10 ms·

I don’t mean to be a antagonistic but as the owner of twitter why would we expect he not have the right and ability to ban anyone he likes? When it was publicl

I don’t mean to be a antagonistic but as the owner of twitter why would we expect he not have the right and ability to ban anyone he likes? When it was publicly held there was some accountability to the shareholders as part of the public. Now he can literally carry a sink around wherever he wants

OscarCunningham 4y ago
Oh he should have the right to do it, but that doesn't mean we have to like it.
LelouBil 4y ago
Nobody said he didn't have the right to do it. It's his company now. However he said he wanted twitter to be a free speech platform of some sort, so that's seen as hypocritical.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- echelon 4y ago
  Moreover, I think that this erratic behavior is going to crater Tesla stock [1]. Regardless of your political leanings, Twitter Elon is showing signs of weakness, distraction, emotional decision making, and an inability to avoid suboptimal choices. In a very public forum, with all of the world watching and media stacked against him. Elon is looking like he got suckered into buying Twitter and now has to play the difficult and mundane role of private equity turnaround so that he can recoup his -- and his investors' -- funds. It's a huge distraction from his more important businesses. Folks are already asking him to step down as Tesla CEO [2]. Best to kick a dog while he's down. I think Tesla has been overvalued for some time. It's not the only EV company in the world, and soon every company (and domestic production capacity worth its salt) will be pumping out EV options for consumers. This Twitter deal was the activation energy required to jostle the Tesla stock out of its lofty position. I hope I'm wrong, and that things at Twitter begin to stabilize. I think that SpaceX is one of the most important companies in the world right now, and it needs a leader who can continue to push the boundaries of what was thought possible. [1] I'm thinking of putting my money where my mouth is and buying puts, which is something I rarely do. [2] https://www.autoevolution.com/news/unconfirmed-reports-claim-tesla-china-president-will-replace-musk-as-global-ceo-205869.html https://www.autoevolution.com/news/unconfirmed-reports-claim...
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    > I think that this erratic behavior is going to crater Tesla stock Even further? It is at $159 today from well over $300 just a few months ago. The best time for puts was a while ago, it will be a lot harder to make the same kind of money going forward, better be careful.
    - lkrubner 4y ago
      I continue to short Tesla.
    - kshacker 4y ago
      Well after adjusting for splits, it was less than 50 just before covid
  - phlipski 4y ago
    How exactly did Elon get "suckered into buying Twitter"?
    - d23 4y ago
      As I recall, he was taken to court and was on the path to being forced to adhere to his word in the form of a signed contract. I wouldn't call that being suckered.
      - sleepybrett 4y ago
        If he was suckered, he was suckered by his own pride.
    - philistine 4y ago
      We don’t know every detail, and probably never will. If you look at the list of events that happened before he first announced his intentions to buy the company outright, you could intuit that he did not intend to buy the company, and that external elements sweet talked him into it.
  - commandlinefan 4y ago
AlexandrB 4y ago
He certainly has the right to ban anyone. Just like Twitter had the right to do so before he took over. The mismatch is between Elon's rhetoric, which defined this kind of arbitrary moderation as contrary to free speech, and his actions which simply continue the trend but now with a different bias.
- Xylakant 4y ago
  > He certainly has the right to ban anyone. That is not true in all jurisdictions and definitely not in Germany. Since twitter offers it’s services to the general public, bans must be non-discriminatory and are open to challenge in court. Twitter can ban anyone who violates their ToS, but not just anyone Elon dislikes. https://www.e-recht24.de/artikel/marketing-seo/11415-was-koennen-sie-tun-wenn-ihr-twitter-konto-gesperrt-wurde.html#5 https://www.e-recht24.de/artikel/marketing-seo/11415-was-koe...
  - mafuy 4y ago
    That is a bad source (vague article and disreputable, biased site). I do not believe such a thing exists in Germany. The claim certainly needs a proper source.
    - Xylakant 4y ago
      Is a court case that twitter lost a better source? https://www.lhr-law.de/magazin/social-media-recht/olg-dresden-twitter-darf-accounts-nicht-ohne-ausreichenden-grund-sperren/amp/ https://www.lhr-law.de/magazin/social-media-recht/olg-dresde... It’s not surprising this exists. It’s equivalent to the Hausrecht in the physical world - if you make your place available to the public (a bar, restaurant, supermarket) you no longer can kick out just anyone without cause. You can ban people from entering (or make them leave) for reasons, but those must be non-discriminatory and not arbitrary. “I don’t like you nose/hair/color of your skin” won’t work. “You need to wear shoes or leave.” is likely valid.
      - mafuy 4y ago
Someone1234 4y ago
He can do what he likes, but he remains open for criticism for those actions (in particular when the hypocrisy is self-evident). Why do people feel the need to respond to valid criticism with "well technically they're ALLOWED to do [thing]?" That's neither here nor there.
- adra 4y ago
  We'll, technically his company is under a consent decree and that makes a lot of what twitter changes including internal processes under the FTCs mandate, so no Elon can't just do what he wants to and expect no legal repercussions.
- marlowe221 4y ago
  Unfortunately, people often struggle with the difference between "can" and "should"...
  - vineyardmike 4y ago
    And some struggle with can, cannot, and should.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
f38zf5vdt 4y ago
> My commitment to free speech extends even to not banning the account following my plane, even though that is a direct personal safety risk > 7:30 PM · Nov 6, 2022 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1589414958508691456 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1589414958508691456
jmyeet 4y ago
No one is questioning his right to ban people. People are pointing it out because it exposed both hour thin skinned he is and what hypocritical BS his “free speech” utterances are.
- beaned 4y ago
  User falsely claims, without evidence, conspiracy theory of Musk personally banning Twitter accounts.
  - penultimatename 4y ago
    You're responding to a thread with evidence that a Twitter VP targeted an account that Elon has previously shown interest in. Next you'll tell me that Nixon didn't know anything.
    - beaned 4y ago
      When people make leaps of logic regarding a wide assortment of things, we call it what it is: a conspiracy theory, lacking evidence, and false. Likely later it will turn out to be true, but it isn't yet, so we are obligated to frame it this way to fight the spread of misinformation. This thread is full of people who have a hypocritical stance on this approach to information sharing. I just wish they'd be consistent.
      - cycomanic 4y ago
        But there is evidence. Even if we are the most generous and say Elon himself did not know about this, do you really believe a VP would take this action if they don't believe it is what their boss wishes? Take the other example I posted further up thread [1], Musk asked Andy Ngo directly "what are the accounts we should look at" and after that a bunch of the accounts get banned. Yes Musk did likely not press the ban button himself, but the evidence is overwhelming that he supports and initiated these actions. https://theintercept.com/2022/11/29/elon-musk-twitter-andy-ngo-antifascist/ https://theintercept.com/2022/11/29/elon-musk-twitter-andy-n...
danans 4y ago
> why would we expect he not have the right and ability to ban anyone he likes? We don't expect that. He absolutely does have the right to do that. Pointing out his banning of the account simply demonstrates his free-speech absolutist hypocrisy. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1589414958508691456 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1589414958508691456
- toofy 4y ago
  it’s worse than simple hypocrisy. it demonstrates that he very well understands that posting things can lead to safety concerns. he is gleeful when some people or groups have safety concerns from posts. often he actively mocks them and portrays them as unreasonable if they express safety concerns and ask for some kind of help.
- hajile 4y ago
  Following someone around and posting their location to the world would be considered doxxing in other cases.
  - paulryanrogers 4y ago
    Jets pollute and use a lot of finite resources. Tracking them is necessary for aviation safety. So making that info more public doesn't strike me as such a violation of privacy. If Elon is concerned maybe he could just rent a jet as needed instead of keeping one all to himself.
    - hajile 4y ago
      That argument is completely unrelated. If they were publishing "Elon has flown X miles, used Y fuel and created Z emissions in the past T time" that would be far different than what they do. You are reaching for excuses that can't possibly apply. Perhaps you should ask why you'd go so far to excuse this doxxing, but not others. I personally dislike Musk and view him as a conman. I take issue with several things he's done at Twitter and even more with what he's done at companies like Boring Company, Paypal, or Tesla (eg, promising the first car to the actual founder then launching it into space just to spite them). People here just managed to find a thing where he happens to be right (whether it comes from personal pettiness or actual principle).
lytedev 4y ago
I don't think anybody didn't expect he would have the right or ability, but doing something like this sets a precedent that may turn many folks off of Twitter and cause folks to cry "Censorship!" which I believe is something Elon touted he would explicitly avoid.
purephase 4y ago
- chc 4y ago
  The "Twitter Files" also generally fail to make that case for the site's previous ownership. For example, they attempted to show that there was censorship of Hunter Biden discussion, but nearly every example in the thread was just explicit nudes of Hunter Biden being removed because revenge porn is against the rules. They also claimed to show a bias against the account "Libs of TikTok," but the evidence they presented showed that the account was actually given preferential treatment, with a flag on the account to not impose any penalties on the account without first getting the OK from management. So it's pretty rich to stretch that far to whine about imaginary censorship and then just blatantly censor speech you don't like.
- kergonath 4y ago
  > I know this site will always continue to support Musk I agree with your other points, but this is missing the mark. There is some degree of editorial control over what “this site” publishes, but none on the comments (you’d had to go quite far to get banned). “This site” is not a homogenous single-minded entity. And you don’t have to dig far to see both stories and comments very critical of Musk. I happen to share that point of view, but that’s besides the point.
- tibbydudeza 4y ago
  The Musk cult don't care - they are bedazzled by their shiny toys.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
idontpost 4y ago
Someone 4y ago
He can, as long as he stays within the laws. However, this makes him look bad, given he repeatedly claimed that the Twitter takeover was to make Twitter more pro free speech. Examples: Two months ago he tweeted (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1586059953311137792 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1586059953311137792): “Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with widely diverse viewpoints. No major content decisions or account reinstatements will happen before that council convenes“ Five weeks ago he tweeted (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1589414958508691456 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1589414958508691456): “My commitment to free speech extends even to not banning the account following my plane, even though that is a direct personal safety risk“ And yes, people can change their opinion, but this seems more like Twitter will be in favor of free speech, as long as Elon likes it.
- nightski 4y ago
  It makes him look bad to those who hated him already (many commentators here), but to be frank it doesn't really matter. The previous bans were controversial because they marginalized a voice. It was never about the specific people in question. It was basically invalidating the voice of many people since these were highly influential people or politicians. There's a huge difference. I'm not taking a position on those particular people in any way, just saying that most people don't care about ElonJet in the slightest and why catching him on technicality here doesn't matter (in my humble opinion).
  - D13Fd 4y ago
    I don't particularly care about Musk and I don't use Twitter. I also think the decision to ban a page that makes already-public information about a specific person's jet's location very-much-more-public is pretty easily supportable. But even so, I find the hypocrisy pretty interesting here. This person bought a company for $44b to improve transparency, specifically said he wasn't going to ban this account to show his commitment to transparency, and then his new company banned the account about a month later. Not only that, but the company didn't ban the related accounts showing the location of others who didn't happen to buy the company out of their commitment to transparency. Come on, that's interesting no matter what your view on the individual.
adfghoinioasdgk 4y ago
This is not, in my mind, an issue of free speech. It is an issue of wealth and power. The right to free speech entails the right to censorship. I can freely throw someone out of my house for expressing something I dislike. A publisher can refuse to publish someone's work for any reason. If someone expresses an idea others find distasteful, it is their right to boycott that person and anyone associated with them. My problem is not with the censorship. It is with the money. Our oligarchs are comparable in power to royalty of old, and they act with no oversight and no accountability. Musk was able to waltz in and start dictating terms to millions of people. One man should not have that kind of power. I will not claim to know where the lines should be drawn. It is clearly OK for someone to run a newsletter about local Yorkshire Terrier breeders with an iron fist, but it is clearly not OK to run a global monopoly of a social media company in the same way. I don't know what happens in the middle ground.
browningstreet 4y ago
Elon’s criticism of the former twitter is that they went against published policies or enacted them against one group more than another. Now twitter doesn’t really have policies, just Elon’s whims. And those can change at any time and without any external consensus. No one knows what the rules are.
kweingar 4y ago
Replace Twitter with any other private company and see what you think. For example, Valve is a private company that can ban anyone they like from Steam, but we wouldn’t hear this defense if a publisher get banned capriciously and lost their income.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
noncoml 4y ago
I assume you are ok with the previous owner banning Trump?
stjohnswarts 4y ago
No one said he doesn't have the right to do it. We're just pointing out that he said he was a "free speech absolutist", that he would allow "both sides", and he said in an actual tweet, "I won't ban @elonjet". He is a hypocrite on multiple front, and we're just pointing that out to his fans who have musk colored glasses evidently

OscarCunningham 4y ago

Oh he should have the right to do it, but that doesn't mean we have to like it.

LelouBil 4y ago

Nobody said he didn't have the right to do it. It's his company now. However he said he wanted twitter to be a free speech platform of some sort, so that's seen as hypocritical.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
echelon 4y ago
Moreover, I think that this erratic behavior is going to crater Tesla stock [1]. Regardless of your political leanings, Twitter Elon is showing signs of weakness, distraction, emotional decision making, and an inability to avoid suboptimal choices. In a very public forum, with all of the world watching and media stacked against him. Elon is looking like he got suckered into buying Twitter and now has to play the difficult and mundane role of private equity turnaround so that he can recoup his -- and his investors' -- funds. It's a huge distraction from his more important businesses. Folks are already asking him to step down as Tesla CEO [2]. Best to kick a dog while he's down. I think Tesla has been overvalued for some time. It's not the only EV company in the world, and soon every company (and domestic production capacity worth its salt) will be pumping out EV options for consumers. This Twitter deal was the activation energy required to jostle the Tesla stock out of its lofty position. I hope I'm wrong, and that things at Twitter begin to stabilize. I think that SpaceX is one of the most important companies in the world right now, and it needs a leader who can continue to push the boundaries of what was thought possible. [1] I'm thinking of putting my money where my mouth is and buying puts, which is something I rarely do. [2] https://www.autoevolution.com/news/unconfirmed-reports-claim-tesla-china-president-will-replace-musk-as-global-ceo-205869.html https://www.autoevolution.com/news/unconfirmed-reports-claim...
- jacquesm 4y ago
  > I think that this erratic behavior is going to crater Tesla stock Even further? It is at $159 today from well over $300 just a few months ago. The best time for puts was a while ago, it will be a lot harder to make the same kind of money going forward, better be careful.
  - lkrubner 4y ago
    I continue to short Tesla.
  - kshacker 4y ago
    Well after adjusting for splits, it was less than 50 just before covid
- phlipski 4y ago
  How exactly did Elon get "suckered into buying Twitter"?
  - d23 4y ago
    As I recall, he was taken to court and was on the path to being forced to adhere to his word in the form of a signed contract. I wouldn't call that being suckered.
    - sleepybrett 4y ago
      If he was suckered, he was suckered by his own pride.
  - philistine 4y ago
    We don’t know every detail, and probably never will. If you look at the list of events that happened before he first announced his intentions to buy the company outright, you could intuit that he did not intend to buy the company, and that external elements sweet talked him into it.
- commandlinefan 4y ago

AlexandrB 4y ago

He certainly has the right to ban anyone. Just like Twitter had the right to do so before he took over. The mismatch is between Elon's rhetoric, which defined this kind of arbitrary moderation as contrary to free speech, and his actions which simply continue the trend but now with a different bias.

Xylakant 4y ago
> He certainly has the right to ban anyone. That is not true in all jurisdictions and definitely not in Germany. Since twitter offers it’s services to the general public, bans must be non-discriminatory and are open to challenge in court. Twitter can ban anyone who violates their ToS, but not just anyone Elon dislikes. https://www.e-recht24.de/artikel/marketing-seo/11415-was-koennen-sie-tun-wenn-ihr-twitter-konto-gesperrt-wurde.html#5 https://www.e-recht24.de/artikel/marketing-seo/11415-was-koe...
- mafuy 4y ago
  That is a bad source (vague article and disreputable, biased site). I do not believe such a thing exists in Germany. The claim certainly needs a proper source.
  - Xylakant 4y ago
    Is a court case that twitter lost a better source? https://www.lhr-law.de/magazin/social-media-recht/olg-dresden-twitter-darf-accounts-nicht-ohne-ausreichenden-grund-sperren/amp/ https://www.lhr-law.de/magazin/social-media-recht/olg-dresde... It’s not surprising this exists. It’s equivalent to the Hausrecht in the physical world - if you make your place available to the public (a bar, restaurant, supermarket) you no longer can kick out just anyone without cause. You can ban people from entering (or make them leave) for reasons, but those must be non-discriminatory and not arbitrary. “I don’t like you nose/hair/color of your skin” won’t work. “You need to wear shoes or leave.” is likely valid.
    - mafuy 4y ago

Someone1234 4y ago

He can do what he likes, but he remains open for criticism for those actions (in particular when the hypocrisy is self-evident). Why do people feel the need to respond to valid criticism with "well technically they're ALLOWED to do [thing]?" That's neither here nor there.

adra 4y ago
We'll, technically his company is under a consent decree and that makes a lot of what twitter changes including internal processes under the FTCs mandate, so no Elon can't just do what he wants to and expect no legal repercussions.
marlowe221 4y ago
Unfortunately, people often struggle with the difference between "can" and "should"...
- vineyardmike 4y ago
  And some struggle with can, cannot, and should.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

f38zf5vdt 4y ago

> My commitment to free speech extends even to not banning the account following my plane, even though that is a direct personal safety risk > 7:30 PM · Nov 6, 2022 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1589414958508691456 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1589414958508691456

jmyeet 4y ago

No one is questioning his right to ban people. People are pointing it out because it exposed both hour thin skinned he is and what hypocritical BS his “free speech” utterances are.

beaned 4y ago
User falsely claims, without evidence, conspiracy theory of Musk personally banning Twitter accounts.
- penultimatename 4y ago
  You're responding to a thread with evidence that a Twitter VP targeted an account that Elon has previously shown interest in. Next you'll tell me that Nixon didn't know anything.
  - beaned 4y ago
    When people make leaps of logic regarding a wide assortment of things, we call it what it is: a conspiracy theory, lacking evidence, and false. Likely later it will turn out to be true, but it isn't yet, so we are obligated to frame it this way to fight the spread of misinformation. This thread is full of people who have a hypocritical stance on this approach to information sharing. I just wish they'd be consistent.
    - cycomanic 4y ago
      But there is evidence. Even if we are the most generous and say Elon himself did not know about this, do you really believe a VP would take this action if they don't believe it is what their boss wishes? Take the other example I posted further up thread [1], Musk asked Andy Ngo directly "what are the accounts we should look at" and after that a bunch of the accounts get banned. Yes Musk did likely not press the ban button himself, but the evidence is overwhelming that he supports and initiated these actions. https://theintercept.com/2022/11/29/elon-musk-twitter-andy-ngo-antifascist/ https://theintercept.com/2022/11/29/elon-musk-twitter-andy-n...

danans 4y ago

> why would we expect he not have the right and ability to ban anyone he likes? We don't expect that. He absolutely does have the right to do that. Pointing out his banning of the account simply demonstrates his free-speech absolutist hypocrisy. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1589414958508691456 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1589414958508691456

toofy 4y ago
it’s worse than simple hypocrisy. it demonstrates that he very well understands that posting things can lead to safety concerns. he is gleeful when some people or groups have safety concerns from posts. often he actively mocks them and portrays them as unreasonable if they express safety concerns and ask for some kind of help.
hajile 4y ago
Following someone around and posting their location to the world would be considered doxxing in other cases.
- paulryanrogers 4y ago
  Jets pollute and use a lot of finite resources. Tracking them is necessary for aviation safety. So making that info more public doesn't strike me as such a violation of privacy. If Elon is concerned maybe he could just rent a jet as needed instead of keeping one all to himself.
  - hajile 4y ago
    That argument is completely unrelated. If they were publishing "Elon has flown X miles, used Y fuel and created Z emissions in the past T time" that would be far different than what they do. You are reaching for excuses that can't possibly apply. Perhaps you should ask why you'd go so far to excuse this doxxing, but not others. I personally dislike Musk and view him as a conman. I take issue with several things he's done at Twitter and even more with what he's done at companies like Boring Company, Paypal, or Tesla (eg, promising the first car to the actual founder then launching it into space just to spite them). People here just managed to find a thing where he happens to be right (whether it comes from personal pettiness or actual principle).

lytedev 4y ago

I don't think anybody didn't expect he would have the right or ability, but doing something like this sets a precedent that may turn many folks off of Twitter and cause folks to cry "Censorship!" which I believe is something Elon touted he would explicitly avoid.

purephase 4y ago

chc 4y ago
The "Twitter Files" also generally fail to make that case for the site's previous ownership. For example, they attempted to show that there was censorship of Hunter Biden discussion, but nearly every example in the thread was just explicit nudes of Hunter Biden being removed because revenge porn is against the rules. They also claimed to show a bias against the account "Libs of TikTok," but the evidence they presented showed that the account was actually given preferential treatment, with a flag on the account to not impose any penalties on the account without first getting the OK from management. So it's pretty rich to stretch that far to whine about imaginary censorship and then just blatantly censor speech you don't like.
kergonath 4y ago
> I know this site will always continue to support Musk I agree with your other points, but this is missing the mark. There is some degree of editorial control over what “this site” publishes, but none on the comments (you’d had to go quite far to get banned). “This site” is not a homogenous single-minded entity. And you don’t have to dig far to see both stories and comments very critical of Musk. I happen to share that point of view, but that’s besides the point.
tibbydudeza 4y ago
The Musk cult don't care - they are bedazzled by their shiny toys.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

idontpost 4y ago

Someone 4y ago

He can, as long as he stays within the laws. However, this makes him look bad, given he repeatedly claimed that the Twitter takeover was to make Twitter more pro free speech. Examples: Two months ago he tweeted (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1586059953311137792 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1586059953311137792): “Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with widely diverse viewpoints. No major content decisions or account reinstatements will happen before that council convenes“ Five weeks ago he tweeted (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1589414958508691456 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1589414958508691456): “My commitment to free speech extends even to not banning the account following my plane, even though that is a direct personal safety risk“ And yes, people can change their opinion, but this seems more like Twitter will be in favor of free speech, as long as Elon likes it.

nightski 4y ago
It makes him look bad to those who hated him already (many commentators here), but to be frank it doesn't really matter. The previous bans were controversial because they marginalized a voice. It was never about the specific people in question. It was basically invalidating the voice of many people since these were highly influential people or politicians. There's a huge difference. I'm not taking a position on those particular people in any way, just saying that most people don't care about ElonJet in the slightest and why catching him on technicality here doesn't matter (in my humble opinion).
- D13Fd 4y ago
  I don't particularly care about Musk and I don't use Twitter. I also think the decision to ban a page that makes already-public information about a specific person's jet's location very-much-more-public is pretty easily supportable. But even so, I find the hypocrisy pretty interesting here. This person bought a company for $44b to improve transparency, specifically said he wasn't going to ban this account to show his commitment to transparency, and then his new company banned the account about a month later. Not only that, but the company didn't ban the related accounts showing the location of others who didn't happen to buy the company out of their commitment to transparency. Come on, that's interesting no matter what your view on the individual.

adfghoinioasdgk 4y ago

This is not, in my mind, an issue of free speech. It is an issue of wealth and power. The right to free speech entails the right to censorship. I can freely throw someone out of my house for expressing something I dislike. A publisher can refuse to publish someone's work for any reason. If someone expresses an idea others find distasteful, it is their right to boycott that person and anyone associated with them. My problem is not with the censorship. It is with the money. Our oligarchs are comparable in power to royalty of old, and they act with no oversight and no accountability. Musk was able to waltz in and start dictating terms to millions of people. One man should not have that kind of power. I will not claim to know where the lines should be drawn. It is clearly OK for someone to run a newsletter about local Yorkshire Terrier breeders with an iron fist, but it is clearly not OK to run a global monopoly of a social media company in the same way. I don't know what happens in the middle ground.

browningstreet 4y ago

Elon’s criticism of the former twitter is that they went against published policies or enacted them against one group more than another. Now twitter doesn’t really have policies, just Elon’s whims. And those can change at any time and without any external consensus. No one knows what the rules are.

kweingar 4y ago

Replace Twitter with any other private company and see what you think. For example, Valve is a private company that can ban anyone they like from Steam, but we wouldn’t hear this defense if a publisher get banned capriciously and lost their income.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

noncoml 4y ago

I assume you are ok with the previous owner banning Trump?

stjohnswarts 4y ago

No one said he doesn't have the right to do it. We're just pointing out that he said he was a "free speech absolutist", that he would allow "both sides", and he said in an actual tweet, "I won't ban @elonjet". He is a hypocrite on multiple front, and we're just pointing that out to his fans who have musk colored glasses evidently