3 ms·

I’m not sure I qualify as a spokesperson for the entire “left” ;) It seems a lot of people are pointing out the massive amounts of hypocrisy Elon is displaying

by altacc 4y ago

I’m not sure I qualify as a spokesperson for the entire “left” ;) It seems a lot of people are pointing out the massive amounts of hypocrisy Elon is displaying, as well as how fickle & fragile the concept of free speech is when it comes up against the personal opinions of a billionaire. Plus a democratic vote, which is definitely not what a Twitter poll is, controlling speech is exactly the thing that many on the (if we’re using labels) “right” objected to once a truly democratic vote (within a flawed process) delivered a government that they didn’t want. True freedom of speech is a fixed principle, not dictated by the whims of current powers, votes or Overton window.

throw0101c 4y ago
> It seems a lot of people are pointing out the massive amounts of hypocrisy Elon is displaying, as well as how fickle & fragile the concept of free speech is when it comes up against the personal opinions of a billionaire. As Peter Kafka (heh) wrote over at Vox: > But I think we’re better off if we face reality on reality’s terms: One of the richest men in history bought something many of us use and like. Because he could. And now he’s going to run it based on his whims. Because he can. * https://www.vox.com/recode/2022/12/16/23512993/doxxing-elon-musk-twitter-journalist-ban https://www.vox.com/recode/2022/12/16/23512993/doxxing-elon-...
- altacc 4y ago
  Indeed. The whole point all along was that Twitter as a private company could moderate content as it saw fit. Let us now try and score some internet points by pointing out that the new buyer disagreed with that idea enough to spend $44 billion to correct it. However once it was their private company and their opinions that could control the content, suddenly that idea of private control of a private entity is excellent and as it should be! This is simply one person changing their very publicly and steadfastly held opinion once the facts align to their own benefit.

by altacc 4y ago

throw0101c 4y ago

> It seems a lot of people are pointing out the massive amounts of hypocrisy Elon is displaying, as well as how fickle & fragile the concept of free speech is when it comes up against the personal opinions of a billionaire. As Peter Kafka (heh) wrote over at Vox: > But I think we’re better off if we face reality on reality’s terms: One of the richest men in history bought something many of us use and like. Because he could. And now he’s going to run it based on his whims. Because he can. * https://www.vox.com/recode/2022/12/16/23512993/doxxing-elon-musk-twitter-journalist-ban https://www.vox.com/recode/2022/12/16/23512993/doxxing-elon-...

altacc 4y ago
Indeed. The whole point all along was that Twitter as a private company could moderate content as it saw fit. Let us now try and score some internet points by pointing out that the new buyer disagreed with that idea enough to spend $44 billion to correct it. However once it was their private company and their opinions that could control the content, suddenly that idea of private control of a private entity is excellent and as it should be! This is simply one person changing their very publicly and steadfastly held opinion once the facts align to their own benefit.