5 ms·

> 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 cont

by 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.

by medler 3y ago

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.