3 ms·

> Musk is also a fan of the theory that when he speaks, your criticism of him violates his rights I hate to use such trite debate bro topics, but isn't this a

> Musk is also a fan of the theory that when he speaks, your criticism of him violates his rights I hate to use such trite debate bro topics, but isn't this a motte and bailey fallacy [1]? The motte is "we're just criticising Musk" while the bailey is "we're systematically contacting all of his advertisers and letting them know that if they continue to support him then we will campaign against them as well". The whole point of cancel culture isn't to state your objections/criticisms of ideas, it is to attack the support systems of individuals. Like, calling their employer en masse and demanding that they are fired. Or pushing their bank, their ISP, etc. to remove their ability to conduct any kind of business. Or to mass-report their social media to get them deplatformed. To phrase this as "we're just trying to criticize, why is he so mad and why does he want to silence our criticism" is a pretty manipulative take. Even to say "if advertisers want to leave they can" is a misrepresentation - advertisers are being extorted to leave, they are doing so under some pretty extreme duress. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy

medler 3y ago
> The motte is "we're just criticising Musk" while the bailey is "we're systematically contacting all of his advertisers and letting them know that if they continue to support him then we will campaign against them as well". As a free-speech absolutist, I genuinely don’t see any difference between criticizing a person and telling other people (advertisers) that that person did something bad. That’s what criticism is, telling someone you disapprove of something.
- zoogeny 3y ago
  I disagree that organizations like the ones Musk is railing against are “telling that person someone did something bad” I mean that in the sense that a group of thugs might show up to a business and mention “this is a bad neighborhood, it would be a shame if someone were to break your storefront window” They might argue they were just letting the business owner know a fact. They may even claim to be proponents of free-speech in an absolutist sense. But they are being manipulative and their claim to inform is an implied threat. Further, the threat’s being made to Twitter’s advertisers aim to materially harm Musk, not to address or counter the bad thing he is claimed to have said. I actually believe people have the legal right to do this. They often have a defensible moral reason. I just dislike that they obfuscate their tactics behind euphemism.
  - eapressoandcats 3y ago
    The implied threat was… that they wouldn’t buy from those companies anymore? While I guess that’s slightly worse than just casually notifying a company of bad behavior, it’s not much worse. The whole point of this kind of criticism is to exhort behavior change so I’m not really convinced it’s misleading… and I think that’s Popehat’s point.
    - zoogeny 3y ago
      No, the implied threat is that the brands name will be conspicuously dragged through the mud using every tool they have in the national media. Brands don’t care if a small group of activists boycott their product. They are terrified of being featured negatively. But at this point you’re just off in the weeds. This is all well-known tactics. Believe it or not tactics I don’t have much issue with. It just isn’t merely “criticism”. It’s an active and devastating campaign aimed to do as much harm as possible to bludgeon their adversary into the ground. It’s meant to inflict maximum damage to the recipient to induce fear in anyone who might consider following their example. But hey, I guess if they call it “criticism” then we can’t criticize them for doing it. Otherwise we’re just being hypocritical.
- EarlKing 3y ago
  So you'll have no problem if I start digging through your posting history for clues about your identity and contacting your employer to let them know what a horrible person you are, right? .....or is that sort of thing only ok when it's done against enemies of the state?
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    If what you dig up on me is presented in context, and my employer has made it clear that my behavior outside the workplace can be considered grounds for termination, then absolutely go for it [0]. On the other hand, if you selectively quote me, and/or my employer has no grounds for dismissal based on something that did not happen in the workplace, please don't waste your time. [0] I'm self employed.
  - pcwalton 3y ago
    You've successfully formulated the reasoning behind the legal "public figure" [1] standard from first principles. Elon Musk, especially when speaking in his capacity as owner of X, is unquestionably a public figure in a way that Hacker News commenter "medler" is not. (So is Media Matters.) [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure
  - djbusby 3y ago
    Don't dig through history, just respond to the current conversation. Advertisers didn't dig through history of posts to decide to leave, they had one final straw and dipped out in near real-time.
  - eapressoandcats 3y ago
    I’d argue that while that’s not illegal, that definitely crosses a line and am happy to articulate that line in the way that Popehat requests (something like “don’t take a statement of someone you don’t know made to a small group of friends a long time ago and harass their employer about it to get them fired”). Obviously that behavior is legal but I’m going to go out on a limb and say it’s morally bad and speech chilling. Elon is a public figure who is choosing to be a public figure and the statements he made were recent, so I think that’s fair game.
eapressoandcats 3y ago
Boycotts are unquestionably free speech from a legal perspective and definitional perspective. From a moral perspective, Popehat’s main consistent point is that you need to be very specific about what behaviors cross a line and actually apply that fairly, which Elon pretty clearly does not. He has no problems asking people to boycott companies: https://sfstandard.com/2023/08/28/elon-musk-calls-for-boycott-of-law-firm-involved-in-homelessness-lawsuit/ https://sfstandard.com/2023/08/28/elon-musk-calls-for-boycot...
- zoogeny 3y ago
  I have no interest in legality or even morality on this topic. This is a question of rhetoric. The actions in question aren’t a criticism of the ideas of Musk. They are collective actions to harm him by harming his business. The lawsuit will help determine whether or not those actions were legal.
  - eapressoandcats 3y ago
    The actions were almost certainly legal, otherwise boycotts are illegal, which would be insane, and also the tweet from Elonin the article I linked above would be illegal as well. Criticism and free speech generally includes that the criticism may convince people (including companies!) to change their behavior. Speaking about rhetoric, the point Popehat is making here is that all of the changes in advertiser behavior are in fact criticism. There is no Motte being retreated to, he is in fact standing firm at the bailey with the statement “criticism that results in financial harm and business action is still just criticism”.
    - zoogeny 3y ago
      This is a switch to “advertisers choosing not to advertise with Twitter is free speech”. That is different than “activists engaging in collective action to threaten advertisers to compel them to boycott Twitter are merely criticizing Musk” As to legality, that will depend on the specific wording they used to compel the advertisers.
22c 3y ago
I think you've touched on a certain power dynamic. Advertisers, for the most part, are not compelled to continue to advertise their product on a particular platform and would often rather pull advertising than deal with an angry mob. This tends to hold true even if the angry mob is wrong! It's easy for advertisers to resume spending once the dust has settled than stand by the accused. Some groups are keenly aware of this power dynamic and will exploit it to their own ends.
Obscurity4340 3y ago
TIL: Billionaires need a support system, they really are just like us

medler 3y ago

> The motte is "we're just criticising Musk" while the bailey is "we're systematically contacting all of his advertisers and letting them know that if they continue to support him then we will campaign against them as well". As a free-speech absolutist, I genuinely don’t see any difference between criticizing a person and telling other people (advertisers) that that person did something bad. That’s what criticism is, telling someone you disapprove of something.

zoogeny 3y ago
I disagree that organizations like the ones Musk is railing against are “telling that person someone did something bad” I mean that in the sense that a group of thugs might show up to a business and mention “this is a bad neighborhood, it would be a shame if someone were to break your storefront window” They might argue they were just letting the business owner know a fact. They may even claim to be proponents of free-speech in an absolutist sense. But they are being manipulative and their claim to inform is an implied threat. Further, the threat’s being made to Twitter’s advertisers aim to materially harm Musk, not to address or counter the bad thing he is claimed to have said. I actually believe people have the legal right to do this. They often have a defensible moral reason. I just dislike that they obfuscate their tactics behind euphemism.
- eapressoandcats 3y ago
  The implied threat was… that they wouldn’t buy from those companies anymore? While I guess that’s slightly worse than just casually notifying a company of bad behavior, it’s not much worse. The whole point of this kind of criticism is to exhort behavior change so I’m not really convinced it’s misleading… and I think that’s Popehat’s point.
  - zoogeny 3y ago
    No, the implied threat is that the brands name will be conspicuously dragged through the mud using every tool they have in the national media. Brands don’t care if a small group of activists boycott their product. They are terrified of being featured negatively. But at this point you’re just off in the weeds. This is all well-known tactics. Believe it or not tactics I don’t have much issue with. It just isn’t merely “criticism”. It’s an active and devastating campaign aimed to do as much harm as possible to bludgeon their adversary into the ground. It’s meant to inflict maximum damage to the recipient to induce fear in anyone who might consider following their example. But hey, I guess if they call it “criticism” then we can’t criticize them for doing it. Otherwise we’re just being hypocritical.
EarlKing 3y ago
So you'll have no problem if I start digging through your posting history for clues about your identity and contacting your employer to let them know what a horrible person you are, right? .....or is that sort of thing only ok when it's done against enemies of the state?
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  If what you dig up on me is presented in context, and my employer has made it clear that my behavior outside the workplace can be considered grounds for termination, then absolutely go for it [0]. On the other hand, if you selectively quote me, and/or my employer has no grounds for dismissal based on something that did not happen in the workplace, please don't waste your time. [0] I'm self employed.
- pcwalton 3y ago
  You've successfully formulated the reasoning behind the legal "public figure" [1] standard from first principles. Elon Musk, especially when speaking in his capacity as owner of X, is unquestionably a public figure in a way that Hacker News commenter "medler" is not. (So is Media Matters.) [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure
- djbusby 3y ago
  Don't dig through history, just respond to the current conversation. Advertisers didn't dig through history of posts to decide to leave, they had one final straw and dipped out in near real-time.
- eapressoandcats 3y ago
  I’d argue that while that’s not illegal, that definitely crosses a line and am happy to articulate that line in the way that Popehat requests (something like “don’t take a statement of someone you don’t know made to a small group of friends a long time ago and harass their employer about it to get them fired”). Obviously that behavior is legal but I’m going to go out on a limb and say it’s morally bad and speech chilling. Elon is a public figure who is choosing to be a public figure and the statements he made were recent, so I think that’s fair game.

eapressoandcats 3y ago

Boycotts are unquestionably free speech from a legal perspective and definitional perspective. From a moral perspective, Popehat’s main consistent point is that you need to be very specific about what behaviors cross a line and actually apply that fairly, which Elon pretty clearly does not. He has no problems asking people to boycott companies: https://sfstandard.com/2023/08/28/elon-musk-calls-for-boycott-of-law-firm-involved-in-homelessness-lawsuit/ https://sfstandard.com/2023/08/28/elon-musk-calls-for-boycot...

zoogeny 3y ago
I have no interest in legality or even morality on this topic. This is a question of rhetoric. The actions in question aren’t a criticism of the ideas of Musk. They are collective actions to harm him by harming his business. The lawsuit will help determine whether or not those actions were legal.
- eapressoandcats 3y ago
  The actions were almost certainly legal, otherwise boycotts are illegal, which would be insane, and also the tweet from Elonin the article I linked above would be illegal as well. Criticism and free speech generally includes that the criticism may convince people (including companies!) to change their behavior. Speaking about rhetoric, the point Popehat is making here is that all of the changes in advertiser behavior are in fact criticism. There is no Motte being retreated to, he is in fact standing firm at the bailey with the statement “criticism that results in financial harm and business action is still just criticism”.
  - zoogeny 3y ago
    This is a switch to “advertisers choosing not to advertise with Twitter is free speech”. That is different than “activists engaging in collective action to threaten advertisers to compel them to boycott Twitter are merely criticizing Musk” As to legality, that will depend on the specific wording they used to compel the advertisers.

22c 3y ago

I think you've touched on a certain power dynamic. Advertisers, for the most part, are not compelled to continue to advertise their product on a particular platform and would often rather pull advertising than deal with an angry mob. This tends to hold true even if the angry mob is wrong! It's easy for advertisers to resume spending once the dust has settled than stand by the accused. Some groups are keenly aware of this power dynamic and will exploit it to their own ends.

Obscurity4340 3y ago

TIL: Billionaires need a support system, they really are just like us