5 ms·

>> some of the tech world has put in significant effort to silence conservatives It's true, but that would be within Twitter and Meta's rights. The real issue

>> some of the tech world has put in significant effort to silence conservatives It's true, but that would be within Twitter and Meta's rights. The real issue was that they did so at the behest of the incoming administration, in behind-the-scenes meetings. It's the involvement of government officials that may have broken laws and trampled the First Amendment. Also egregious and painful to see was that they shadow-banned accounts rather than banning them outright. But I don't see how that has anything to do with a private, non-government advocacy group making their feelings known to advertisers. It happens all the time. Conservative groups call to boycott Budweiser, liberal groups call to boycott Chik-fil-A. It's not illegal. However, it's effective as a stunt for Elon, because saying that a Jewish advocacy group has the power to shut down his business implies, as subtext, the unspoken bit about Jews controlling the world. The statement and the choice of target leans on that implication. And the quote where he jokes that they're a defamation organization, as opposed to "anti-", reminds me of Sartre's quote which is worth repeating in full: "Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past."

Georgelemental 3y ago
> But I don't see how that has anything to do with a private, non-government advocacy group making their feelings known to advertisers. It happens all the time. Conservative groups call to boycott Budweiser, liberal groups call to boycott Chik-fil-A. It's not illegal. Definitely not. But if (not asserting this happened) the ADL threatened to defame as antisemitic any advertiser that didn't participate in a boycott, that could be illegal.
xenadu02 3y ago
> It's true, but that would be within Twitter and Meta's rights. The real issue was that they did so at the behest of the incoming administration, in behind-the-scenes meetings. It's the involvement of government officials that may have broken laws and trampled the First Amendment. Also egregious and painful to see was that they shadow-banned accounts rather than banning them outright. I don't believe there is any evidence for any of these claims. Rather the opposite: pro-freedom pro-business anti-regulation conservatives have been crying wolf for years now, demanding special meetings with tech companies, demanding special treatment, demanding government intervention, demanding that they be allowed to say anything without consequences. Modern US conservatives are a minority. How big of a minority depends on how you draw the lines. Republican policy proposals are often (but not always) even more unpopular. Cognitive dissonance (or just good old fashioned politicking) demands some conservatives insist otherwise and see everything as some kind of suppression effort or conspiracy. It's the whole "conservatism can't ever fail... it can only be failed" thing at work. Or the Simpsons Skinner meme: "Am I Out of Touch? No, it's the voters who are wrong!" If only the big mean tech companies weren't suppressing my clearly superior views everyone would agree with me. No... maybe your views are just way less popular than you think. Maybe instead of being shadow banned people just think you're an asshole.
- Georgelemental 3y ago
  > I don't believe there is any evidence for any of these claims. Your belief is incorrect. To give one isolated example (out of many): https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-bowed-to-white-house-pressure-removed-covid-posts-2df436b7 https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-bowed-to-white-house-p...
  - freejazz 3y ago
    Really? Linking to taking down covid disinformation seems to be making the poster's exact point
    - Georgelemental 3y ago
      > “We were under pressure from the administration and others to do more,” responded a Facebook vice president in charge of content policy, speaking of the Biden administration. “We shouldn’t have done it.” > The discussion took place three months after Facebook, which is owned by Meta Platforms META -0.14%decrease; red down pointing triangle, decided to stop banning posts asserting that Covid-19 was man-made or manufactured, in light of increasing debate about the virus’s origin.
throw310822 3y ago
> But I don't see how that has anything to do with a private, non-government advocacy group making their feelings known to advertisers. It happens all the time It might be perfectly fine, but why should the target of this campaign- also a private entity- refrain from denouncing this and retaliating with bad publicity for the involved advocacy group? Twitter/ X lives off ad revenue, and the ADL lives off its reputation of a non-partisan organisation pursuing a laudable cause. If ADL can erode X's advertising revenue, I don't see why X shouldn't fight back by trying to weaken the ADL's reputation, as long as it is done in the open and by legal means.
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  It's a bit of a high-risk strategy, isn't it? If one accuses the ADL of saying untrue harmful things about them and those things turn out to be true, then not only is one now carrying the initial bad actions on one's reputation, but one now has the added reputation of trying to legally bury knowledge of those actions. Not a great look.
  - throw310822 3y ago
    Yes, but it works also the other way around. If the ADL accuses one of doing something nefarious and then it turns out not to be true, their reputation is also compromised. The ADL must accept that there is a risk in moving its accusations, otherwise they would have no accountability. And even assuming that from a risk standpoint X should rather comply to whatever the ADL demands; what is the effect of companies never fighting back purely because of risk aversion? Wouldn't this end up making the activist organisation less accountable and even encourage further demands?
    - noduerme 3y ago
      But X would need to prove that the ADL made defamatory statements - presumably in private to said advertisers, because Elon's contention is that he's "heard from advertisers" about it. Then X would need to prove that those statements were false, and then prove that they financially harmed X. I'm dubious that X wants to, or can, do that. If Musk wants to go on a crusade to test whether the ADL makes up lies about antisemitism out of left-wing partisan hate for him personally (and if he really believes that), then fine, try to hold the ADL accountable. Why not? But the reason I quoted Sartre in that post is that I believe there is no sincerity to this. Selecting a Jewish organization as the source of his financial woes is simply a dog whistle to his increasingly radical rightwing fan base.

Georgelemental 3y ago

> But I don't see how that has anything to do with a private, non-government advocacy group making their feelings known to advertisers. It happens all the time. Conservative groups call to boycott Budweiser, liberal groups call to boycott Chik-fil-A. It's not illegal. Definitely not. But if (not asserting this happened) the ADL threatened to defame as antisemitic any advertiser that didn't participate in a boycott, that could be illegal.

xenadu02 3y ago

> It's true, but that would be within Twitter and Meta's rights. The real issue was that they did so at the behest of the incoming administration, in behind-the-scenes meetings. It's the involvement of government officials that may have broken laws and trampled the First Amendment. Also egregious and painful to see was that they shadow-banned accounts rather than banning them outright. I don't believe there is any evidence for any of these claims. Rather the opposite: pro-freedom pro-business anti-regulation conservatives have been crying wolf for years now, demanding special meetings with tech companies, demanding special treatment, demanding government intervention, demanding that they be allowed to say anything without consequences. Modern US conservatives are a minority. How big of a minority depends on how you draw the lines. Republican policy proposals are often (but not always) even more unpopular. Cognitive dissonance (or just good old fashioned politicking) demands some conservatives insist otherwise and see everything as some kind of suppression effort or conspiracy. It's the whole "conservatism can't ever fail... it can only be failed" thing at work. Or the Simpsons Skinner meme: "Am I Out of Touch? No, it's the voters who are wrong!" If only the big mean tech companies weren't suppressing my clearly superior views everyone would agree with me. No... maybe your views are just way less popular than you think. Maybe instead of being shadow banned people just think you're an asshole.

Georgelemental 3y ago
> I don't believe there is any evidence for any of these claims. Your belief is incorrect. To give one isolated example (out of many): https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-bowed-to-white-house-pressure-removed-covid-posts-2df436b7 https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-bowed-to-white-house-p...
- freejazz 3y ago
  Really? Linking to taking down covid disinformation seems to be making the poster's exact point
  - Georgelemental 3y ago
    > “We were under pressure from the administration and others to do more,” responded a Facebook vice president in charge of content policy, speaking of the Biden administration. “We shouldn’t have done it.” > The discussion took place three months after Facebook, which is owned by Meta Platforms META -0.14%decrease; red down pointing triangle, decided to stop banning posts asserting that Covid-19 was man-made or manufactured, in light of increasing debate about the virus’s origin.

throw310822 3y ago

> But I don't see how that has anything to do with a private, non-government advocacy group making their feelings known to advertisers. It happens all the time It might be perfectly fine, but why should the target of this campaign- also a private entity- refrain from denouncing this and retaliating with bad publicity for the involved advocacy group? Twitter/ X lives off ad revenue, and the ADL lives off its reputation of a non-partisan organisation pursuing a laudable cause. If ADL can erode X's advertising revenue, I don't see why X shouldn't fight back by trying to weaken the ADL's reputation, as long as it is done in the open and by legal means.

shadowgovt 3y ago
It's a bit of a high-risk strategy, isn't it? If one accuses the ADL of saying untrue harmful things about them and those things turn out to be true, then not only is one now carrying the initial bad actions on one's reputation, but one now has the added reputation of trying to legally bury knowledge of those actions. Not a great look.
- throw310822 3y ago
  Yes, but it works also the other way around. If the ADL accuses one of doing something nefarious and then it turns out not to be true, their reputation is also compromised. The ADL must accept that there is a risk in moving its accusations, otherwise they would have no accountability. And even assuming that from a risk standpoint X should rather comply to whatever the ADL demands; what is the effect of companies never fighting back purely because of risk aversion? Wouldn't this end up making the activist organisation less accountable and even encourage further demands?
  - noduerme 3y ago
    But X would need to prove that the ADL made defamatory statements - presumably in private to said advertisers, because Elon's contention is that he's "heard from advertisers" about it. Then X would need to prove that those statements were false, and then prove that they financially harmed X. I'm dubious that X wants to, or can, do that. If Musk wants to go on a crusade to test whether the ADL makes up lies about antisemitism out of left-wing partisan hate for him personally (and if he really believes that), then fine, try to hold the ADL accountable. Why not? But the reason I quoted Sartre in that post is that I believe there is no sincerity to this. Selecting a Jewish organization as the source of his financial woes is simply a dog whistle to his increasingly radical rightwing fan base.