4 ms·

I’m not sure I agree that this is close to reality. The reality is much more benign. Musk isn’t the savior of free speech, he inserts rules against it constant

I’m not sure I agree that this is close to reality. The reality is much more benign. Musk isn’t the savior of free speech, he inserts rules against it constantly, like throttling nyt or saying they’ll comply with authoritarian states. He’s complains about spam and bots (despite claiming it’s an easy problem to solve) then changes verification in a way the makes it difficult know who is actually who. Separately, you seem very bitter toward people who have left twitter after Elon changed it. Perhaps because with the voices of the elite (a politically loaded term you’re using to describe experts or people at the top of their fields) departing, the platform is less valuable and interesting. The sad thing is, I think Elon could have been a good steward for the platform, but instead he’d rather antagonize advertisers and a subset of his users. That’s not being the great leveler though—if people select out, it’s no longer a common/shared space for everyone.

listenallyall 3y ago
How is throttling the New York Times on X anti-free speech? NYT is its own media platform, among the most powerful in the world, why should it expect a separate outlet to promote it? Further, as a powerful media outlet, the Times itself "throttles" all kinds of voices and opinions with which its editorial board and majority of its employees and readers don't agree.
- digging 3y ago
  The narrative that Musk is "opening" Twitter is false. The game has not changed, he just swapped out some of the rules for ones he personally likes better. For example, deadnaming trans people is now protected speech, but calling a cis person "cis" is punishable. I do not care what your opinion on trans people is - this is a double standard and is not "free speech absolutism". He also banned an account that was posting public data about his personal jets. He is afraid of absolute free speech (which is reasonable - most people are).
  - listenallyall 3y ago
    That's an entirely different, unrelated argument. I asked about the New York Times, which is just as powerful and influential (probably moreso) as Twitter. NYT content is not free for Twitter users to read, why should it be able to use Twitter for free to essentially mine for subscribers?
- jkubicek 3y ago
  Twitter can ban and throttle whoever it wants, they own the platform. What's __silly__ about the NYTimes being throttled on Twitter is how Musk champions his platform as a bastion of "free speech", while silencing those he disagrees with (NYTimes) or can't be bothered to defend (enemies of authoritarian governments). What __concerning__ is how many people claim to believe that Musk is actually a free-speech champion. Are they just trolling the rest of us, or do they actually believe it? Either one is worrisome.
  - svachalek 3y ago
    Most people define "free" speech as speech they agree with. Simple as that.
    - senderista 3y ago
      Just like they "tolerate" only opinions they agree with. (Which makes no sense: tolerance implies disagreement.)
  - listenallyall 3y ago
    But every NYTimes tweet is, essentially, a free advertisement. It doesn't post a simple comment or opinion (its writers do, sometimes), but every post from the official New York Times account is a brief summary of, and link to, a story on its own platform (most of which are inaccessible to non-paying subscribers). Yes - this is also true of almost every other media platform that tweets - but that makes this an argument about advertising content, not "speech."
    - jkubicek 3y ago
      Advertising content is speech
      - listenallyall 3y ago
        it's not free
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  NYT does not claim to be a platform for everyone's free speech, and their editorial board is held to account for the shit they publish. Compleyely diffetent business. Elon wants it both ways - when u ask him, why is there messed up shit on twitter, he sats free spedch. When u ask him, why can't X post on twitter, its because he editorialized it. He wants all the benefits and none of the accountability.
  - listenallyall 3y ago
    It claims, quite famously, to publish "all the news that's fit to print" and then internally, chooses stories to promote (often with very specious sourcing) and others to squash.
mensetmanusman 3y ago
Babylon Bee isn't banned for wrongthink anymore, so that's a plus.
- aliasxneo 3y ago
  I've always found this story so fascinating. The amount they get targeted is insane for being a satire website, regardless of if you think it's funny or not.
  - tayo42 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - mensetmanusman 3y ago
      The person writing satire decides if it is satire regardless of how a reader's brain maps the words into thoughts.
      - Jordrok 3y ago
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author
        mensetmanusman 3y ago
        I think people with near zero empathy regard their interpretation as primary, but most humans can understand that people have different senses of humor.
        Jordrok 3y ago
        > but most humans can understand that people have different senses of humor I agree completely. And I would think that someone with greater than zero empathy would have a hard time arguing that there is one and only one correct way to interpret a piece of writing. An author with a non-zero amount of empathy should be well aware that their work will be interpreted in a variety of ways by a varied audience, and won't seek to hide behind the flimsy shield of "satire" when they publish something intentionally provocative and incendiary.
briantakita 3y ago
> if people select out, it’s no longer a common/shared space for everyone. It's not as Twitter was a common space for everyone before Musk took over. I do like X Spaces. Great conversations with different point of views. Far superior format to cable tv talk shows. It seems like X is pivoting it's model away from advertisers. Given the out of touch "corporate friendly" message brought to you by ... it's refreshing to hear more realistic conversations. Not perfect, but they are up against Cable news & some of the corporate sponsored YouTube channels...which seem so...fake.

listenallyall 3y ago

How is throttling the New York Times on X anti-free speech? NYT is its own media platform, among the most powerful in the world, why should it expect a separate outlet to promote it? Further, as a powerful media outlet, the Times itself "throttles" all kinds of voices and opinions with which its editorial board and majority of its employees and readers don't agree.

digging 3y ago
The narrative that Musk is "opening" Twitter is false. The game has not changed, he just swapped out some of the rules for ones he personally likes better. For example, deadnaming trans people is now protected speech, but calling a cis person "cis" is punishable. I do not care what your opinion on trans people is - this is a double standard and is not "free speech absolutism". He also banned an account that was posting public data about his personal jets. He is afraid of absolute free speech (which is reasonable - most people are).
- listenallyall 3y ago
  That's an entirely different, unrelated argument. I asked about the New York Times, which is just as powerful and influential (probably moreso) as Twitter. NYT content is not free for Twitter users to read, why should it be able to use Twitter for free to essentially mine for subscribers?
jkubicek 3y ago
Twitter can ban and throttle whoever it wants, they own the platform. What's __silly__ about the NYTimes being throttled on Twitter is how Musk champions his platform as a bastion of "free speech", while silencing those he disagrees with (NYTimes) or can't be bothered to defend (enemies of authoritarian governments). What __concerning__ is how many people claim to believe that Musk is actually a free-speech champion. Are they just trolling the rest of us, or do they actually believe it? Either one is worrisome.
- svachalek 3y ago
  Most people define "free" speech as speech they agree with. Simple as that.
  - senderista 3y ago
    Just like they "tolerate" only opinions they agree with. (Which makes no sense: tolerance implies disagreement.)
- listenallyall 3y ago
  But every NYTimes tweet is, essentially, a free advertisement. It doesn't post a simple comment or opinion (its writers do, sometimes), but every post from the official New York Times account is a brief summary of, and link to, a story on its own platform (most of which are inaccessible to non-paying subscribers). Yes - this is also true of almost every other media platform that tweets - but that makes this an argument about advertising content, not "speech."
  - jkubicek 3y ago
    Advertising content is speech
    - listenallyall 3y ago
      it's not free
ClumsyPilot 3y ago
NYT does not claim to be a platform for everyone's free speech, and their editorial board is held to account for the shit they publish. Compleyely diffetent business. Elon wants it both ways - when u ask him, why is there messed up shit on twitter, he sats free spedch. When u ask him, why can't X post on twitter, its because he editorialized it. He wants all the benefits and none of the accountability.
- listenallyall 3y ago
  It claims, quite famously, to publish "all the news that's fit to print" and then internally, chooses stories to promote (often with very specious sourcing) and others to squash.

mensetmanusman 3y ago

Babylon Bee isn't banned for wrongthink anymore, so that's a plus.

aliasxneo 3y ago
I've always found this story so fascinating. The amount they get targeted is insane for being a satire website, regardless of if you think it's funny or not.
- tayo42 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - mensetmanusman 3y ago
    The person writing satire decides if it is satire regardless of how a reader's brain maps the words into thoughts.
    - Jordrok 3y ago
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author
      - mensetmanusman 3y ago
        I think people with near zero empathy regard their interpretation as primary, but most humans can understand that people have different senses of humor.
        Jordrok 3y ago
        > but most humans can understand that people have different senses of humor I agree completely. And I would think that someone with greater than zero empathy would have a hard time arguing that there is one and only one correct way to interpret a piece of writing. An author with a non-zero amount of empathy should be well aware that their work will be interpreted in a variety of ways by a varied audience, and won't seek to hide behind the flimsy shield of "satire" when they publish something intentionally provocative and incendiary.

briantakita 3y ago

> if people select out, it’s no longer a common/shared space for everyone. It's not as Twitter was a common space for everyone before Musk took over. I do like X Spaces. Great conversations with different point of views. Far superior format to cable tv talk shows. It seems like X is pivoting it's model away from advertisers. Given the out of touch "corporate friendly" message brought to you by ... it's refreshing to hear more realistic conversations. Not perfect, but they are up against Cable news & some of the corporate sponsored YouTube channels...which seem so...fake.