5 ms·

Isn’t this Elon putting his money where his mouth is? He’s stated many times that he bought Twitter due to free speech concerns and not to make money. It’s kind

Isn’t this Elon putting his money where his mouth is? He’s stated many times that he bought Twitter due to free speech concerns and not to make money. It’s kind of weird to me that people on the internet aren’t praising him for being principled, and are instead laughing at him for (expectedly) losing money.

notaustinpowers 3y ago
Whether he's morphing Twitter as a new bastion of free speech remains to be seen. Musk himself says that saying the word "cis" is a slur with threats of suspension for saying it. Meanwhile, transgender people are actively being deadnamed and harassed with no repercussions to those committing those actions. Which is a clear violation of their Hateful Conduct policies. Then when companies decide "Hey, I don't want to give my money to a company like that" based on reports of rising hate comments and speech on the platform Elon then threatens to sue them despite their protected speech. It's giving "free speech for me but not for thee", which rubs a lot of people the wrong way. And, to many, this incredibly public meltdown of Twitter and Elon's inability to not be the center of attention is why people are laughing. It's absurdity to the nth degree.
- sidibe 3y ago
  He also threw "decolonization" into the words you can be suspended for (part of his outreach after getting in trouble over antisemitism)
- 63837449 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - pests 3y ago
    Then why is one allowee and another getting bans for?
FireBeyond 3y ago
> He’s stated many times that he bought Twitter due to free speech concerns and not to make money. It’s kind of weird to me that people on the internet aren’t praising him for being principled, and are instead laughing at him for (expectedly) losing money. Well, other than the whole little thing where he said "advertisers leaving will destroy Twitter and it will be all their fault". Platforms offered advertising for, last I checked, making money.
kjellsbells 3y ago
I struggle with the two-sided ness of his claims. If he wanted to build a free speech base, and burn his money doing so, that is his right, but then he can't whine and complain if his customers (advertisers) decide to take their business elsewhere. Which he does, in spades. Even more oddly, he has poor Linda Yaccarino out there pressing the flesh on Madison Avenue, trying to reassure customers that Twitter is a safe space for them to promote their brand. The same logic applies in the other direction too, eg if I sell beer and my customers object to my spokesperson, I can be sorry about their decision, and regret their choice not to buy my beer, but I dont have the right to complain. In both cases, a business decision was made, and the business owner must deal with the consequences.
- throw310822 3y ago
  > then he can't whine and complain if his customers (advertisers) decide to take their business elsewhere I said this so many times it's embarrassing, but the wrong assumption is that advertisers stop buying ads because somehow the content directly damages the brand. Which I think is super naive. The reality is that organisations and media who dislike the content threaten advertisers of organising campaigns against them if they don't boycott the platform. Consumer actions (right or wrong, doesn't matter) are almost never spontaneous, they need to be organised and promoted. There are organisations that have this as one of their core businesses and have an enormous ability to influence what is published. So Musk is not complaining about the fact that his advertisers are going elsewhere, but about the fact that political organisations are pressuring them to do so under threat of damaging their business.
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    Given how distasteful people find his actions, it's not surprising that people organize against them. Unless you're suggesting that his actions are viewed favorably by people (lol), but people are being brainwashed into acting in the opposite manner by some conspiracy of organizations. The more likely scenario is that most people think he acts like a douchebag, and most folks don't like associating with people who act like douchebags, and if those folks organize, more power to 'em.
srmarm 3y ago
In this case it was Fidelity putting their customers money where his mouth was actually.
xenospn 3y ago
He’s blocking and banning people left and right. I don’t think the “free speech” claim was serious.
- rsynnott 3y ago
  Like many people who go on about free speech a lot, he just has his own personal definition; free speech, for Elon, _clearly_ is a term of art meaning speech that Elon approves of. There's no other way to read his actions.
ryanklee 3y ago
He's not being principled, he's being an asshole.

notaustinpowers 3y ago

Whether he's morphing Twitter as a new bastion of free speech remains to be seen. Musk himself says that saying the word "cis" is a slur with threats of suspension for saying it. Meanwhile, transgender people are actively being deadnamed and harassed with no repercussions to those committing those actions. Which is a clear violation of their Hateful Conduct policies. Then when companies decide "Hey, I don't want to give my money to a company like that" based on reports of rising hate comments and speech on the platform Elon then threatens to sue them despite their protected speech. It's giving "free speech for me but not for thee", which rubs a lot of people the wrong way. And, to many, this incredibly public meltdown of Twitter and Elon's inability to not be the center of attention is why people are laughing. It's absurdity to the nth degree.

sidibe 3y ago
He also threw "decolonization" into the words you can be suspended for (part of his outreach after getting in trouble over antisemitism)
63837449 3y ago
[flagged]
- pests 3y ago
  Then why is one allowee and another getting bans for?

FireBeyond 3y ago

> He’s stated many times that he bought Twitter due to free speech concerns and not to make money. It’s kind of weird to me that people on the internet aren’t praising him for being principled, and are instead laughing at him for (expectedly) losing money. Well, other than the whole little thing where he said "advertisers leaving will destroy Twitter and it will be all their fault". Platforms offered advertising for, last I checked, making money.

kjellsbells 3y ago

I struggle with the two-sided ness of his claims. If he wanted to build a free speech base, and burn his money doing so, that is his right, but then he can't whine and complain if his customers (advertisers) decide to take their business elsewhere. Which he does, in spades. Even more oddly, he has poor Linda Yaccarino out there pressing the flesh on Madison Avenue, trying to reassure customers that Twitter is a safe space for them to promote their brand. The same logic applies in the other direction too, eg if I sell beer and my customers object to my spokesperson, I can be sorry about their decision, and regret their choice not to buy my beer, but I dont have the right to complain. In both cases, a business decision was made, and the business owner must deal with the consequences.

throw310822 3y ago
> then he can't whine and complain if his customers (advertisers) decide to take their business elsewhere I said this so many times it's embarrassing, but the wrong assumption is that advertisers stop buying ads because somehow the content directly damages the brand. Which I think is super naive. The reality is that organisations and media who dislike the content threaten advertisers of organising campaigns against them if they don't boycott the platform. Consumer actions (right or wrong, doesn't matter) are almost never spontaneous, they need to be organised and promoted. There are organisations that have this as one of their core businesses and have an enormous ability to influence what is published. So Musk is not complaining about the fact that his advertisers are going elsewhere, but about the fact that political organisations are pressuring them to do so under threat of damaging their business.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  Given how distasteful people find his actions, it's not surprising that people organize against them. Unless you're suggesting that his actions are viewed favorably by people (lol), but people are being brainwashed into acting in the opposite manner by some conspiracy of organizations. The more likely scenario is that most people think he acts like a douchebag, and most folks don't like associating with people who act like douchebags, and if those folks organize, more power to 'em.

srmarm 3y ago

In this case it was Fidelity putting their customers money where his mouth was actually.

xenospn 3y ago

He’s blocking and banning people left and right. I don’t think the “free speech” claim was serious.

rsynnott 3y ago
Like many people who go on about free speech a lot, he just has his own personal definition; free speech, for Elon, _clearly_ is a term of art meaning speech that Elon approves of. There's no other way to read his actions.

ryanklee 3y ago

He's not being principled, he's being an asshole.