5 ms·

Ok... so according to this article, Elon can start censoring Democrats and any left wing ideas and that should be ok, right? That wouldn't violate free speech.

by proc0 4y ago

Ok... so according to this article, Elon can start censoring Democrats and any left wing ideas and that should be ok, right? That wouldn't violate free speech. He can get funding from the RNC, work with Republicans who are not in government, and let them dictate how the platform should be run. Twitter can become a right wing haven, having massive amounts of influence on the public without any challenge from the other side, and that should be perfectly fine, correct? I see it like this: there are two sides... the side that is ok with double standards, and the side that thinks double standards are unfair. This article is arguing in favor of double standards. It's crazy how people can argue for double standards, and still think you're on the good side.

sidibe 4y ago
> Ok... so according to this article, Elon can start censoring Democrats and any left wing ideas and that should be ok, right? That wouldn't violate free speech. He can get funding from the RNC, work with Republicans who are not in government, and let them dictate how the platform should be run. Twitter can become a right wing haven, having massive amounts of influence on the public without any challenge from the other side, and that should be perfectly fine, correct? As far as the 1st amendment goes: correct.
- proc0 4y ago
  Then great, that is consistent. I just doubt that would be the case. I think the actual justification for banning one political side is not "it's a private company", but rather "it allows our side to win".
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > I think the actual justification for banning one political side is not “it’s a private company” That wasn’t the claimed justification. (That is the reason it is not a violation of Constitutional free speech, but not the reason for the action.)
  - jshen 4y ago
    No one banned one political side except Fox News
jshen 4y ago
What’s the double standard? A private company can choose to be partisan. See Fox News or Truth Social.
- proc0 4y ago
  So if Trump goes back on twitter, and he gains massive popularity winning the 2024 election, there is no problem right? If so, there is no double standard, but I seriously doubt those who celebrated his ban, will now be ok with his return, despite the reasoning being the same.
  - jshen 4y ago
    I truly don’t understand your point. People can complain about Trump being on there. They can threaten to leave Twitter. Advertisers can pull out of Twitter. Twitter can choose to allow him to stay or ban him. Where is there a problem here?
    - proc0 4y ago
      My interpretation of the article is that they're excusing direct interference by a government entity just because they're not directly in power (but obviously power is their objective). This implies that it would be justified for Trump to influence Twitter and have them ban people who speak against Trump, and this article should defend that as well. I have a feeling people would not see those two cases as equal. If they do, then great, that's consistent, but I'm pretty sure there are going to be massive protests, and that highlights the double standard. Sure, people can leave, complain, protest etc., my point is, that is a double standard.
      - jshen 4y ago
        They aren’t a government entity!!!
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > So if Trump goes back on twitter, and he gains massive popularity winning the 2024 election, there is no problem right? There may be a problem, but the problem isn’t a free speech problem. > If so, there is no double standard, but I seriously doubt those who celebrated his ban, will now be ok with his return, despite the reasoning being the same. The reasoning behind the ban was inciting violence. If he is returned for the same reason, that’s…problematic from the moral perspective that sees inciting violence as problematic, whereas the ban is not. That’s not a double standard.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Elon can start censoring Democrats and any left wing ideas and that should be ok, right? Constitutionally, yes. (And, that’s good for him, since he has done that.) > He can get funding from the RNC I mean, he could, but since his resources are vastly greater than the RNCs, that would hardly make any difference one way or the other. > work with Republicans who are not in government, and let them dictate how the platform should be run. Coordinating with candidates would likely break federal campaign finance laws, but it wouldn’t violate Constitutional free speech protections. > Twitter can become a right wing haven, having massive amounts of influence on the public without any challenge from the other side, and that should be perfectly fine, correct? Well, I mean, it can try. It probably won’t be any more durably successful than all the other attempts to create right-wing social media havens, turning into a circle jerk preaching-to-the-choir zone that is unattractive to advertisers or any other mechanism of monetization, where even the right wingers lose interest because they have no one to influence. Twitter had a right-wing bias before Musk took over. Trying to push it over into Parler/Gab/Truth Social territory is perfectly legal, but not likely to be particularly sustainable as a business (though Musk is rich enough that as long as he is willing to continue depleting the wealth he has generated from other sources to fund it, he can probably keep it going for quite a while.)
- proc0 4y ago
  Well, great. That sounds consistent. One minor point thought, political bias doesn't mean the platform leans in that direction, but rather the platform is actively pushing in that direction by censoring opinions on the opposite side. I don't think Twitter was right-leaning this way before, and I would rather it stay truly open for everyone. It's different if the platform is open, everyone has a voice, and the culture still pushes it in one or the other direction.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > political bias doesn’t mean the platform leans in that direction That’s exactly, literally what bias means. > but rather the platform is actively pushing in that direction No, active agenda and bias are not the same thing.

by proc0 4y ago

sidibe 4y ago

> Ok... so according to this article, Elon can start censoring Democrats and any left wing ideas and that should be ok, right? That wouldn't violate free speech. He can get funding from the RNC, work with Republicans who are not in government, and let them dictate how the platform should be run. Twitter can become a right wing haven, having massive amounts of influence on the public without any challenge from the other side, and that should be perfectly fine, correct? As far as the 1st amendment goes: correct.

proc0 4y ago
Then great, that is consistent. I just doubt that would be the case. I think the actual justification for banning one political side is not "it's a private company", but rather "it allows our side to win".
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > I think the actual justification for banning one political side is not “it’s a private company” That wasn’t the claimed justification. (That is the reason it is not a violation of Constitutional free speech, but not the reason for the action.)
- jshen 4y ago
  No one banned one political side except Fox News

jshen 4y ago

What’s the double standard? A private company can choose to be partisan. See Fox News or Truth Social.

proc0 4y ago
So if Trump goes back on twitter, and he gains massive popularity winning the 2024 election, there is no problem right? If so, there is no double standard, but I seriously doubt those who celebrated his ban, will now be ok with his return, despite the reasoning being the same.
- jshen 4y ago
  I truly don’t understand your point. People can complain about Trump being on there. They can threaten to leave Twitter. Advertisers can pull out of Twitter. Twitter can choose to allow him to stay or ban him. Where is there a problem here?
  - proc0 4y ago
    My interpretation of the article is that they're excusing direct interference by a government entity just because they're not directly in power (but obviously power is their objective). This implies that it would be justified for Trump to influence Twitter and have them ban people who speak against Trump, and this article should defend that as well. I have a feeling people would not see those two cases as equal. If they do, then great, that's consistent, but I'm pretty sure there are going to be massive protests, and that highlights the double standard. Sure, people can leave, complain, protest etc., my point is, that is a double standard.
    - jshen 4y ago
      They aren’t a government entity!!!
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > So if Trump goes back on twitter, and he gains massive popularity winning the 2024 election, there is no problem right? There may be a problem, but the problem isn’t a free speech problem. > If so, there is no double standard, but I seriously doubt those who celebrated his ban, will now be ok with his return, despite the reasoning being the same. The reasoning behind the ban was inciting violence. If he is returned for the same reason, that’s…problematic from the moral perspective that sees inciting violence as problematic, whereas the ban is not. That’s not a double standard.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> Elon can start censoring Democrats and any left wing ideas and that should be ok, right? Constitutionally, yes. (And, that’s good for him, since he has done that.) > He can get funding from the RNC I mean, he could, but since his resources are vastly greater than the RNCs, that would hardly make any difference one way or the other. > work with Republicans who are not in government, and let them dictate how the platform should be run. Coordinating with candidates would likely break federal campaign finance laws, but it wouldn’t violate Constitutional free speech protections. > Twitter can become a right wing haven, having massive amounts of influence on the public without any challenge from the other side, and that should be perfectly fine, correct? Well, I mean, it can try. It probably won’t be any more durably successful than all the other attempts to create right-wing social media havens, turning into a circle jerk preaching-to-the-choir zone that is unattractive to advertisers or any other mechanism of monetization, where even the right wingers lose interest because they have no one to influence. Twitter had a right-wing bias before Musk took over. Trying to push it over into Parler/Gab/Truth Social territory is perfectly legal, but not likely to be particularly sustainable as a business (though Musk is rich enough that as long as he is willing to continue depleting the wealth he has generated from other sources to fund it, he can probably keep it going for quite a while.)

proc0 4y ago
Well, great. That sounds consistent. One minor point thought, political bias doesn't mean the platform leans in that direction, but rather the platform is actively pushing in that direction by censoring opinions on the opposite side. I don't think Twitter was right-leaning this way before, and I would rather it stay truly open for everyone. It's different if the platform is open, everyone has a voice, and the culture still pushes it in one or the other direction.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > political bias doesn’t mean the platform leans in that direction That’s exactly, literally what bias means. > but rather the platform is actively pushing in that direction No, active agenda and bias are not the same thing.