16 ms·

I understand this move, but need to point out how hypocritical this is for Mr. Free Speech. Basically, his entire tenure so far has been "free speech for me an

I understand this move, but need to point out how hypocritical this is for Mr. Free Speech. Basically, his entire tenure so far has been "free speech for me and the accounts that were rightfully banned for violating the TOS!" in public, and then "we'll deboost anyone who doesn't pay me a subscription" and "let's selectively release internal comms in a misleading way to make normal company operation in good faith seem like a liberal conspiracy."

bobleeswagger 4y ago
40four 4y ago
I'm flabbergasted by the overwhelming response that this account should be allowed "in the name of Free Speech". This isn't a free speech issue. This is a personal safety issue. It is a personal attack towards Musk. As high profile as he is, and the amount of controversy surrounding him, he certainly has a target on his back. I consider that account a form of Doxxing, and I can't think of any good reason it should be allowed to exist. It feels like everyone is so upset with Elon, that we all want to play this game of "Gotcha" with every move he makes. Doesn't seem like anyone is considering that account is a real safety/ security issue for him.
- kweingar 4y ago
  I honestly would not have cared about the account being banned, except for the fact that Musk won points for nobly saying he would not ban the account.
  - ncr100 4y ago
    The real concern is whether Musk will direct Terrorism to Jack Schwartz's doorstep, like he did with the former exec & the CP accusations.
- encoderer 4y ago
  You’re “flabbergasted”? This is publicly available information. What exactly is the safety threat with this twitter acct?
  - bobleeswagger 4y ago
    Publicly available information is... publicly available information. Singling out public information and publishing it to single out one person when there are safety and security implications is crossing the line distinctly into what we call doxxing. Just curious, how long have you been on the internet? Would you like an account like this to exist tracking everything you do?
    - 40four 4y ago
      Thank you, well put. It's like everyone's incredible amount of hate towards Elon is blinding them to the human aspect of this. Never seen such overwhelming support for a doxxing account. Let's not forget to be humans guys.
      - timeon 4y ago
        I do not find it well put because it is moving the goal-post. Topic is not if the account is ethical or if it is right to ban account like this. Point is about banning it from the position of 'free speech absolutist'. Free speech absolutists wants to ensure freedom of express also for things that could be considered as unethical.
        bobleeswagger 4y ago
        All the kid had to do was make it a little more general, a little less targeted. Nobody is moving goalposts except for folks like you.
      - bobleeswagger 4y ago
        You know what really makes it hilarious? All this kid had to do was do a little more work: Track more celebrities and top dollar folks. Make it general. Maybe they'd converge on him, but at least Elon wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Instead this kid does minimal work, it goes viral, and everyone is crying about it. Pathetic. I'm loving the selective memories so many folks have here, acting as though they are remotely consistent with application of ethics.
- eptcyka 4y ago
  Is someone paying you to outcry the publishing of already public information?
  - bobleeswagger 4y ago
- bobleeswagger 4y ago
- wprl 4y ago
  And preventing the triggered and willful spread of disinformation about our elections and public health is not a safety issue??
- nerdawson 4y ago
  I'm failing to see the safety threat here. The account republishes publicly available information. I'd hardly consider that doxxing. Flight data isn't private. Elon pointed to the existence of the account as demonstrating his attitude towards free speech and as far we all can tell, nothing has changed.
- phillipcarter 4y ago
  You're not flabbergasted and you don't believe it's doxxing. You just support your boy Elon.
  - 40four 4y ago
    I couldn't care less about Elon, unlike seemingly everyone else here. It's not about him. I would not support that type of account if it were targeting Brad Pitt, POTUS, or even my next door neighbor.
- acover 4y ago
  What is the actual risk? I suspect he's way more likely to get into a car crash. The information about his plane's location is already public. Posting it to twitter just makes it spread further. Also, a plane's location isn't very useful. Even doxxing someone's permanent address (not that elon has one) is a pretty minimal threat to their life. A plane's location is some of the less dangerous speech allowed.
  - 40four 4y ago
    It should be obvious, but to a crazy person who is interested in harming Elon, this is a gift wrapped up under the Christmas tree. Great, now they can wait outside the airport, or know that he just flew home to Austin tonight, or landed in SF to go to Twitter HQ. Nobody would know what jet Elon owned if it weren't for that account.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- vlunkr 4y ago
  Seems like you're explaining exactly the intent of this account: Proving that putting free speech above all other values on an internet forum isn't always a good idea, even if it's legal. No one actually thinks this account is valuable on it's own. This "Gotcha" is a hugely important point that Musk doesn't understand.
- kareemsabri 4y ago
  I'm not sure you understand what free speech is. Being able to claim someone's speech makes you "unsafe" is akin to "words are violence" that the pro free speech crowd objects to. Elon may face a greater risk of harm with the world having a way to guess his location (broadly) but that's not a case to silence speech. It should also be noted he's a billionaire. Have you seen Zuckerberg's security spending?
- spoils19 4y ago
  Why do you care so much, if he (supposedly) doesn't? https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1589414958508691456 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1589414958508691456
  - 40four 4y ago
    Because it's common sense? I honestly was not aware of that tweet before I posted this today. But you and others have pointed it out to me. Interesting he explicitly states it's a direct threat to his personal safety. Kind of strengthens my point no? Sure he said he would let it continue a month and a half ago, but upon further consideration, and the amount of attention it was getting I don't think it's outrageous at all for him to change his mind.
calculatte 4y ago
- butterlesstoast 4y ago
  Sounds like a lot of feelings and not a lot of scientific thinking.
  - bobleeswagger 4y ago
overgard 4y ago
So we have a company headquartered in SF, and I think something like 98% of twitter's political donations went to democrats, and the employees acted as constant activists whenever the executives didn't take action against high level conservatives (I'll leave aside whether that action was justified or not). Also, if you read the twitter files, the enforcement was fairly lopsided. Look what happened to @libsoftiktok -- constant labels and suspensions even though they admitted that they couldn't actually find rule breaks. They just didn't like the "intent". And when that account got doxxed -- which is dangerous and malicious -- the company did nothing. I don't think you need to call it a liberal conspiracy, it's just very clear that twitter has/had a very particular bias based on the facts alone.
- qlm 4y ago
  - treeman79 4y ago
    What absolute garbage. Basically anything that you don’t like is now considered terrorism. Free speech is completely dead under this logic.
  - PortiaBerries 4y ago
    Surely you need to provide some details to justify such an accusation.
  - colordrops 4y ago
    > stochastic terrorism This is an interesting term that is worth exploring. A problem with it is that it could apply to huge swaths of people and organizations, e.g. Fox News, the Republican Party, CNN, Democratic Socialists, etc
  - pseudo0 4y ago
    If stochastic terrorism is speech that makes violent acts against an individual or group more likely, isn't ElonJet engaging in stochastic terrorism by making it easier for a radicalized crazy person to find Elon and harm him in real life? I personally think the concept of stochastic terrorism is a rhetorical trick to associate legal speech with terrorism, but I think the argument applies just as well to ElonJet.
bko 4y ago
I think a reasonable policy would be you can't post the location of people against their will. Seems like a big security concern. Just because its publicly accessible by some means doesn't mean its okay to blast out. If you agree its fine, would you apply the same reasoning to [favorite politician]? How about a bot that crowdsources the whereabouts of [politician] at any time?
- chrisoverzero 4y ago
  >If you agree its fine, would you apply the same reasoning to [favorite politician]? What, like Air Force One? https://twitter.com/USAirForceVIP https://twitter.com/USAirForceVIP
  - bko 4y ago
    He has the best security detail in the world, but yeah, seems like an unnecessary security risk. I'm sure if a federal agency requested this bot be taken down as a security concern it would be a reasonable request. More reasonable that many other requests made under the veil of "security"
    - mike_d 4y ago
      > I'm sure if a federal agency requested this bot be taken down Which they wouldn't do because the secret service isn't stupid. They know that current location has very little impact on security. It is future movements that allow you to plan an attack, which are closely guarded.
- madeofpalk 4y ago
  Is flightradar24.com a security concern? Note that the account wasn't about the location of a specific person, but rather the (public) location of a specific aircraft (own/used by a specific person). It's not like someone was tailing Elon and reporting their every location - planes must broadcast their location through use of ADS-B. It is public information. > If you agree its fine, would you apply the same reasoning to [favorite politician]? Yes.
spritefs 4y ago
Yeah I agree that Elon is full of shit, but there's a little lie in here that needs to be addressed: > normal company operation in good faith But it wasn't "normal company operation" because they completely disregarded preexisting company policy for dealing with political figures. Here are political figures that they didn't ban (who were inciting violence) > 20. In June 2018, Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei tweeted, “#Israel is a malignant cancerous tumor in the West Asian region that has to be removed and eradicated: it is possible and it will happen.” > 21. In October 2020, the former Malaysian Prime Minister said it was “a right” for Muslims to “kill millions of French people.” But they banned the former president. What they were doing wasn't "normal company operation", it was a bunch of power tripping people in upper management (like Roth) who "took it upon themselves" to disregard preexisting company policies for some odd reason You can dislike Trump/Elon/et al, but the "normal company operation" bit is an outright distortion of what actually happened source: https://nitter.net/bariweiss/status/1602370518585221120#m https://nitter.net/bariweiss/status/1602370518585221120#m
- bobmaxup 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_suspensions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_suspensions
- threeseed 4y ago
  > because they completely disregarded preexisting company policy for dealing with political figures That was the company policy. Public figures were largely exempt from the rules except when their tweet was egregious. Not sure why you think this is some conspiracy when it was blatantly obvious.
  - spritefs 4y ago
    > Public figures were largely exempt from the rules except when their tweet was egregious. So are you saying that the two tweets I posted above aren't egregious? > Not sure why you think this is some conspiracy when it was blatantly obvious. I can't find that allegation anywhere in my comment. What was there was the obvious inconsistency between not banning e.g. the Ayatollah for the above comment, but banning the former president Can you find any tweets from the former president that were even comparable to the two tweets I posted?
PathOfEclipse 4y ago
> I understand this move, but need to point out how hypocritical this is for Mr. Free Speech. Where's the hypocrisy? Musk said he wanted to broaden the speech allowed on the platform, not allow speech of all kinds. > "let's selectively release internal comms in a misleading way to make normal company operation in good faith seem like a liberal conspiracy." Maybe try getting your info from a non-leftwing source. There has been plenty of damning info coming from these internal comms.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- BlargMcLarg 4y ago
  Musk has stated several times he wants "free speech" and when pushed further, mostly talks about "speech that is not at odds with the law". So yes, that is pretty inconsistent with banning an account which did nothing illegal. Assuming it was Musk who issued it. >from a non-leftwing source Can you people stop going "left wing right wing" for one day and see things for what they are instead of this infantile black-white spiel?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - PathOfEclipse 4y ago
    Who is "you people"? And how is it not relevant when it is the verbatim-repeated left-wing talking point to say that the Twitter files are a "nothing burger"?
    - rnk 4y ago
      You know you are losing an argument when you call the literal facts (tweets) saying you wouldn't do something that you did a nothing burger. Musk can do whatever he wants, and we can all make fun of him for being so obviously self serving and foolish.
      - 4y ago
three_seagrass 4y ago
What's even more fascinating is how hot-button an issue Free Speech has become. Just look at some of the inflammatory replies to your comment that just mentions it. There's more going on with the semantics of the phrase being used to irrationally rile people up to outrage, rather than actually being about the definition of free speech.
- gtowey 4y ago
  "Free speech" has become a hot button issue because for the first time in history, oligarchs are in danger of losing the absolute control they have had over media and communication throughout history. What they actually want is to ensure that their propaganda cannot be silenced, while simultaneously still silencing voices they don't like. Calling it free speech is a way to make it seem like their fight is somehow in the interest of the common folk too. It's all part of the game where they get to tell a story about how they're successful because they are smarter or more deserving or better than the rest of us, while the reality is that they are robbing us blind and making sure that we have no choice but to work for them to make them rich. Events like the Panama Papers leaks are terrifying to them because is exposes how universally corrupt the rich and powerful are and how badly they are using their wealth to screw us. If that kind of information becomes commonplace then people would realize that our fight isn't between ideological left vs right, it is, and always has been rich vs poor.
  - d23 4y ago
    > What they actually want is to ensure that their propaganda cannot be silenced, while simultaneously still silencing voices they don't like. They've been so used to being above the law and above the rules it drives them crazy that they can actually be held to account somewhere. Most of them still get away with far more than the average person would ever be able to (see "Do Not Take Action on User Without Consulting With SIP-PES"), but even that is not enough.
- mindslight 4y ago
  > how hot-button an issue Free Speech has become. What has really happened is that a major political group has gone from having views basically supporting the mainstream power structure ("conservative") to having views at odds with the mainstream power structure ("reactionary", to use Moldbug's own label). They're shocked that their viewpoints are suddenly being censored by the mainstream media, and chalking it up to a conspiracy by the other political party rather than the mutually interested oligarchic behavior that's been there the whole time. For anyone who came up having their politics at odds with the mainstream power structure, the censorship dynamic of mass media (which now includes social mass media) isn't a shock. (I suspect there's a similar pan-political shock for the generation that grew up with social media primacy, but before social media had been fully captured by the incumbent power structure)
hajile 4y ago
Doxxing someone's location != "free speech" by most people's definitions.
- mike_d 4y ago
  When you are using the public airspace, airwaves, or waterways there is an obligation to identify yourself to others.
  - hajile 4y ago
    When you use public roads, why shouldn't I be able to track everywhere you go and tell the world exactly where you are?
    - bestcoder69 4y ago
      You can... who's stopping you?
      - monetus 4y ago
        Yeah, it costs money but you can buy someone's location data in real time.
    - to11mtm 4y ago
      Because it's not an airspace where speed/visibility are important for a variety of reasons... FBOW moreso post 9-11
  - slowhand09 4y ago
    Evidently not. I live on the Chesapeake Bay. I see many Coast Guard and Navy vessels regularly that are not broadcasting AIS signals used for the safety of vessels nearby. Yet others do. I also see many military aircraft not broadcasting ADS-B, yet many are.
    - mike_d 4y ago

bobleeswagger 4y ago

40four 4y ago

I'm flabbergasted by the overwhelming response that this account should be allowed "in the name of Free Speech". This isn't a free speech issue. This is a personal safety issue. It is a personal attack towards Musk. As high profile as he is, and the amount of controversy surrounding him, he certainly has a target on his back. I consider that account a form of Doxxing, and I can't think of any good reason it should be allowed to exist. It feels like everyone is so upset with Elon, that we all want to play this game of "Gotcha" with every move he makes. Doesn't seem like anyone is considering that account is a real safety/ security issue for him.

kweingar 4y ago
I honestly would not have cared about the account being banned, except for the fact that Musk won points for nobly saying he would not ban the account.
- ncr100 4y ago
  The real concern is whether Musk will direct Terrorism to Jack Schwartz's doorstep, like he did with the former exec & the CP accusations.
encoderer 4y ago
You’re “flabbergasted”? This is publicly available information. What exactly is the safety threat with this twitter acct?
- bobleeswagger 4y ago
  Publicly available information is... publicly available information. Singling out public information and publishing it to single out one person when there are safety and security implications is crossing the line distinctly into what we call doxxing. Just curious, how long have you been on the internet? Would you like an account like this to exist tracking everything you do?
  - 40four 4y ago
    Thank you, well put. It's like everyone's incredible amount of hate towards Elon is blinding them to the human aspect of this. Never seen such overwhelming support for a doxxing account. Let's not forget to be humans guys.
    - timeon 4y ago
      I do not find it well put because it is moving the goal-post. Topic is not if the account is ethical or if it is right to ban account like this. Point is about banning it from the position of 'free speech absolutist'. Free speech absolutists wants to ensure freedom of express also for things that could be considered as unethical.
      - bobleeswagger 4y ago
        All the kid had to do was make it a little more general, a little less targeted. Nobody is moving goalposts except for folks like you.
    - bobleeswagger 4y ago
      You know what really makes it hilarious? All this kid had to do was do a little more work: Track more celebrities and top dollar folks. Make it general. Maybe they'd converge on him, but at least Elon wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Instead this kid does minimal work, it goes viral, and everyone is crying about it. Pathetic. I'm loving the selective memories so many folks have here, acting as though they are remotely consistent with application of ethics.
eptcyka 4y ago
Is someone paying you to outcry the publishing of already public information?
- bobleeswagger 4y ago
bobleeswagger 4y ago
wprl 4y ago
And preventing the triggered and willful spread of disinformation about our elections and public health is not a safety issue??
nerdawson 4y ago
I'm failing to see the safety threat here. The account republishes publicly available information. I'd hardly consider that doxxing. Flight data isn't private. Elon pointed to the existence of the account as demonstrating his attitude towards free speech and as far we all can tell, nothing has changed.
phillipcarter 4y ago
You're not flabbergasted and you don't believe it's doxxing. You just support your boy Elon.
- 40four 4y ago
  I couldn't care less about Elon, unlike seemingly everyone else here. It's not about him. I would not support that type of account if it were targeting Brad Pitt, POTUS, or even my next door neighbor.
acover 4y ago
What is the actual risk? I suspect he's way more likely to get into a car crash. The information about his plane's location is already public. Posting it to twitter just makes it spread further. Also, a plane's location isn't very useful. Even doxxing someone's permanent address (not that elon has one) is a pretty minimal threat to their life. A plane's location is some of the less dangerous speech allowed.
- 40four 4y ago
  It should be obvious, but to a crazy person who is interested in harming Elon, this is a gift wrapped up under the Christmas tree. Great, now they can wait outside the airport, or know that he just flew home to Austin tonight, or landed in SF to go to Twitter HQ. Nobody would know what jet Elon owned if it weren't for that account.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
vlunkr 4y ago
Seems like you're explaining exactly the intent of this account: Proving that putting free speech above all other values on an internet forum isn't always a good idea, even if it's legal. No one actually thinks this account is valuable on it's own. This "Gotcha" is a hugely important point that Musk doesn't understand.
kareemsabri 4y ago
I'm not sure you understand what free speech is. Being able to claim someone's speech makes you "unsafe" is akin to "words are violence" that the pro free speech crowd objects to. Elon may face a greater risk of harm with the world having a way to guess his location (broadly) but that's not a case to silence speech. It should also be noted he's a billionaire. Have you seen Zuckerberg's security spending?
spoils19 4y ago
Why do you care so much, if he (supposedly) doesn't? https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1589414958508691456 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1589414958508691456
- 40four 4y ago
  Because it's common sense? I honestly was not aware of that tweet before I posted this today. But you and others have pointed it out to me. Interesting he explicitly states it's a direct threat to his personal safety. Kind of strengthens my point no? Sure he said he would let it continue a month and a half ago, but upon further consideration, and the amount of attention it was getting I don't think it's outrageous at all for him to change his mind.

calculatte 4y ago

butterlesstoast 4y ago
Sounds like a lot of feelings and not a lot of scientific thinking.
- bobleeswagger 4y ago

overgard 4y ago

So we have a company headquartered in SF, and I think something like 98% of twitter's political donations went to democrats, and the employees acted as constant activists whenever the executives didn't take action against high level conservatives (I'll leave aside whether that action was justified or not). Also, if you read the twitter files, the enforcement was fairly lopsided. Look what happened to @libsoftiktok -- constant labels and suspensions even though they admitted that they couldn't actually find rule breaks. They just didn't like the "intent". And when that account got doxxed -- which is dangerous and malicious -- the company did nothing. I don't think you need to call it a liberal conspiracy, it's just very clear that twitter has/had a very particular bias based on the facts alone.

qlm 4y ago
- treeman79 4y ago
  What absolute garbage. Basically anything that you don’t like is now considered terrorism. Free speech is completely dead under this logic.
- PortiaBerries 4y ago
  Surely you need to provide some details to justify such an accusation.
- colordrops 4y ago
  > stochastic terrorism This is an interesting term that is worth exploring. A problem with it is that it could apply to huge swaths of people and organizations, e.g. Fox News, the Republican Party, CNN, Democratic Socialists, etc
- pseudo0 4y ago
  If stochastic terrorism is speech that makes violent acts against an individual or group more likely, isn't ElonJet engaging in stochastic terrorism by making it easier for a radicalized crazy person to find Elon and harm him in real life? I personally think the concept of stochastic terrorism is a rhetorical trick to associate legal speech with terrorism, but I think the argument applies just as well to ElonJet.

bko 4y ago

I think a reasonable policy would be you can't post the location of people against their will. Seems like a big security concern. Just because its publicly accessible by some means doesn't mean its okay to blast out. If you agree its fine, would you apply the same reasoning to [favorite politician]? How about a bot that crowdsources the whereabouts of [politician] at any time?

chrisoverzero 4y ago
>If you agree its fine, would you apply the same reasoning to [favorite politician]? What, like Air Force One? https://twitter.com/USAirForceVIP https://twitter.com/USAirForceVIP
- bko 4y ago
  He has the best security detail in the world, but yeah, seems like an unnecessary security risk. I'm sure if a federal agency requested this bot be taken down as a security concern it would be a reasonable request. More reasonable that many other requests made under the veil of "security"
  - mike_d 4y ago
    > I'm sure if a federal agency requested this bot be taken down Which they wouldn't do because the secret service isn't stupid. They know that current location has very little impact on security. It is future movements that allow you to plan an attack, which are closely guarded.
madeofpalk 4y ago
Is flightradar24.com a security concern? Note that the account wasn't about the location of a specific person, but rather the (public) location of a specific aircraft (own/used by a specific person). It's not like someone was tailing Elon and reporting their every location - planes must broadcast their location through use of ADS-B. It is public information. > If you agree its fine, would you apply the same reasoning to [favorite politician]? Yes.

spritefs 4y ago

Yeah I agree that Elon is full of shit, but there's a little lie in here that needs to be addressed: > normal company operation in good faith But it wasn't "normal company operation" because they completely disregarded preexisting company policy for dealing with political figures. Here are political figures that they didn't ban (who were inciting violence) > 20. In June 2018, Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei tweeted, “#Israel is a malignant cancerous tumor in the West Asian region that has to be removed and eradicated: it is possible and it will happen.” > 21. In October 2020, the former Malaysian Prime Minister said it was “a right” for Muslims to “kill millions of French people.” But they banned the former president. What they were doing wasn't "normal company operation", it was a bunch of power tripping people in upper management (like Roth) who "took it upon themselves" to disregard preexisting company policies for some odd reason You can dislike Trump/Elon/et al, but the "normal company operation" bit is an outright distortion of what actually happened source: https://nitter.net/bariweiss/status/1602370518585221120#m https://nitter.net/bariweiss/status/1602370518585221120#m

bobmaxup 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_suspensions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_suspensions
threeseed 4y ago
> because they completely disregarded preexisting company policy for dealing with political figures That was the company policy. Public figures were largely exempt from the rules except when their tweet was egregious. Not sure why you think this is some conspiracy when it was blatantly obvious.
- spritefs 4y ago
  > Public figures were largely exempt from the rules except when their tweet was egregious. So are you saying that the two tweets I posted above aren't egregious? > Not sure why you think this is some conspiracy when it was blatantly obvious. I can't find that allegation anywhere in my comment. What was there was the obvious inconsistency between not banning e.g. the Ayatollah for the above comment, but banning the former president Can you find any tweets from the former president that were even comparable to the two tweets I posted?

PathOfEclipse 4y ago

> I understand this move, but need to point out how hypocritical this is for Mr. Free Speech. Where's the hypocrisy? Musk said he wanted to broaden the speech allowed on the platform, not allow speech of all kinds. > "let's selectively release internal comms in a misleading way to make normal company operation in good faith seem like a liberal conspiracy." Maybe try getting your info from a non-leftwing source. There has been plenty of damning info coming from these internal comms.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
BlargMcLarg 4y ago
Musk has stated several times he wants "free speech" and when pushed further, mostly talks about "speech that is not at odds with the law". So yes, that is pretty inconsistent with banning an account which did nothing illegal. Assuming it was Musk who issued it. >from a non-leftwing source Can you people stop going "left wing right wing" for one day and see things for what they are instead of this infantile black-white spiel?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- PathOfEclipse 4y ago
  Who is "you people"? And how is it not relevant when it is the verbatim-repeated left-wing talking point to say that the Twitter files are a "nothing burger"?
  - rnk 4y ago
    You know you are losing an argument when you call the literal facts (tweets) saying you wouldn't do something that you did a nothing burger. Musk can do whatever he wants, and we can all make fun of him for being so obviously self serving and foolish.
    - 4y ago

three_seagrass 4y ago

What's even more fascinating is how hot-button an issue Free Speech has become. Just look at some of the inflammatory replies to your comment that just mentions it. There's more going on with the semantics of the phrase being used to irrationally rile people up to outrage, rather than actually being about the definition of free speech.

gtowey 4y ago
"Free speech" has become a hot button issue because for the first time in history, oligarchs are in danger of losing the absolute control they have had over media and communication throughout history. What they actually want is to ensure that their propaganda cannot be silenced, while simultaneously still silencing voices they don't like. Calling it free speech is a way to make it seem like their fight is somehow in the interest of the common folk too. It's all part of the game where they get to tell a story about how they're successful because they are smarter or more deserving or better than the rest of us, while the reality is that they are robbing us blind and making sure that we have no choice but to work for them to make them rich. Events like the Panama Papers leaks are terrifying to them because is exposes how universally corrupt the rich and powerful are and how badly they are using their wealth to screw us. If that kind of information becomes commonplace then people would realize that our fight isn't between ideological left vs right, it is, and always has been rich vs poor.
- d23 4y ago
  > What they actually want is to ensure that their propaganda cannot be silenced, while simultaneously still silencing voices they don't like. They've been so used to being above the law and above the rules it drives them crazy that they can actually be held to account somewhere. Most of them still get away with far more than the average person would ever be able to (see "Do Not Take Action on User Without Consulting With SIP-PES"), but even that is not enough.
mindslight 4y ago
> how hot-button an issue Free Speech has become. What has really happened is that a major political group has gone from having views basically supporting the mainstream power structure ("conservative") to having views at odds with the mainstream power structure ("reactionary", to use Moldbug's own label). They're shocked that their viewpoints are suddenly being censored by the mainstream media, and chalking it up to a conspiracy by the other political party rather than the mutually interested oligarchic behavior that's been there the whole time. For anyone who came up having their politics at odds with the mainstream power structure, the censorship dynamic of mass media (which now includes social mass media) isn't a shock. (I suspect there's a similar pan-political shock for the generation that grew up with social media primacy, but before social media had been fully captured by the incumbent power structure)

hajile 4y ago

Doxxing someone's location != "free speech" by most people's definitions.

mike_d 4y ago
When you are using the public airspace, airwaves, or waterways there is an obligation to identify yourself to others.
- hajile 4y ago
  When you use public roads, why shouldn't I be able to track everywhere you go and tell the world exactly where you are?
  - bestcoder69 4y ago
    You can... who's stopping you?
    - monetus 4y ago
      Yeah, it costs money but you can buy someone's location data in real time.
  - to11mtm 4y ago
    Because it's not an airspace where speed/visibility are important for a variety of reasons... FBOW moreso post 9-11
- slowhand09 4y ago
  Evidently not. I live on the Chesapeake Bay. I see many Coast Guard and Navy vessels regularly that are not broadcasting AIS signals used for the safety of vessels nearby. Yet others do. I also see many military aircraft not broadcasting ADS-B, yet many are.
  - mike_d 4y ago