twitter brand and cost Elon money.
colordrops 4y ago
Right, didn't Elon say something about any speech that is not illegal should be allowed? Did Kanye say anything illegal?
- YetAnotherNick 4y ago
  Swastika is illegal in many countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bans_on_Nazi_symbols https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bans_on_Nazi_symbols
  - arminiusreturns 4y ago
    So is blasphemy. I'm glad I don't live in those countries.
  - nickthegreek 4y ago
    kanye isn't in those countries.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
      Not relevant. Was his post blocked in those countries?
      - nickthegreek 4y ago
        It is very relevant. His posts were blocked in every country (by removing his account). As an american, I dont expect to be banned from a social media company (ran in my country no less) because of a speech law halfway around the world. Elon isn't following policies, he is following his whim. The problem with that is all the previous moderation statements he made did not align with this banning.
        SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
        > I dont expect to be banned from a social media company (ran in my country no less) because of a speech law halfway around the world I expect that the whole account was banned worldwide, more because it made headline news (in the bad way) around the world. And so not banning Kanye's horrible, mentally ill, degrading and rather sad antics, would scare off the advertisers who pay the bills. I mean, the remaining advertisers. > Elon isn't following policies, he is following his whim. Agreed. > The problem with that is all the previous moderation statements he made did not align with this banning It's almost like it wasn't thought through. Like Elon still has no idea what he's doing.
corytheboyd 4y ago
It's about money, not "free speech". Kanye posting hate speech drives away advertisers and twitter loses money. Musk is a grifter just like everyone else, his siren song being this "free speech" bullshit. The grift stopped working so he backpedaled. Seems fairly simple to me.
- ben_w 4y ago
  I don’t think that fits, because Musk’s every act since buying Twitter seems to have also driven away advertisers.
  - dfxm12 4y ago
    This gives Musk too much credit in being particularly skillful in gaining advertisers. He's trying, but he's just bad at it.
    - ben_w 4y ago
      I don’t think I’m giving him any credit at all. I think, somehow, he’s currently acting even worse than I would if I somehow got parachuted into this position. Which is really really odd because quite a lot of his previous PR stunts — the Easter eggs in the Teslas, the “ring of fire” SpaceX video, the trans-Martian Roadster, the announcement of the Cybertruck — are things I regard as pretty effective brand building. But this? This is weirder than trying to build a civil engineering brand by labelling weed-removal-torches as "flamethrowers".
_ea1k 4y ago
He backed away from unlimited free speech pretty quickly. Sometimes he's said it has to do with a legal boundary, but he hasn't had consistency about that. He's been pretty clear that hated by ~50% and fine with the other 50% of the population is the old line, not the new one. Where that puts the threshold is still an open question, and unfortunately one that will likely be answered somewhat capriciously. Then again, that's not really different from before.
- idontpost 4y ago
- boppo1 4y ago
  It seems like he's going to establish two lines. One right and one left. The current line will shift to the right and allow more anti-vax/conspiracy garbage, but continue to disallow wignats and *nats. Meanwhile we'll get a new line on the left, so you can't say stuff like 'Whiteness is the root of all evil' anymore. At least that's how I'm interpreting his comment about 'being for the 80%.
- lesuorac 4y ago
  > He's been pretty clear that hated by ~50% and fine with the other 50% of the population is the old line, not the new one. More like 20% for both of those numbers [1]. Most choices are non-binary ... most Americans just don't care about Elon. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1304563/us-adults-impression-of-elon-musk/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1304563/us-adults-impres...
  - _ea1k 4y ago
    That's a fair point, tbh. I probably shouldn't have defined it as hated vs fine. Its more like unacceptable to have access to twitter vs acceptable to have access to twitter. Neither position necessarily implies approval of the person or content.
- martindbp 4y ago
  Twitter before Musk banned Babylon Bee, a Christian version of The Onion, for this: "The Babylon Bee, was suspended by Twitter, after it had mockingly awarded transgender government official Rachel Levine the title 'Man of the Year.'" This is the type of speech that Elon believes should be allowed, and I agree. He has repeatedly said freedom of speech absolutism is still subject to laws, and inciting violence past that line, but clearly not transgender satire.
anon291 4y ago
- jakelazaroff 4y ago
  That's not really what happened to the Babylon Bee, though. They intentionally named a trans woman as their "man of the year". That would be Level Three of this article: > Level Three: “We’re the free speech platform! But no CSAM and no infringement!” > Power to the people. Freedom is great! > “Right, boss, apparently because you keep talking about freedom, a large group of people are taking it to mean they have ‘freedom’ to harass people with slurs and all sorts of abuse. People are leaving the site because of it, and advertisers are pulling ads.” > That seems bad. Quick, have someone write up some rules against hate speech.
  - anon291 4y ago
    - jakelazaroff 4y ago
      Why did you feel the need to misrepresent what actually happened, then? The word "trans" is conspicuously absent from your original comment; you described it as "a satire article naming a national bureaucrat as man of the year".
      - anon291 4y ago
        Because it's not particularly relevant. Satire articles make jokes about all kinds of people. For example, SNL regularly has females portray cis males and males portray cis females. Politicians regularly (rightly or wrongly) attack their opponents as not living up to whatever gender ideals exist. As an example, SNL had a lady play Rudy Giuliani to make fun of him: https://popculture.com/tv-shows/news/snl-cecily-strongs-michigan-lady-parody-from-rudy-giuliani-testimony-has-fans-rolling/ https://popculture.com/tv-shows/news/snl-cecily-strongs-mich... Why is one acceptable and the other not, other than one's own perceived bias about which 'side' has the moral upper hand?
jcranmer 4y ago
I mean, the entire point of this article is that "free speech" is not a sufficient basis for content moderation. The history of social media platforms shows that not moderating away, well, "hateful speech" tends to lead to it drowning out all the other voices.
- guerrilla 4y ago
  I agree, but can I start a side-branch here... Why is that exactly? Wish I could tag @dang.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    The hypothesis is that hate speech is met with other speech in a free marketplace of ideas. That hypothesis only functions if users are trapped in one conversational space. What happens instead is that users choose not to volunteer their time and labor to speak around or over those calling for their non-existence (or for the non-existence of their friends and loved ones) and go elsewhere... Taking their money and attention with them. As those promulgating the hate speech tend to be a much smaller group than those who leave, it is in the selfish interest of most forums to police that kind of signal jamming to maximize their possible user-base. Otherwise, you end up with a forum full mostly of those dabbling in hate speech, which is (a) not particularly advertiser friendly, (b) hostile to further growth, and (c) not something most people who get into this gig find themselves proud of.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
- idontpost 4y ago
cess11 4y ago
If it isn't about a single person and a state it's not about free speech. In this particular context it's rather about commerce.
mabbo 4y ago
I think the context of the banning of Kanye West is important. Kanye posted some really super antisemetic things. At one point, he posted a picture of a swastika overtop of a star of David. Then he posted an unflattering picture of Elon Musk- and was banned within minutes. When Elon Musk says "free speech" he means "free speech for me, not for thee". You can say anything you like, as long as Elon likes it too.
- zimpenfish 4y ago
  > Then he posted an unflattering picture of Elon Musk- and was banned within minutes. Oh, that's probably the reason - Ol' Muskie is really quick on the suspension button for people who mock him.
  - MetaWhirledPeas 4y ago
    Source?
- memish 4y ago
  False. He specifically pointed out which one was fine and which one wasn't. "Just clarifying that his account is being suspended for incitement to violence, not an unflattering pic of me being hosed by Ari. Frankly, I found those pics to be helpful motivation to lose weight!" https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1598546057138524160 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1598546057138524160
  - nickthegreek 4y ago
    It is not false because elon said something else. Elon has been posting many false things on twitter the past few weeks. So I am sorry to say, his word isn't good enough. I mean, he is unbanning thousands of actual nazis as we speak, but bans Ye (who was just also unbanned for behavior that was worse than a picture of a swastika.) None of this tracks. He needs to put forth an actual moderation policy and stick with it. Thats what people want. But then he would actually have to do the hard work of drawing a line and defending it.
  - 4y ago
wnevets 4y ago
Banning people who made fun of him also went against the whole free speech thing.
- nicce 4y ago
  People have been literally banned for saying that Musk should pay taxes...
  - MetaWhirledPeas 4y ago
    Source?
    - nicce 4y ago
      Here is one at least https://reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/z95o3g/elon_musk_should_pay_taxes_is_hate_speech/ https://reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/z95o3g/elon...
      - MetaWhirledPeas 4y ago
        "This is likely a fake suspension e-mail made to look as a joke. Actual suspension e-mails include a date of the Tweet." https://twitter.com/EliErlick/status/1598011331658948609?s=20&t=61bOd_X_Ngpel9hsjVMNAw https://twitter.com/EliErlick/status/1598011331658948609?s=2...
        hairofadog 4y ago
        “Look as a joke”, you say. Seems like there’s multiple levels of trolling going on there… the “clarification” was added by readers, and the “link that contains an example of a Twitter suspension email“ links to the New York Post.
        MetaWhirledPeas 4y ago
        Considering Eli Erlick continued to make new tweets on November 30th and even December 1st, it doesn't look to me like he was ever suspended.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Doesn't banning Kanye West from the platform go against his whole "free speech" thing? No, like the broader right, his whole “free speech thing” is nothing more than “speech I like should be more favored by private parties than it currently is”.
onetimeusename 4y ago
yes, it goes against. I think there are vanishingly few actual free speech absolutists, maybe none, and most who say they are actually draw the line somewhere around online harassment, hate speech, copyright, "when an angry mob pressures you", and "when you have no money because no one will advertise with you". Free speech absolutism is illegal. There are laws you must follow or the FBI will come knocking on your door.
stcroixx 4y ago
Agree this goes against free speech. Very disappointing he didn't do as he said and let the law and courts handle this question. Whether free speech is appropriate on a platform like Twitter I don't know or care really. But surely Twitter can't promote itself as a free speech platform while banning Kanye for legal speech.
nemo44x 4y ago
He was breaking the law in countries Twitter is in. Musk explicitly said you can’t break the law.
- mikeyouse 4y ago
  As others have pointed out, blasphemy is illegal in many countries that Twitter operates in. Are you advocating that Americans who blaspheme should be banned from Twitter because it's illegal in Saudi Arabia? Because otherwise this weird apology for Musk's hypocritical actions doesn't make any sense.
  - nemo44x 4y ago
    Twitter respects the EU laws more than KSA. In Germany, this type of thing is illegal for a computer network to host. In KSA it’s the individual that is subject to blasphemy law. If someone were to break that law and go to KSA then they would probably be tortured or killed.
finspeech 4y ago
Agree with everything you said. Especially that what is acceptable speech is dynamic and it’s hard to define. I view the boundaries of acceptable speech as a resource. And like other resources in which we need to allocate in society, we use the power of markets to come to the “fairest” allocation that we can. I believe Elon could implement a “free speech market” on Twitter where Twitter creates an asset which gives the owner the right to ban or allow a particular controversial user. This asset is then auctioned off (providing revenue for Twitter) and then the users get the ultimate control over who is or isn’t allowed on the platform. This also has the benefit of taking the decision making out of the hands of Elon and those at Twitter and giving power directly to the people.
- airza 4y ago
  I sort of admire the clarity of vision to take the current decade’s political subtext of “people with money should be allowed to dictate the values of society” and turn it into the supertext.
  - finspeech 4y ago
    I’m just making the implicit, explicit. At least this way it’s not done in back rooms by power brokers, but out in the open in which everyone can participate. Also, the People have money too. They can organize. I just want to give them a chance to organize and have a seat at the table.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  Two points on this.. 1. It sort of is that insofar as advertisers (the actual customers) are free to stop buying ads, but when they do so Musk throws a conniption fit and says not giving him money is a step away from tyranny 2. If there's a tradable 'right to offend' asset then it will either be bought up by wealthy people who are assholes or assholes who raise money from other assholes on the promise that they will be bigger assholes (see also politics, US) I mean, why not have a market for murder, and just limit the number of permits to 10% less than the current homicide totals? The government makes tax revenue and homicide falls by 10%, (almost) everybody wins! Vote for me in '24! do not vote for me
PathOfEclipse 4y ago
Except Musk was never ever for absolute free speech. Also, the free speech absolutists have it wrong. Read speechless: controlling words, controlling minds for a much better and more coherent conservative philosophy on free speech. Absolute free speech is an illusion that has never existed and never will. Our problem in society is that that we censor the wrong kinds of speech and tolerate the wrong kinds of speech. Overton windows aren't bad. Ours has just been corrupted. Musk explicitly said he wants to essentially broaden and fix the tolerance window, not abolish it.
- vba616 4y ago
  How do we know what Musk is for, let alone what he has been "for" during his entire past life? Your last sentence implies that he "explicitly" says stuff and we should take that at face value. He was openly crowing over being able to hoax/troll the media on Twitter as of just a few days ago. The off-the-wall idea that what he says represents what he believes is constantly promoted even by the people who supposedly are frothing with hatred for him.
- RavingGoat 4y ago
  This is completely clueless at this point. What Elon is for changes on a day to day basis.
jhedwards 4y ago
Just for reference I believe that the "more speech" idea originated with Louis Brandeis, who was a brilliant thinker and one of the important liberal Supreme Court justices of the 20th century. The actual quote is: "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."[0] Louis Brandeis did believe that context and specifics are important, so I think the technology of the online platform is significant especially with respect to the first part of that quote. [0] https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep274/usrep274357/usrep274357.pdf https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep...
- pjc50 4y ago
  .. I read through and I think that makes the opposite point! In Whitney v California the California law banning Communist organisation was upheld. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/274/357/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/274/357/ > "Whitney was one of the founders of the Communist Labor Party, which was a radical wing of the Socialist Party that split from the rest of the Party after a convention in 1919. When she attended a convention to organize a California wing of the Labor Party, Whitney exhorted workers to vote for its candidates in elections and advocated for taking political action in a resolution. The Party eventually adopted a more extreme program than what Whitney advocated in her resolution, and she protested to no avail. Whitney was charged with violating the California Criminal Syndicalism Act on the basis that she had helped to organize a group that sought to effect economic and political change through the unlawful use of violence. She argued that she had not intended the organization to act in this way and did not plan to aid it in those objectives, so she should not be charged merely for attending the convention. Whitney claimed that the California law violated the First Amendment." As usual, lots of nice things may have been said about free speech, but in the end she was convicted and jailed for organising a political party.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  Did he say why he believes this is the best remedy, and is his position backed up by any evidence from psychology, memetics, etc? The evidence I'm aware of leads me to the opposite conclusion. Also he wrote this before social media. He wrote that before fascism swept in on the back of free speech and public persuasion in the 1930s. We're in a new paradigm now and worldviews need to be updated to fit new information and new evidence than what was available during his time.
willis936 4y ago
> There's always a limit to speech, and it's not easy to find It is. Mid 2000s 4chan and more recently 8kun found it immediately. When you remove limiters people slap the rail immediately. What value does it add? No one is learning anything when posting anonymously without moderation, they're just lulling themselves into an easily manipulated state.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  It'd be good for John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad theory to make a comeback https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/green-blackboards-and-other-anomalies https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/green-blackboa...
  - willis936 4y ago
    I remember Splinter Cell multiplayer. Great map design and assymetrical loadout balance. I can't think of another game that even attempted to balance 1st person and 3rd person gameplay as hard requirements for opposing teams. My favorite memory is playing carnival music through my mic while spinning a grabbed merc around. That and everything about aquarium.
anigbrowl 4y ago
Quite so, it renders the whole thing meaningless. Musk said he was banning West for 'inciting violence' which surprised me and affirmed my feeling that he's either a shallow thinker who doesn't really know what he's doing or is just play-acting. West tweeted an image of a swastika in a star of David - technically an obsolete symbol of the Raelian UFO cult, in practice it suggested Nazis vs Jews to any casual observer. In the context of West's long-simmering beef with Jewish people and current manic episode of shouting about his enthusiasm for Hitler from inside a ski mask, it was certainly meant to taunt and would fit most people's standard for hate speech. But incitement to violence? Not exactly, and that's why I say Musk doesn't seem to know what he's doing. There is an indirect kind of incitement, in that it inciting people to behave like Nazis is synonymous with violence; neo-Nazis might deny the holocaust but are just as likely to follow up with the suggestion that it would be a good idea, and in conversation among themselves are a lot blunter about their desire to do violence, preferably on a grand scale. This is why Nazis complaining about free speech is a bad joke, since their gameplan for pretty much any speech they dislike is to simply kill the speakers. But legally speaking, incitement to violence has a much narrower threshold; it has to be be specific and produce imminent lawless action. For a long time this meant internet speech didn't cunt at all, as jurists figured there couldn't be an imminent risk if the speaker and the recipient were in different places, and that electronic communication was too attenuated to inflame the passions of its receivers. Legislators and courts have somewhat caught up to the realities of the internet age and so things like SWATting or issuing threats by voicemail or online are taken much more seriously than they used to be (to a fault in some jurisdictions like the UK, whose legislators have a Canute-like fondness for prescriptivism). In this sense, West's tweet absolutely is not incitement to violence, because while it endorses Nazism and Jew-hatred in a trollish way, it lacks the specificity (in action, time, or place) to merit a legal charge. It's not impossible that West might end up suing Twitter or Musk personally for defamation, given his wealth, mania, and apparent ability to hold a grudge. Free speech advocates have long wrestled with the ramifications of declaring some speech to be 'hate speech' - I think myself that hate crimes are a legislative punt by making a new and scary-sounding law that doesn't mean very much, rather than clarifying existing law and letting juries weigh the significance of hatred as a possible motivation in the trials of violent crimes. Free speech absolutists, in whose company Musk previously placed himself, generally insist on the narrow legal standard of criminality as the only acceptable reason to inflict bans, and argue that all other speech should proceed unchecked. This argument generally arrives clad in the purple robes of Platonic idealism, though in practice totally un-moderated environments soon resemble an orgy of cynics behaving as obnoxiously as possible to maximize their sense of freedom. So if Musk is just making it up as he goes along, then he's in the situation of alienating everyone to his left and right simultaneously. I don't know how closely he's supervising content moderation decisions, (probably not very) but the reappearance on Twitter of super far right figures like Brett Stephens and Andrew Anglin (currently evading a federal arrest warrant) suggests the 'public square' is going to see regular brawls for a while.

encryptluks2 4y ago

Yes it does, at least in the United States... but I imagine he determined that free speech has limits in other parts of the world.

AftHurrahWinch 4y ago
> I imagine he determined that free speech has limits in other parts of the world How unfortunate that we're left to imagine this, rather than having the new ownership articulate a content moderation policy that reflects their curation decisions.
ncallaway 4y ago
But Twitter has long supported allowing speech in different regions based on local laws. For example, I had set my region to Germany because Twitter would automatically block more content for German users (due to Nazi content being illegal in Germany). So, is your imaginary conclusion that Elon has changed Twitter's policy from: "speech is restricted for users in a locale according to the local laws" to "speech is restricted platform wide according based on the most restrictive laws that exist in the world"? It would seem very anti-free speech to me if this new system allows China to determine which content is available on Twitter, or we impose the UK's onerous libel laws on all American users.
- encryptluks2 4y ago
  I believe he's changed it based on whatever he is feeling at the moment is the best choice, which could change tomorrow. I honestly don't think he has a clue what he is doing or what free speech actually is. The picture Ye posted is not illegal in the United States and so therefore it appears he no longer supports free speech.

dragontamer 4y ago

We all know Elon Musk is going to relearn the entire moderation curve. We're just amused that the dude thinks he is a genius, but is unable to think a step or two ahead. The rules will come down, because they have to. If it took "Ye" posting a Swastika and saying Hitler was awesome to convince Elon then so be it. Elon will meet many, many other people who will push the moderation curve towards where everyone else has settled.

prox 4y ago
Anyone who has ever moderated knows that allowing a free-speech-for-all, while seemingly a noble ideal, turns into something that nobody needs nor wants. Communication becomes noisy, the topics tend to favour a lowest denominator of quality, and more akin to a soapbox arena then a place of pure speech. The solution it seems to me is in the name : moderation. Instead of unfiltered thoughts, we moderate so we can more clearly communicate. In that sense the word censorship loses all meaning : because meaning should be conveyed carefully, especially when topics are sensitive. And so often online people aren’t sensitive at all, for many reasons that seem evident. Source : moderated several chatrooms for many years.
- bink 4y ago
  It makes me wonder if Elon finally got around to reading the parable about kicking the "nice nazi" out of your bar. https://www.reddit.com/r/TalesFromYourServer/comments/hsiisw/kicking_a_nazi_out_as_soon_as_they_walk_in/ https://www.reddit.com/r/TalesFromYourServer/comments/hsiisw...
- ilyt 4y ago
  >Anyone who has ever moderated knows that allowing a free-speech-for-all, while seemingly a noble ideal, turns into something that nobody needs nor wants. Communication becomes noisy, the topics tend to favour a lowest denominator of quality, and more akin to a soapbox arena then a place of pure speech. That was the case before acquisition. Just the lowest common denominator biased towards whatever political views twitter mods held

tj-teej 4y ago

It only goes against his "free speech thing" if his "free speech thing" was actually a coherent ideology. Instead his "free speech absolutism" is a brand, it's there to signal what kind of person he is, it's not a set of principles and therefore cannot stand up to scrutiny.

halfjoking 4y ago
Musk has repeatedly said that inciting violence will be banned while other forms of speech will be allowed. So I think he has a coherent ideology, but it still depends on a judgment call. When Kanye says he "loves Nazis" one could make the judgment he's endorsing violence against Jews because the context involves the history of what Nazis did. When Trump said on Jan 6th he wants his supporters to "fight" to "stop the steal" a lot of people took that as endorsing violence to storm the capitol. I think that's less clear-cut than Nazi endorsement, but other people disagree. Main thing I care about is "covid misinformation" is no longer banned. So Twitter won't ban an epidemiologist who posts a clinical study saying mRNA vaccines lower sperm counts anymore. https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/06/im-an-md-suspended-by-twitter-for-tweeting-a-link-to-a-scientific-article-on-covid-19-vaccine-lowering-sperm-counts/ https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/06/im-an-md-suspended-by-... Bans like that were just absurd.
- fallingknife 4y ago
  There is a legal definition to fall back on in the case of inciting violence, and what Kanye said doesn't come close. Not that Twitter is obligated to hold to that definition, but I think it's pretty misleading to say you are for "free speech" and then define "inciting violence" so broadly as to have virtually no meaning.
- cjbgkagh 4y ago
  Incitement AFAIK requires eminence, it would not include publicly declaring a fondness of certain people, even if those people were violent. If that were so everyone wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt or declaring a fondness for The Communist Manifesto would also be incitement. The real reason is that Kayne was booted is that he toxic waste and having him on Twitter would have damaged the Twitter brand and cost Elon money.

colordrops 4y ago

Right, didn't Elon say something about any speech that is not illegal should be allowed? Did Kanye say anything illegal?

YetAnotherNick 4y ago
Swastika is illegal in many countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bans_on_Nazi_symbols https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bans_on_Nazi_symbols
- arminiusreturns 4y ago
  So is blasphemy. I'm glad I don't live in those countries.
- nickthegreek 4y ago
  kanye isn't in those countries.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
    Not relevant. Was his post blocked in those countries?
    - nickthegreek 4y ago
      It is very relevant. His posts were blocked in every country (by removing his account). As an american, I dont expect to be banned from a social media company (ran in my country no less) because of a speech law halfway around the world. Elon isn't following policies, he is following his whim. The problem with that is all the previous moderation statements he made did not align with this banning.
      - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
        > I dont expect to be banned from a social media company (ran in my country no less) because of a speech law halfway around the world I expect that the whole account was banned worldwide, more because it made headline news (in the bad way) around the world. And so not banning Kanye's horrible, mentally ill, degrading and rather sad antics, would scare off the advertisers who pay the bills. I mean, the remaining advertisers. > Elon isn't following policies, he is following his whim. Agreed. > The problem with that is all the previous moderation statements he made did not align with this banning It's almost like it wasn't thought through. Like Elon still has no idea what he's doing.

corytheboyd 4y ago

It's about money, not "free speech". Kanye posting hate speech drives away advertisers and twitter loses money. Musk is a grifter just like everyone else, his siren song being this "free speech" bullshit. The grift stopped working so he backpedaled. Seems fairly simple to me.

ben_w 4y ago
I don’t think that fits, because Musk’s every act since buying Twitter seems to have also driven away advertisers.
- dfxm12 4y ago
  This gives Musk too much credit in being particularly skillful in gaining advertisers. He's trying, but he's just bad at it.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    I don’t think I’m giving him any credit at all. I think, somehow, he’s currently acting even worse than I would if I somehow got parachuted into this position. Which is really really odd because quite a lot of his previous PR stunts — the Easter eggs in the Teslas, the “ring of fire” SpaceX video, the trans-Martian Roadster, the announcement of the Cybertruck — are things I regard as pretty effective brand building. But this? This is weirder than trying to build a civil engineering brand by labelling weed-removal-torches as "flamethrowers".

_ea1k 4y ago

He backed away from unlimited free speech pretty quickly. Sometimes he's said it has to do with a legal boundary, but he hasn't had consistency about that. He's been pretty clear that hated by ~50% and fine with the other 50% of the population is the old line, not the new one. Where that puts the threshold is still an open question, and unfortunately one that will likely be answered somewhat capriciously. Then again, that's not really different from before.

idontpost 4y ago
boppo1 4y ago
It seems like he's going to establish two lines. One right and one left. The current line will shift to the right and allow more anti-vax/conspiracy garbage, but continue to disallow wignats and *nats. Meanwhile we'll get a new line on the left, so you can't say stuff like 'Whiteness is the root of all evil' anymore. At least that's how I'm interpreting his comment about 'being for the 80%.
lesuorac 4y ago
> He's been pretty clear that hated by ~50% and fine with the other 50% of the population is the old line, not the new one. More like 20% for both of those numbers [1]. Most choices are non-binary ... most Americans just don't care about Elon. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1304563/us-adults-impression-of-elon-musk/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1304563/us-adults-impres...
- _ea1k 4y ago
  That's a fair point, tbh. I probably shouldn't have defined it as hated vs fine. Its more like unacceptable to have access to twitter vs acceptable to have access to twitter. Neither position necessarily implies approval of the person or content.
martindbp 4y ago
Twitter before Musk banned Babylon Bee, a Christian version of The Onion, for this: "The Babylon Bee, was suspended by Twitter, after it had mockingly awarded transgender government official Rachel Levine the title 'Man of the Year.'" This is the type of speech that Elon believes should be allowed, and I agree. He has repeatedly said freedom of speech absolutism is still subject to laws, and inciting violence past that line, but clearly not transgender satire.

anon291 4y ago

jakelazaroff 4y ago
That's not really what happened to the Babylon Bee, though. They intentionally named a trans woman as their "man of the year". That would be Level Three of this article: > Level Three: “We’re the free speech platform! But no CSAM and no infringement!” > Power to the people. Freedom is great! > “Right, boss, apparently because you keep talking about freedom, a large group of people are taking it to mean they have ‘freedom’ to harass people with slurs and all sorts of abuse. People are leaving the site because of it, and advertisers are pulling ads.” > That seems bad. Quick, have someone write up some rules against hate speech.
- anon291 4y ago
  - jakelazaroff 4y ago
    Why did you feel the need to misrepresent what actually happened, then? The word "trans" is conspicuously absent from your original comment; you described it as "a satire article naming a national bureaucrat as man of the year".
    - anon291 4y ago
      Because it's not particularly relevant. Satire articles make jokes about all kinds of people. For example, SNL regularly has females portray cis males and males portray cis females. Politicians regularly (rightly or wrongly) attack their opponents as not living up to whatever gender ideals exist. As an example, SNL had a lady play Rudy Giuliani to make fun of him: https://popculture.com/tv-shows/news/snl-cecily-strongs-michigan-lady-parody-from-rudy-giuliani-testimony-has-fans-rolling/ https://popculture.com/tv-shows/news/snl-cecily-strongs-mich... Why is one acceptable and the other not, other than one's own perceived bias about which 'side' has the moral upper hand?

jcranmer 4y ago

I mean, the entire point of this article is that "free speech" is not a sufficient basis for content moderation. The history of social media platforms shows that not moderating away, well, "hateful speech" tends to lead to it drowning out all the other voices.

guerrilla 4y ago
I agree, but can I start a side-branch here... Why is that exactly? Wish I could tag @dang.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  The hypothesis is that hate speech is met with other speech in a free marketplace of ideas. That hypothesis only functions if users are trapped in one conversational space. What happens instead is that users choose not to volunteer their time and labor to speak around or over those calling for their non-existence (or for the non-existence of their friends and loved ones) and go elsewhere... Taking their money and attention with them. As those promulgating the hate speech tend to be a much smaller group than those who leave, it is in the selfish interest of most forums to police that kind of signal jamming to maximize their possible user-base. Otherwise, you end up with a forum full mostly of those dabbling in hate speech, which is (a) not particularly advertiser friendly, (b) hostile to further growth, and (c) not something most people who get into this gig find themselves proud of.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

idontpost 4y ago

cess11 4y ago

If it isn't about a single person and a state it's not about free speech. In this particular context it's rather about commerce.

mabbo 4y ago

I think the context of the banning of Kanye West is important. Kanye posted some really super antisemetic things. At one point, he posted a picture of a swastika overtop of a star of David. Then he posted an unflattering picture of Elon Musk- and was banned within minutes. When Elon Musk says "free speech" he means "free speech for me, not for thee". You can say anything you like, as long as Elon likes it too.

zimpenfish 4y ago
> Then he posted an unflattering picture of Elon Musk- and was banned within minutes. Oh, that's probably the reason - Ol' Muskie is really quick on the suspension button for people who mock him.
- MetaWhirledPeas 4y ago
  Source?
memish 4y ago
False. He specifically pointed out which one was fine and which one wasn't. "Just clarifying that his account is being suspended for incitement to violence, not an unflattering pic of me being hosed by Ari. Frankly, I found those pics to be helpful motivation to lose weight!" https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1598546057138524160 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1598546057138524160
- nickthegreek 4y ago
  It is not false because elon said something else. Elon has been posting many false things on twitter the past few weeks. So I am sorry to say, his word isn't good enough. I mean, he is unbanning thousands of actual nazis as we speak, but bans Ye (who was just also unbanned for behavior that was worse than a picture of a swastika.) None of this tracks. He needs to put forth an actual moderation policy and stick with it. Thats what people want. But then he would actually have to do the hard work of drawing a line and defending it.
- 4y ago

wnevets 4y ago

Banning people who made fun of him also went against the whole free speech thing.

nicce 4y ago
People have been literally banned for saying that Musk should pay taxes...
- MetaWhirledPeas 4y ago
  Source?
  - nicce 4y ago
    Here is one at least https://reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/z95o3g/elon_musk_should_pay_taxes_is_hate_speech/ https://reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/z95o3g/elon...
    - MetaWhirledPeas 4y ago
      "This is likely a fake suspension e-mail made to look as a joke. Actual suspension e-mails include a date of the Tweet." https://twitter.com/EliErlick/status/1598011331658948609?s=20&t=61bOd_X_Ngpel9hsjVMNAw https://twitter.com/EliErlick/status/1598011331658948609?s=2...
      - hairofadog 4y ago
        “Look as a joke”, you say. Seems like there’s multiple levels of trolling going on there… the “clarification” was added by readers, and the “link that contains an example of a Twitter suspension email“ links to the New York Post.
        MetaWhirledPeas 4y ago
        Considering Eli Erlick continued to make new tweets on November 30th and even December 1st, it doesn't look to me like he was ever suspended.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> Doesn't banning Kanye West from the platform go against his whole "free speech" thing? No, like the broader right, his whole “free speech thing” is nothing more than “speech I like should be more favored by private parties than it currently is”.

onetimeusename 4y ago

yes, it goes against. I think there are vanishingly few actual free speech absolutists, maybe none, and most who say they are actually draw the line somewhere around online harassment, hate speech, copyright, "when an angry mob pressures you", and "when you have no money because no one will advertise with you". Free speech absolutism is illegal. There are laws you must follow or the FBI will come knocking on your door.

stcroixx 4y ago

Agree this goes against free speech. Very disappointing he didn't do as he said and let the law and courts handle this question. Whether free speech is appropriate on a platform like Twitter I don't know or care really. But surely Twitter can't promote itself as a free speech platform while banning Kanye for legal speech.

nemo44x 4y ago

He was breaking the law in countries Twitter is in. Musk explicitly said you can’t break the law.

mikeyouse 4y ago
As others have pointed out, blasphemy is illegal in many countries that Twitter operates in. Are you advocating that Americans who blaspheme should be banned from Twitter because it's illegal in Saudi Arabia? Because otherwise this weird apology for Musk's hypocritical actions doesn't make any sense.
- nemo44x 4y ago
  Twitter respects the EU laws more than KSA. In Germany, this type of thing is illegal for a computer network to host. In KSA it’s the individual that is subject to blasphemy law. If someone were to break that law and go to KSA then they would probably be tortured or killed.

finspeech 4y ago

Agree with everything you said. Especially that what is acceptable speech is dynamic and it’s hard to define. I view the boundaries of acceptable speech as a resource. And like other resources in which we need to allocate in society, we use the power of markets to come to the “fairest” allocation that we can. I believe Elon could implement a “free speech market” on Twitter where Twitter creates an asset which gives the owner the right to ban or allow a particular controversial user. This asset is then auctioned off (providing revenue for Twitter) and then the users get the ultimate control over who is or isn’t allowed on the platform. This also has the benefit of taking the decision making out of the hands of Elon and those at Twitter and giving power directly to the people.

airza 4y ago
I sort of admire the clarity of vision to take the current decade’s political subtext of “people with money should be allowed to dictate the values of society” and turn it into the supertext.
- finspeech 4y ago
  I’m just making the implicit, explicit. At least this way it’s not done in back rooms by power brokers, but out in the open in which everyone can participate. Also, the People have money too. They can organize. I just want to give them a chance to organize and have a seat at the table.
anigbrowl 4y ago
Two points on this.. 1. It sort of is that insofar as advertisers (the actual customers) are free to stop buying ads, but when they do so Musk throws a conniption fit and says not giving him money is a step away from tyranny 2. If there's a tradable 'right to offend' asset then it will either be bought up by wealthy people who are assholes or assholes who raise money from other assholes on the promise that they will be bigger assholes (see also politics, US) I mean, why not have a market for murder, and just limit the number of permits to 10% less than the current homicide totals? The government makes tax revenue and homicide falls by 10%, (almost) everybody wins! Vote for me in '24! do not vote for me

PathOfEclipse 4y ago

Except Musk was never ever for absolute free speech. Also, the free speech absolutists have it wrong. Read speechless: controlling words, controlling minds for a much better and more coherent conservative philosophy on free speech. Absolute free speech is an illusion that has never existed and never will. Our problem in society is that that we censor the wrong kinds of speech and tolerate the wrong kinds of speech. Overton windows aren't bad. Ours has just been corrupted. Musk explicitly said he wants to essentially broaden and fix the tolerance window, not abolish it.

vba616 4y ago
How do we know what Musk is for, let alone what he has been "for" during his entire past life? Your last sentence implies that he "explicitly" says stuff and we should take that at face value. He was openly crowing over being able to hoax/troll the media on Twitter as of just a few days ago. The off-the-wall idea that what he says represents what he believes is constantly promoted even by the people who supposedly are frothing with hatred for him.
RavingGoat 4y ago
This is completely clueless at this point. What Elon is for changes on a day to day basis.

jhedwards 4y ago

Just for reference I believe that the "more speech" idea originated with Louis Brandeis, who was a brilliant thinker and one of the important liberal Supreme Court justices of the 20th century. The actual quote is: "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."[0] Louis Brandeis did believe that context and specifics are important, so I think the technology of the online platform is significant especially with respect to the first part of that quote. [0] https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep274/usrep274357/usrep274357.pdf https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep...

pjc50 4y ago
.. I read through and I think that makes the opposite point! In Whitney v California the California law banning Communist organisation was upheld. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/274/357/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/274/357/ > "Whitney was one of the founders of the Communist Labor Party, which was a radical wing of the Socialist Party that split from the rest of the Party after a convention in 1919. When she attended a convention to organize a California wing of the Labor Party, Whitney exhorted workers to vote for its candidates in elections and advocated for taking political action in a resolution. The Party eventually adopted a more extreme program than what Whitney advocated in her resolution, and she protested to no avail. Whitney was charged with violating the California Criminal Syndicalism Act on the basis that she had helped to organize a group that sought to effect economic and political change through the unlawful use of violence. She argued that she had not intended the organization to act in this way and did not plan to aid it in those objectives, so she should not be charged merely for attending the convention. Whitney claimed that the California law violated the First Amendment." As usual, lots of nice things may have been said about free speech, but in the end she was convicted and jailed for organising a political party.
hackerlight 4y ago
Did he say why he believes this is the best remedy, and is his position backed up by any evidence from psychology, memetics, etc? The evidence I'm aware of leads me to the opposite conclusion. Also he wrote this before social media. He wrote that before fascism swept in on the back of free speech and public persuasion in the 1930s. We're in a new paradigm now and worldviews need to be updated to fit new information and new evidence than what was available during his time.

willis936 4y ago

> There's always a limit to speech, and it's not easy to find It is. Mid 2000s 4chan and more recently 8kun found it immediately. When you remove limiters people slap the rail immediately. What value does it add? No one is learning anything when posting anonymously without moderation, they're just lulling themselves into an easily manipulated state.

anigbrowl 4y ago
It'd be good for John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad theory to make a comeback https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/green-blackboards-and-other-anomalies https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/green-blackboa...
- willis936 4y ago
  I remember Splinter Cell multiplayer. Great map design and assymetrical loadout balance. I can't think of another game that even attempted to balance 1st person and 3rd person gameplay as hard requirements for opposing teams. My favorite memory is playing carnival music through my mic while spinning a grabbed merc around. That and everything about aquarium.

anigbrowl 4y ago

Quite so, it renders the whole thing meaningless. Musk said he was banning West for 'inciting violence' which surprised me and affirmed my feeling that he's either a shallow thinker who doesn't really know what he's doing or is just play-acting. West tweeted an image of a swastika in a star of David - technically an obsolete symbol of the Raelian UFO cult, in practice it suggested Nazis vs Jews to any casual observer. In the context of West's long-simmering beef with Jewish people and current manic episode of shouting about his enthusiasm for Hitler from inside a ski mask, it was certainly meant to taunt and would fit most people's standard for hate speech. But incitement to violence? Not exactly, and that's why I say Musk doesn't seem to know what he's doing. There is an indirect kind of incitement, in that it inciting people to behave like Nazis is synonymous with violence; neo-Nazis might deny the holocaust but are just as likely to follow up with the suggestion that it would be a good idea, and in conversation among themselves are a lot blunter about their desire to do violence, preferably on a grand scale. This is why Nazis complaining about free speech is a bad joke, since their gameplan for pretty much any speech they dislike is to simply kill the speakers. But legally speaking, incitement to violence has a much narrower threshold; it has to be be specific and produce imminent lawless action. For a long time this meant internet speech didn't cunt at all, as jurists figured there couldn't be an imminent risk if the speaker and the recipient were in different places, and that electronic communication was too attenuated to inflame the passions of its receivers. Legislators and courts have somewhat caught up to the realities of the internet age and so things like SWATting or issuing threats by voicemail or online are taken much more seriously than they used to be (to a fault in some jurisdictions like the UK, whose legislators have a Canute-like fondness for prescriptivism). In this sense, West's tweet absolutely is not incitement to violence, because while it endorses Nazism and Jew-hatred in a trollish way, it lacks the specificity (in action, time, or place) to merit a legal charge. It's not impossible that West might end up suing Twitter or Musk personally for defamation, given his wealth, mania, and apparent ability to hold a grudge. Free speech advocates have long wrestled with the ramifications of declaring some speech to be 'hate speech' - I think myself that hate crimes are a legislative punt by making a new and scary-sounding law that doesn't mean very much, rather than clarifying existing law and letting juries weigh the significance of hatred as a possible motivation in the trials of violent crimes. Free speech absolutists, in whose company Musk previously placed himself, generally insist on the narrow legal standard of criminality as the only acceptable reason to inflict bans, and argue that all other speech should proceed unchecked. This argument generally arrives clad in the purple robes of Platonic idealism, though in practice totally un-moderated environments soon resemble an orgy of cynics behaving as obnoxiously as possible to maximize their sense of freedom. So if Musk is just making it up as he goes along, then he's in the situation of alienating everyone to his left and right simultaneously. I don't know how closely he's supervising content moderation decisions, (probably not very) but the reappearance on Twitter of super far right figures like Brett Stephens and Andrew Anglin (currently evading a federal arrest warrant) suggests the 'public square' is going to see regular brawls for a while.