7 ms·

I wonder if you’d have an issue with it if these organisations leaned mostly republican. When this last happened in the 1960s and 70s, when it was the left tha

I wonder if you’d have an issue with it if these organisations leaned mostly republican. When this last happened in the 1960s and 70s, when it was the left that was anti establishment, and didn’t want the Vietnam war, or didn’t want Christian orthodoxy imposed on society, the left was obsessed with free speech and being anti government organisations. Suddenly no one can think beyond their own party and as long as these organizations interfering with speech are on their side, it’s fine. People really need to think longer term. It only takes one very determined president or one sided congress and senate to completely change these organisations.

SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
> People really need to think longer term. Asking too much. In the past couple months, HN users went from “it’s a private company they can do what they want” when Twitter was a public company working with the FBI to enact specific user censorship… to “OMG Elon banned a handful of journalists, freeze peach was a lie!” when it was a suspension for 12 hours. Where are all those “it’s a private company they can do what they like” folks now? I haven’t seen that posted recently.
- amanaplanacanal 4y ago
  Ok. It’s a private company and they can do what they like. And we can point out the hypocrisy.
  - SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
    And ignore you own, what a wonderful scenario for you.
- clucas 4y ago
  I'm one of those people. I think Elon can ban whomever he wants, for any reason he wants. I didn't see anyone arguing otherwise though, so I didn't have much to say. Edited to add: I am a little curious why the free speech absolutists weren't up in arms about those bans though. Hmm.
  - SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
    “I ignored when a national media outlet was banned for a publishing a true story that embarrassed a politician I and the US intelligence apparatus wanted to win… but no one complained about when I was suspended for 12 hours!”
    - clucas 4y ago
      The NY Post was banned for violating the hacked materials policy, and they were unbanned after Twitter changed the policy. It wasn't 12 hours, but it was pretty quick. Meanwhile plenty of other media outlets published embarassing details about the laptop contents on Twitter, and were not banned... because they didn't violate the hacked materials policy. If underlying goal was to suppress the story about the laptop and prevent embarassment, why didn't they also ban those accounts? Also, what exactly is the rule you want in place re: banning by social media platforms? Do you have a principle behind your positions that you can articulate?
      - SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
        It was more than two weeks and every single bureaucrat, and “Intelligence” community statement that it was “Russian Disinformation” absolutely knew they were lying. They were picking a winner and you know it.
        clucas 4y ago
        Sorry man, I don't know that. Can you offer any evidence - an email or something - that shows that the intelligence community knew it wasn't Russian disinformation at the time Twitter was deliberating over what to do with the NY Post? Also, you didn't answer the question about principles. I'm still interested in that. I believe I have a rule about social media moderation that I've applied consistently across a wide variety of circumstances. Can you say the same? Edited to add: And again, if the intelligence community was trying to pick a winner, why didn't they try to ban all the other stories about the laptop? And why only on Twitter? The NY Post was still going strong on Facebook, right?
- krapp 4y ago
  >Where are all those “it’s a private company they can do what they like” folks now? I haven’t seen that posted recently. Those people were responding to arguments that social media platforms banning people, moderating content or even presenting content under an algorithmic feed were violations of the First Amendment, Section 230 and freedom of speech, by pointing out that all of these actions are allowed by the aforementioned principles and laws. That argument hasn't been posted recently because the threads in which the free-speech absolutist arguments to which it replies haven't been posted recently. It isn't germane to the situation wrt Musk and Twitter because, for whatever reason, the free speech absolutists no longer have a problem with censorship by private enterprise when Elon Musk is doing it, and so they no longer post angry, long-winded screeds against it. And notwithstanding that Twitter banning journalists (even for just 12 hours) is a much more serious deal in terms of freedom of speech implications than banning some shitposting Nazis, no one complaining about that is actually claiming that Elon doesn't have the right to do what he's doing, nor are they calling for the government to make it illegal, as the free speech absolutist crowd has - they're just calling him a hypocrite and an asshole. Because he is. This really isn't the dunk you and the countless others who keep bringing it up is, it just demonstrates that the free speech absolutist crowd were never arguing in good faith to begin with, because none of them ever bothered to actually listen to or engage with the arguments being made.
  - SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
    So, when Twitter banned the NY Post at the recommendation of the FBI, that wasn’t an issue? I don’t see how suspending a few journalists for 12 hours and being directly able to point to their existing TOS is the same thing.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      These bans weren’t under “their existing TOS”. The policy was rewritten after banning @elonjet to justify it retroactively. The bans weren’t 12 hours. They were eventually announced as week-long ones; Musk backed down after backlash and his public poll resulted in a “unban now” vote.
    - 4y ago
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  Musk has every right to ban them. We have every right to point out he promised not to do such things, and that it calls his supposed dedication to free speech into question.
  - SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
    Good point. Except the people banned under Musk has been extremely low. The majority complaint is that a handful of people were suspended for less than a day for violating the existing and specific point of the Twitter TOS… Compared to previously a national media outlet was actually banned for weeks for reporting a completely true story that the US Intelligence bureaucracy decided was in inconvenient to their desired results of an upcoming election. Falsely equating this isn’t subtle and I don’t believe you are arguing in good faith. Ideologues everywhere.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      "It's OK because it wasn't many people. Now, let me tell you about the one account that got suspended I'm mad about." Come on.
- _kbh_ 4y ago
  > to “OMG Elon banned a handful of journalists, freeze peach was a lie!” when it was a suspension for 12 hours. I think to a lot of people it was banged on so hard about the 'free speech absolutist' that he was, until it was suddenly legal speech he didn't like then he cast those people out as fast as he could.
sixQuarks 4y ago
Exactly. This is why history repeats itself, people never learn, everyone is on their own cults/tribes and the ends justify the means
refurb 4y ago
Yup, it's pretty amazing now. Back in the 70's if you were anti-cop and anti-government you were left wing. Now if you're those things, you're a "radical right-wing person". Amazing how when the shoe is on the other foot the victim becomes the oppressor?

SV_BubbleTime 4y ago

> People really need to think longer term. Asking too much. In the past couple months, HN users went from “it’s a private company they can do what they want” when Twitter was a public company working with the FBI to enact specific user censorship… to “OMG Elon banned a handful of journalists, freeze peach was a lie!” when it was a suspension for 12 hours. Where are all those “it’s a private company they can do what they like” folks now? I haven’t seen that posted recently.

amanaplanacanal 4y ago
Ok. It’s a private company and they can do what they like. And we can point out the hypocrisy.
- SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
  And ignore you own, what a wonderful scenario for you.
clucas 4y ago
I'm one of those people. I think Elon can ban whomever he wants, for any reason he wants. I didn't see anyone arguing otherwise though, so I didn't have much to say. Edited to add: I am a little curious why the free speech absolutists weren't up in arms about those bans though. Hmm.
- SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
  “I ignored when a national media outlet was banned for a publishing a true story that embarrassed a politician I and the US intelligence apparatus wanted to win… but no one complained about when I was suspended for 12 hours!”
  - clucas 4y ago
    The NY Post was banned for violating the hacked materials policy, and they were unbanned after Twitter changed the policy. It wasn't 12 hours, but it was pretty quick. Meanwhile plenty of other media outlets published embarassing details about the laptop contents on Twitter, and were not banned... because they didn't violate the hacked materials policy. If underlying goal was to suppress the story about the laptop and prevent embarassment, why didn't they also ban those accounts? Also, what exactly is the rule you want in place re: banning by social media platforms? Do you have a principle behind your positions that you can articulate?
    - SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
      It was more than two weeks and every single bureaucrat, and “Intelligence” community statement that it was “Russian Disinformation” absolutely knew they were lying. They were picking a winner and you know it.
      - clucas 4y ago
        Sorry man, I don't know that. Can you offer any evidence - an email or something - that shows that the intelligence community knew it wasn't Russian disinformation at the time Twitter was deliberating over what to do with the NY Post? Also, you didn't answer the question about principles. I'm still interested in that. I believe I have a rule about social media moderation that I've applied consistently across a wide variety of circumstances. Can you say the same? Edited to add: And again, if the intelligence community was trying to pick a winner, why didn't they try to ban all the other stories about the laptop? And why only on Twitter? The NY Post was still going strong on Facebook, right?
krapp 4y ago
>Where are all those “it’s a private company they can do what they like” folks now? I haven’t seen that posted recently. Those people were responding to arguments that social media platforms banning people, moderating content or even presenting content under an algorithmic feed were violations of the First Amendment, Section 230 and freedom of speech, by pointing out that all of these actions are allowed by the aforementioned principles and laws. That argument hasn't been posted recently because the threads in which the free-speech absolutist arguments to which it replies haven't been posted recently. It isn't germane to the situation wrt Musk and Twitter because, for whatever reason, the free speech absolutists no longer have a problem with censorship by private enterprise when Elon Musk is doing it, and so they no longer post angry, long-winded screeds against it. And notwithstanding that Twitter banning journalists (even for just 12 hours) is a much more serious deal in terms of freedom of speech implications than banning some shitposting Nazis, no one complaining about that is actually claiming that Elon doesn't have the right to do what he's doing, nor are they calling for the government to make it illegal, as the free speech absolutist crowd has - they're just calling him a hypocrite and an asshole. Because he is. This really isn't the dunk you and the countless others who keep bringing it up is, it just demonstrates that the free speech absolutist crowd were never arguing in good faith to begin with, because none of them ever bothered to actually listen to or engage with the arguments being made.
- SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
  So, when Twitter banned the NY Post at the recommendation of the FBI, that wasn’t an issue? I don’t see how suspending a few journalists for 12 hours and being directly able to point to their existing TOS is the same thing.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    These bans weren’t under “their existing TOS”. The policy was rewritten after banning @elonjet to justify it retroactively. The bans weren’t 12 hours. They were eventually announced as week-long ones; Musk backed down after backlash and his public poll resulted in a “unban now” vote.
  - 4y ago
ceejayoz 4y ago
Musk has every right to ban them. We have every right to point out he promised not to do such things, and that it calls his supposed dedication to free speech into question.
- SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
  Good point. Except the people banned under Musk has been extremely low. The majority complaint is that a handful of people were suspended for less than a day for violating the existing and specific point of the Twitter TOS… Compared to previously a national media outlet was actually banned for weeks for reporting a completely true story that the US Intelligence bureaucracy decided was in inconvenient to their desired results of an upcoming election. Falsely equating this isn’t subtle and I don’t believe you are arguing in good faith. Ideologues everywhere.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    "It's OK because it wasn't many people. Now, let me tell you about the one account that got suspended I'm mad about." Come on.
_kbh_ 4y ago
> to “OMG Elon banned a handful of journalists, freeze peach was a lie!” when it was a suspension for 12 hours. I think to a lot of people it was banged on so hard about the 'free speech absolutist' that he was, until it was suddenly legal speech he didn't like then he cast those people out as fast as he could.

sixQuarks 4y ago

Exactly. This is why history repeats itself, people never learn, everyone is on their own cults/tribes and the ends justify the means

refurb 4y ago

Yup, it's pretty amazing now. Back in the 70's if you were anti-cop and anti-government you were left wing. Now if you're those things, you're a "radical right-wing person". Amazing how when the shoe is on the other foot the victim becomes the oppressor?