5 ms·

“Free Speech Absolutist” Elon Musk Caves to Authoritarian Censorial Bullies

31 points by colejohnson66 3y ago

g4d 3y ago
Ultimately, it is important to strike a balance between promoting a robust exchange of ideas and protecting individuals and society from harmful content. Elon Musk's choices may not align perfectly with every person's vision of free speech absolutism, but it is essential to acknowledge the complexities inherent in such decisions and the challenging position he finds himself in.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  GPT-generated? Anyway, no one but Musk claimed operating a social media site was as simple as “free speech.”
- rini17 3y ago
  Twitter earlier fought similar ban in Turkey and won. Wikipedia did too.
jqpabc123 3y ago
Once again, we see that right wing accusations are really admissions and/or intentions. Those who pine for a black and white "absolutist" utopia are once again confronted with a reality made from shades of gray. Extremist ideology and solutions appeal to simple minded folks struggling to navigate a scary, complicated reality.
- fsagx 3y ago
  This is Musk being Musk. He is a contradiction stuffed in an enigma wrapped with bacon.
  - jqpabc123 3y ago
    Yes. Musk is just a posterchild for the ideology he has embraced --- the idea that real world problems have easy, simple minded solutions. Boldly declaring yourself a "free speech absolutist" is simple and appeals to a lot of people --- unfortunately, it is also naive and a poor fit for the complex reality of social media --- as Musk himself has just proven.
- bigtex88 3y ago
  An easy heuristic for anything coming from the right-wing in the US: if they are screaming about it, it means they are doing it. Pedophilia? They're the ones diddling kids. Censorship? The supposed "censorship" literally happened during the Trump administration. We're spending too much money? The Trump administration increased the national debt by 25%. Anything coming from the right should be taken with the biggest grain of salt the world has ever seen. There's a 99% chance that they're screaming about nothing and a 100% chance that they're not telling the entire truth.
mnky9800n 3y ago
Perhaps twitter was too good at promoting whatever speech there was to the forefront and rallying people in a way that would give power to them. Thus twitter needed to be stopped otherwise power would slowly creep from the hands of those that have it to the people they rule. I'm not saying there is some vast conspiracy puppeting elon musk to buy and ruin twitter. But that there is some natural resistance in the system that would promote this behavior to begin with.
mensetmanusman 3y ago
The old twitter stood up to authoritarians but also banned DMs that talked about true events in the west at the best of the US government, so it was kind of a buckshot with no coherent strategy.
- jqpabc123 3y ago
  The new twitter doesn't stand up to authoritarians and bans anything that Musk chooses --- so it is kind of buckshot with no coherent strategy --- despite discredited claims of being a "free speech absolutist". Meet the new boss, same as the old boss --- only more extreme.
- bigtex88 3y ago
  Which "true events" are you speaking about?
  - Dudelander 3y ago
    I'm guessing misleading facts about covid or the election or something.
Clubber 3y ago
>Musk promised us would show the US government demanding Twitter censor people (when it showed nothing of the sort), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Files https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Files I'm not sure how anyone could say that in good faith. The government was obviously asking for and was granted censorship on a regular basis. An act of government firmly against the first amendment. This statement shows this guy has an axe to grind and is willing to disregard obvious first amendment violations by the US government to grind it.
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  You should read the relevant part of that wikipedia page or maybe just all of it because it refutes your claims here. > David Loy, legal director for the First Amendment Coalition, said that Twitter is legally able to choose what speech is allowed on their site, noting that both the Biden campaign, which was not part of the government, and the Trump White House could request specific content moderation actions. It's probably not good but I haven't seen any reason to think the government's relationship to twitter was other than normative for social media companies. Whether it's "nothing of the sort" of censorship is a judgement call, I can certainly see how someone could make it in good faith.
  - Clubber 3y ago
    >because it refutes your claims here. It does nothing of the sort. The government shouldn't even be requesting it. Having the FBI do it is requesting it under duress. Having the FBI do it while bringing CEOs to testify before congress doubles down on the duress. Nice company, it would be a shame if anything were to happen to it. >any reason to think the government's relationship to twitter was other than normative for social media companies Yea, that's the problem, the news too. You might hate Musk and you might hate Twitter, but you shouldn't dismiss what's actually going on here.
    - anecdotal1 3y ago
      I still haven't seen evidence the _government_ demanded censorship. Maybe it exists, but nobody seems to cite any sources for it. What I have seen is government-adjacent entities that people confuse for the government like the Biden campaign request that Twitter apply their own Terms of Service policies to remove things that are not supposed to be allowed (like the nudes of Hunter, which is technically revenge porn)

31 points by colejohnson66 3y ago

g4d 3y ago

Ultimately, it is important to strike a balance between promoting a robust exchange of ideas and protecting individuals and society from harmful content. Elon Musk's choices may not align perfectly with every person's vision of free speech absolutism, but it is essential to acknowledge the complexities inherent in such decisions and the challenging position he finds himself in.

ethanbond 3y ago
GPT-generated? Anyway, no one but Musk claimed operating a social media site was as simple as “free speech.”
rini17 3y ago
Twitter earlier fought similar ban in Turkey and won. Wikipedia did too.

jqpabc123 3y ago

Once again, we see that right wing accusations are really admissions and/or intentions. Those who pine for a black and white "absolutist" utopia are once again confronted with a reality made from shades of gray. Extremist ideology and solutions appeal to simple minded folks struggling to navigate a scary, complicated reality.

fsagx 3y ago
This is Musk being Musk. He is a contradiction stuffed in an enigma wrapped with bacon.
- jqpabc123 3y ago
  Yes. Musk is just a posterchild for the ideology he has embraced --- the idea that real world problems have easy, simple minded solutions. Boldly declaring yourself a "free speech absolutist" is simple and appeals to a lot of people --- unfortunately, it is also naive and a poor fit for the complex reality of social media --- as Musk himself has just proven.
bigtex88 3y ago
An easy heuristic for anything coming from the right-wing in the US: if they are screaming about it, it means they are doing it. Pedophilia? They're the ones diddling kids. Censorship? The supposed "censorship" literally happened during the Trump administration. We're spending too much money? The Trump administration increased the national debt by 25%. Anything coming from the right should be taken with the biggest grain of salt the world has ever seen. There's a 99% chance that they're screaming about nothing and a 100% chance that they're not telling the entire truth.

mnky9800n 3y ago

Perhaps twitter was too good at promoting whatever speech there was to the forefront and rallying people in a way that would give power to them. Thus twitter needed to be stopped otherwise power would slowly creep from the hands of those that have it to the people they rule. I'm not saying there is some vast conspiracy puppeting elon musk to buy and ruin twitter. But that there is some natural resistance in the system that would promote this behavior to begin with.

mensetmanusman 3y ago

The old twitter stood up to authoritarians but also banned DMs that talked about true events in the west at the best of the US government, so it was kind of a buckshot with no coherent strategy.

jqpabc123 3y ago
The new twitter doesn't stand up to authoritarians and bans anything that Musk chooses --- so it is kind of buckshot with no coherent strategy --- despite discredited claims of being a "free speech absolutist". Meet the new boss, same as the old boss --- only more extreme.
bigtex88 3y ago
Which "true events" are you speaking about?
- Dudelander 3y ago
  I'm guessing misleading facts about covid or the election or something.

Clubber 3y ago

>Musk promised us would show the US government demanding Twitter censor people (when it showed nothing of the sort), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Files https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Files I'm not sure how anyone could say that in good faith. The government was obviously asking for and was granted censorship on a regular basis. An act of government firmly against the first amendment. This statement shows this guy has an axe to grind and is willing to disregard obvious first amendment violations by the US government to grind it.

giraffe_lady 3y ago
You should read the relevant part of that wikipedia page or maybe just all of it because it refutes your claims here. > David Loy, legal director for the First Amendment Coalition, said that Twitter is legally able to choose what speech is allowed on their site, noting that both the Biden campaign, which was not part of the government, and the Trump White House could request specific content moderation actions. It's probably not good but I haven't seen any reason to think the government's relationship to twitter was other than normative for social media companies. Whether it's "nothing of the sort" of censorship is a judgement call, I can certainly see how someone could make it in good faith.
- Clubber 3y ago
  >because it refutes your claims here. It does nothing of the sort. The government shouldn't even be requesting it. Having the FBI do it is requesting it under duress. Having the FBI do it while bringing CEOs to testify before congress doubles down on the duress. Nice company, it would be a shame if anything were to happen to it. >any reason to think the government's relationship to twitter was other than normative for social media companies Yea, that's the problem, the news too. You might hate Musk and you might hate Twitter, but you shouldn't dismiss what's actually going on here.
  - anecdotal1 3y ago
    I still haven't seen evidence the _government_ demanded censorship. Maybe it exists, but nobody seems to cite any sources for it. What I have seen is government-adjacent entities that people confuse for the government like the Biden campaign request that Twitter apply their own Terms of Service policies to remove things that are not supposed to be allowed (like the nudes of Hunter, which is technically revenge porn)