6 ms·

The people who cheered Musk for his "pro free speech" attitude don't actually believe or want free speech. They want free speech for themselves and censorship f

by cmh89 4y ago

The people who cheered Musk for his "pro free speech" attitude don't actually believe or want free speech. They want free speech for themselves and censorship for people they don't like. See the terrorist attacks against Drag Queens.

asteroidbelt 4y ago
Did these "attack" include realtime doxxing? Especially after TOS modified to prohibit it? Or can you give other examples of disparity between free speech rule applications for themselves and people they don't like?
- cmh89 4y ago
  >Did these "attack" include realtime doxxing? Especially after TOS modified to prohibit it? Posting public information publicly isn't doxxing and until you give up that falsehood, there isn't really anywhere the conversation can go. Of course a free speech "absolutist" like Musk is a complete hypocrite for not allowing doxxing in the first place.
  - asteroidbelt 4y ago
    > Posting public information publicly isn't doxxing Sometimes it is. For example, name plate on the mailbox is publicly available, but posting the address with full name online constitutes doxxing. > a free speech "absolutist" like Musk is a complete hypocrite One guy once said, who never changes his/her opinion, is a moron.
    - cmh89 4y ago
      The mental gymnastics that folks go to excuse Musk's behavior will get ever more absurd. Musk will continue to censor speech he doesn't like arbitrarily and use Twitter to promote right-wing extremists who will then hurt real people in the real world.
      - asteroidbelt 4y ago
        > use Twitter to promote right-wing extremists I did not see evidence of that.
        cmh89 4y ago
        Musk has in the past and very recently supported conspiracy theories. Dr. Fauci, one of the greatest public servants we've had in this country, was accused by Musk of 'killing millions'. Musk is a right-wing extremist who will protect his own.
        asteroidbelt 4y ago
        You use very uncommon (or I'd say, left-leaning) definition of "extremism". Basically, expressing opinion you disagree with, is extremism.
    - kevinmchugh 4y ago
      Musk's definition of free speech in the past included calling his critics pedophiles and making false statements about his company's stock. Now it doesn't include publicly available information about the location of a vehicle he owns?
    - EFreethought 4y ago
      > One guy once said, who never changes his/her opinion, is a moron. You might be referring to JM Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind." The question is what facts are changing? Here, it looks like the only difference is that something bad happened to HIM.
      - asteroidbelt 4y ago
        No, I'm referring to the other guys. People change mind even if facts do not change.
- richbell 4y ago
  It is disingenuous to call sharing publicly available information about an airplane's travel "realtime doxing".
  - asteroidbelt 4y ago
    Why? If one wants to harass Musk, meeting him at the airport is convenient.
    - EFreethought 4y ago
      If you can afford a private jet, you can probably afford a bodyguard. There are a few people with less money than Mush who have bodyguards.
    - VicFrank 4y ago
      Is there any evidence this has ever happened? I have to believe that if it has, he would have brought it up.
    - DSMan195276 4y ago
      Clearly nothing is stopping someone from doing that anyway, but also nobody ever knows if Elon is actually on any of the three planes tracked (unless he posts about where he's going or where he is). They're not even his personal planes, they're owned by his companies and used by other people. If he's that worried about a stalker he should just charter a jet instead of flying on jets associated with him or his companies, then nobody would know.
    - BryantD 4y ago
      It’s worth noting that the tracker doesn’t post destinations until, of course, the plane actually lands. You cannot use the data provided to determine where to meet him.
hgdfhgdfhgdfbgf 4y ago
How many journalists who didn't dox Musk's plane have been censored and suspended?
- cmh89 4y ago
  Posting public info isn't doxxing, sorry.
- generj 4y ago
  Several. Some got banned for posting screenshots of an LAPD statement, or just discussions of other journalists being banned.
- BryantD 4y ago
  People have covered the current wave. Also, earlier this month, Chad Loder was suspended for reasons which haven’t been explained yet.
ditonal 4y ago
I don't know why it's so impossible to believe there are people who truly do want free speech. I wasn't sure if Musk was going to deliver it, but I tried to remain open-minded. I did think previous Twitter management leaned left with some admittedly difficult moderation decisions, but obviously I'm finding out that Musk is even less supportive of true free speech. Ironically this banning of Mastodon links is the #1 thing pushing me to start exploring Mastodon or other platforms.
- xenospn 4y ago
  Let me know when you find them. So far, every “free-speech“ platform has been a dumpster fire full of instant bans for anyone the user base does not agree with.
  - anonymoushn 4y ago
    I don't think this is true of 4chan
    - AlexandrB 4y ago
      4chan is interesting because it feels like a holdover from the "old" internet. Less a "platform" and more an unruly forum with its own distinct culture. If 4chan had anywhere near the size/reach of Twitter or Facebook, I think it would either be more toxic or more restrictive in its moderation.
- epistasis 4y ago
  It's impossible to believe because we know people who say that, and we know that their fundamental belief is that rules exist in two ways: 1) to protect and serve a certain class, without binding them, and 2) to bind the other class, without protecting the other class. This is not a new phenomenon, the only thing that changes is the terms used to signal the meaning.
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    That is extremely flawed logic. It is logically equivalent to "We know there are counterfeit dollars, therefore there cannot be real ones." Sure, there are phonies. Therefore it is impossible to believe that anyone is genuine? No.
strangeattractr 4y ago
I want free speech, hence I think Elon is a tremendous hypocrite for enacting this policy. Once you start deciding whether or not things are 'safe' to say you will end up in the exact situation Jack, et al. were in when they were censoring just with different biases. He doesn't seem to understand that and is doomed to repeat their mistakes. There is some irony now seeing those that didn't believe the banning of accounts arbitrarily was an issue under previous management decrying this move by Elon.
- awb 4y ago
  > There is some irony now seeing those that didn't believe the banning of accounts arbitrarily was an issue under previous management decrying this move by Elon. No, the irony is not that the site under both owners is trying to remove bad/harmful content (just defining it differently). The irony is that Musk thought he wasn’t going to have to do it at all: “absolute free speech”, “public square”, “comedy is legal”, etc. One of the banned journalists went on Mastodon and said (paraphrasing): “It’s his site and he can ban whoever he wants” And to be fair, under both owners, accounts were banned for violating ToS policies. The policies are just different, but they’re still the rules you agree to when you use the site. I just don’t think anyone thought “free speech” meant no parodying, no republishing public FAA info, etc.
  - strangeattractr 4y ago
    Many journalists are singularly obsessed with the eradication of 'harmful' or 'unsafe' accounts from Twitter. They are particularly concerned about doxxing when it happens to political figures they're sympathetic to or journalists. Technically all home addresses are public information, just as FAA data is. Yet people get rather nervous when their home address ends up on the internet and rightly so. Their entire argument is about the prevention of the exact sort of thing that Musk alleges happened to a car carrying his child - real world harm from online activity. So why exactly are they upset about this change in policy that while clearly motivated by self-interest rather than any principle, technically aligns with some of their goals? It's because they want to be able to doxx people they think deserve it. Because when they doxx it's journalism, but when their enemies doxx it's stochastic terrorism.
silisili 4y ago
> They want free speech for themselves and censorship for people they don't like. This is probably true, but it also describes Twitter prior to the takeover. If anything is clear to me, it's that it seems impossible to have a completely neutral/fair public forum. Or perhaps it is possible, but people dislike the opposition so much they aren't interested in using it.
- postingawayonhn 4y ago
  But Twitter management weren't claiming to be free speech absolutists.
chrisbaker98 4y ago
Please provide an example that actually happened of a "terrorist attack against drag queens".
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  Five dead in Colorado very recently: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/21/us/colorado-springs-shooting-drag-shows-events.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/21/us/colorado-springs-shoot... Less terroristy but still super shitty: https://www.vice.com/en/article/4axmy3/far-right-attacked-drag-events-in-4-states-this-weekend https://www.vice.com/en/article/4axmy3/far-right-attacked-dr... If Musk wants to demonstrate a newly sensitive attitude towards doxxing and its dangers, he’s welcome to ban Libs of TikTok.
  - polski-g 4y ago
    No evidence has been presented that ClubQ was terrorism, though.

by cmh89 4y ago

asteroidbelt 4y ago

Did these "attack" include realtime doxxing? Especially after TOS modified to prohibit it? Or can you give other examples of disparity between free speech rule applications for themselves and people they don't like?

cmh89 4y ago
>Did these "attack" include realtime doxxing? Especially after TOS modified to prohibit it? Posting public information publicly isn't doxxing and until you give up that falsehood, there isn't really anywhere the conversation can go. Of course a free speech "absolutist" like Musk is a complete hypocrite for not allowing doxxing in the first place.
- asteroidbelt 4y ago
  > Posting public information publicly isn't doxxing Sometimes it is. For example, name plate on the mailbox is publicly available, but posting the address with full name online constitutes doxxing. > a free speech "absolutist" like Musk is a complete hypocrite One guy once said, who never changes his/her opinion, is a moron.
  - cmh89 4y ago
    The mental gymnastics that folks go to excuse Musk's behavior will get ever more absurd. Musk will continue to censor speech he doesn't like arbitrarily and use Twitter to promote right-wing extremists who will then hurt real people in the real world.
    - asteroidbelt 4y ago
      > use Twitter to promote right-wing extremists I did not see evidence of that.
      - cmh89 4y ago
        Musk has in the past and very recently supported conspiracy theories. Dr. Fauci, one of the greatest public servants we've had in this country, was accused by Musk of 'killing millions'. Musk is a right-wing extremist who will protect his own.
        asteroidbelt 4y ago
        You use very uncommon (or I'd say, left-leaning) definition of "extremism". Basically, expressing opinion you disagree with, is extremism.
  - kevinmchugh 4y ago
    Musk's definition of free speech in the past included calling his critics pedophiles and making false statements about his company's stock. Now it doesn't include publicly available information about the location of a vehicle he owns?
  - EFreethought 4y ago
    > One guy once said, who never changes his/her opinion, is a moron. You might be referring to JM Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind." The question is what facts are changing? Here, it looks like the only difference is that something bad happened to HIM.
    - asteroidbelt 4y ago
      No, I'm referring to the other guys. People change mind even if facts do not change.
richbell 4y ago
It is disingenuous to call sharing publicly available information about an airplane's travel "realtime doxing".
- asteroidbelt 4y ago
  Why? If one wants to harass Musk, meeting him at the airport is convenient.
  - EFreethought 4y ago
    If you can afford a private jet, you can probably afford a bodyguard. There are a few people with less money than Mush who have bodyguards.
  - VicFrank 4y ago
    Is there any evidence this has ever happened? I have to believe that if it has, he would have brought it up.
  - DSMan195276 4y ago
    Clearly nothing is stopping someone from doing that anyway, but also nobody ever knows if Elon is actually on any of the three planes tracked (unless he posts about where he's going or where he is). They're not even his personal planes, they're owned by his companies and used by other people. If he's that worried about a stalker he should just charter a jet instead of flying on jets associated with him or his companies, then nobody would know.
  - BryantD 4y ago
    It’s worth noting that the tracker doesn’t post destinations until, of course, the plane actually lands. You cannot use the data provided to determine where to meet him.

hgdfhgdfhgdfbgf 4y ago

How many journalists who didn't dox Musk's plane have been censored and suspended?

cmh89 4y ago
Posting public info isn't doxxing, sorry.
generj 4y ago
Several. Some got banned for posting screenshots of an LAPD statement, or just discussions of other journalists being banned.
BryantD 4y ago
People have covered the current wave. Also, earlier this month, Chad Loder was suspended for reasons which haven’t been explained yet.

ditonal 4y ago

I don't know why it's so impossible to believe there are people who truly do want free speech. I wasn't sure if Musk was going to deliver it, but I tried to remain open-minded. I did think previous Twitter management leaned left with some admittedly difficult moderation decisions, but obviously I'm finding out that Musk is even less supportive of true free speech. Ironically this banning of Mastodon links is the #1 thing pushing me to start exploring Mastodon or other platforms.

xenospn 4y ago
Let me know when you find them. So far, every “free-speech“ platform has been a dumpster fire full of instant bans for anyone the user base does not agree with.
- anonymoushn 4y ago
  I don't think this is true of 4chan
  - AlexandrB 4y ago
    4chan is interesting because it feels like a holdover from the "old" internet. Less a "platform" and more an unruly forum with its own distinct culture. If 4chan had anywhere near the size/reach of Twitter or Facebook, I think it would either be more toxic or more restrictive in its moderation.
epistasis 4y ago
It's impossible to believe because we know people who say that, and we know that their fundamental belief is that rules exist in two ways: 1) to protect and serve a certain class, without binding them, and 2) to bind the other class, without protecting the other class. This is not a new phenomenon, the only thing that changes is the terms used to signal the meaning.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  That is extremely flawed logic. It is logically equivalent to "We know there are counterfeit dollars, therefore there cannot be real ones." Sure, there are phonies. Therefore it is impossible to believe that anyone is genuine? No.

strangeattractr 4y ago

I want free speech, hence I think Elon is a tremendous hypocrite for enacting this policy. Once you start deciding whether or not things are 'safe' to say you will end up in the exact situation Jack, et al. were in when they were censoring just with different biases. He doesn't seem to understand that and is doomed to repeat their mistakes. There is some irony now seeing those that didn't believe the banning of accounts arbitrarily was an issue under previous management decrying this move by Elon.

awb 4y ago
> There is some irony now seeing those that didn't believe the banning of accounts arbitrarily was an issue under previous management decrying this move by Elon. No, the irony is not that the site under both owners is trying to remove bad/harmful content (just defining it differently). The irony is that Musk thought he wasn’t going to have to do it at all: “absolute free speech”, “public square”, “comedy is legal”, etc. One of the banned journalists went on Mastodon and said (paraphrasing): “It’s his site and he can ban whoever he wants” And to be fair, under both owners, accounts were banned for violating ToS policies. The policies are just different, but they’re still the rules you agree to when you use the site. I just don’t think anyone thought “free speech” meant no parodying, no republishing public FAA info, etc.
- strangeattractr 4y ago
  Many journalists are singularly obsessed with the eradication of 'harmful' or 'unsafe' accounts from Twitter. They are particularly concerned about doxxing when it happens to political figures they're sympathetic to or journalists. Technically all home addresses are public information, just as FAA data is. Yet people get rather nervous when their home address ends up on the internet and rightly so. Their entire argument is about the prevention of the exact sort of thing that Musk alleges happened to a car carrying his child - real world harm from online activity. So why exactly are they upset about this change in policy that while clearly motivated by self-interest rather than any principle, technically aligns with some of their goals? It's because they want to be able to doxx people they think deserve it. Because when they doxx it's journalism, but when their enemies doxx it's stochastic terrorism.

silisili 4y ago

> They want free speech for themselves and censorship for people they don't like. This is probably true, but it also describes Twitter prior to the takeover. If anything is clear to me, it's that it seems impossible to have a completely neutral/fair public forum. Or perhaps it is possible, but people dislike the opposition so much they aren't interested in using it.

postingawayonhn 4y ago
But Twitter management weren't claiming to be free speech absolutists.

chrisbaker98 4y ago

Please provide an example that actually happened of a "terrorist attack against drag queens".

ceejayoz 4y ago
Five dead in Colorado very recently: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/21/us/colorado-springs-shooting-drag-shows-events.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/21/us/colorado-springs-shoot... Less terroristy but still super shitty: https://www.vice.com/en/article/4axmy3/far-right-attacked-drag-events-in-4-states-this-weekend https://www.vice.com/en/article/4axmy3/far-right-attacked-dr... If Musk wants to demonstrate a newly sensitive attitude towards doxxing and its dangers, he’s welcome to ban Libs of TikTok.
- polski-g 4y ago
  No evidence has been presented that ClubQ was terrorism, though.