4 ms·

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 b

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.
- nightski 4y ago
  Agreed interesting for sure, and definitely hypocritical. I'm just pointing out why it might not matter to those clamoring for freedom of speech in support of Musks takeover.
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    The thing is, there were two kinds of people clamoring for freedom of speech in support of Musk's takeover: those with genuine concerns, and those who were disingenuous and were mad that Twitter wasn't a safe space for people with certain views. Those in the former camp wanted to restore a balance to Twitter, while those in the latter camp preferred to reshape Twitter in their own political image. Through his actions, Musk has shown himself to be in the latter camp. Those in the former camp should be just as mad about post-Musk Twitter as they were about pre-Musk Twitter. Problem is I don't see many people (here on HN at least) saying "Wow, I thought Musk would fix Twitter but this is not what I expected when he said he supported free speech!" To me, that shows maybe a lot of people were in the latter camp all along, and are pleased things are working out just as they expected.
cycomanic 4y ago
I think you're watching this through Musk colored glasses, it's also telling that you call rich powerful white men a marginalised group. It's also not that he only banned the elonjet account. He banned the accounts of people posting the video that showed him being booed in SF, he banned several left leaning journalist accounts after a campaign from alt right groups [1]. It really just shows the hipocrasy, and many people are taking note. [1] https://theintercept.com/2022/11/29/elon-musk-twitter-andy-ngo-antifascist/ https://theintercept.com/2022/11/29/elon-musk-twitter-andy-n...
- nightski 4y ago
  I did not call Elon marginalized or even imply it.
  - cycomanic 4y ago
    > 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. Maybe I misunderstand you, but whose voice are you calling marginalized? Is it not the voice of politicians like e.g. Trump? Is Trump not a white rich and powerful person (I was not specifically talking about Musk). I think the problem was actually that Twitter under previous leadership was way too lenient with powerful people. Take Trump for example, he was arguably breaking Twitter TOS on a regular basis, but never faced consequences (I'd argue because he was driving engagement so it was not in Twitters interest to ban him). When they finally banned him, it thus seemed arbitrary. Similarly, how come Musk never got a suspension for his pedo comments, also pretty clearly a TOS violation. I think therein lies the main problem with most social media platforms, they clearly have different standards for people who are influential enough and the rest of the population and this is by no way a left/right thing.
    - nightski 4y ago
      It's the constituents that voted for those politicians or support those influential people who are marginalized. You know in this case, almost 50% of the country. By silencing politicians especially (in a democracy anyways) you silence the people behind them. People don't always agree 100% with their politicians. But by banning them you take away their voice entirely. I said very clearly I was not talking about the actual people behind the accounts themselves. I am not feeling sorry for Trump or for Elon here in any way.

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.

nightski 4y ago
Agreed interesting for sure, and definitely hypocritical. I'm just pointing out why it might not matter to those clamoring for freedom of speech in support of Musks takeover.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  The thing is, there were two kinds of people clamoring for freedom of speech in support of Musk's takeover: those with genuine concerns, and those who were disingenuous and were mad that Twitter wasn't a safe space for people with certain views. Those in the former camp wanted to restore a balance to Twitter, while those in the latter camp preferred to reshape Twitter in their own political image. Through his actions, Musk has shown himself to be in the latter camp. Those in the former camp should be just as mad about post-Musk Twitter as they were about pre-Musk Twitter. Problem is I don't see many people (here on HN at least) saying "Wow, I thought Musk would fix Twitter but this is not what I expected when he said he supported free speech!" To me, that shows maybe a lot of people were in the latter camp all along, and are pleased things are working out just as they expected.

cycomanic 4y ago

I think you're watching this through Musk colored glasses, it's also telling that you call rich powerful white men a marginalised group. It's also not that he only banned the elonjet account. He banned the accounts of people posting the video that showed him being booed in SF, he banned several left leaning journalist accounts after a campaign from alt right groups [1]. It really just shows the hipocrasy, and many people are taking note. [1] https://theintercept.com/2022/11/29/elon-musk-twitter-andy-ngo-antifascist/ https://theintercept.com/2022/11/29/elon-musk-twitter-andy-n...

nightski 4y ago
I did not call Elon marginalized or even imply it.
- cycomanic 4y ago
  > 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. Maybe I misunderstand you, but whose voice are you calling marginalized? Is it not the voice of politicians like e.g. Trump? Is Trump not a white rich and powerful person (I was not specifically talking about Musk). I think the problem was actually that Twitter under previous leadership was way too lenient with powerful people. Take Trump for example, he was arguably breaking Twitter TOS on a regular basis, but never faced consequences (I'd argue because he was driving engagement so it was not in Twitters interest to ban him). When they finally banned him, it thus seemed arbitrary. Similarly, how come Musk never got a suspension for his pedo comments, also pretty clearly a TOS violation. I think therein lies the main problem with most social media platforms, they clearly have different standards for people who are influential enough and the rest of the population and this is by no way a left/right thing.
  - nightski 4y ago
    It's the constituents that voted for those politicians or support those influential people who are marginalized. You know in this case, almost 50% of the country. By silencing politicians especially (in a democracy anyways) you silence the people behind them. People don't always agree 100% with their politicians. But by banning them you take away their voice entirely. I said very clearly I was not talking about the actual people behind the accounts themselves. I am not feeling sorry for Trump or for Elon here in any way.