5 ms·

Musk's conception of free speech is completely incoherent. On the one hand he claims to want to fund the legal defense of people fired for their tweets[1], on t

Musk's conception of free speech is completely incoherent. On the one hand he claims to want to fund the legal defense of people fired for their tweets[1], on the other hand we have stuff like this. The simplest explanation is that his idea of speech that should be free is: "stuff I agree with" and anything that falls outside of that box can be freely censored or actioned against. Is there an alternative explanation I'm not seeing? [1] https://www.theverge.com/22345505/elon-musk-twitter-x-employer-legal-bill-bs https://www.theverge.com/22345505/elon-musk-twitter-x-employ... Edit: Thinking about this discussion reminded me that "cis" and "cisgender" are considered slurs on twitter and using these terms can get your account suspended[2]. Interesting. [2] https://nypost.com/2023/06/21/elon-musk-says-terms-like-cisgender-are-considered-slurs-on-twitter/ https://nypost.com/2023/06/21/elon-musk-says-terms-like-cisg...

camhart 3y ago
Freedom of speech does not mean employees can say whatever they want and not be fired. Freedom of speech means the government can't silence its citizens.
- AlexandrB 3y ago
  We're discussing Musk's definition of "freedom of speech", not yours, mine, or the constitution's. He seems to believe you should be able to say whatever you want (on Twitter) and not get fired. This is the definition that's relevant here because his ideas about freedom of speech from his many tweets on the subject don't align with his actions as a leader at Tesla and SpaceX.
  - brandonagr2 3y ago
    Where do you get "and not get fired" from? You seem to be just inventing your own definition and falsely attributing it to Musk. Not being banned from a platform for a legal post that might be unpopular is not at all the same as never getting fired from an employer.
    - AlexandrB 3y ago
      To quote Musk's Tweet[1] on the topic: > If you were unfairly treated by your employer due to posting or liking something on this platform, we will fund your legal bill. > No limit. > Please let us know. Now "unfairly treated" leaves some wiggle room, but the obvious implication here is that if you get "unfairly" fired for Tweeting something Musk will fund your legal bills. Why would he make this offer if he did not believe that you should have freedom to say (Tweet) things your employer hates without retribution such as getting laid off? [1] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1688022163574439937 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1688022163574439937
      - jeswin 3y ago
        "On this platform". That's not circulating grievances/politics on a company's internal channels. How are we confusing these two?
        dralley 3y ago
        First of all, let's dispense with the notion that "on twitter" actually matters, given the man is so petty that he canceled a dude's Tesla order over a tweet that criticized him. Anyway: "grievances/politics" It came out that he paid a $250,000 settlement for a sexual harassment suit and he decided to respond to this by making jokes on twitter, quote: “Hi Chad, long time no see! Fine, if you touch my wiener, you can have a horse.” Can we not act like this is "politics"? This is about the basic decency people should expect from any employer.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        throwaway2037 3y ago
        Wow, that Twitter quote is crazy. Can you imagine any other CEO (or C-suite) for a major corp writing the same thing? They would be instantly fired. You see it on Wall Street frequently for much less, and at all ranks of employees. After many costly sexual harassment lawsuits against Wall Street banks, the culture has changed significantly in the last 20 years.
- bugglebeetle 3y ago
  It does, to an extent, in many countries with stronger labor protections. The US has a unique conception of individual rights where they disappear the moment you step into a workplace. This is not, however, universal.
sumeno 3y ago
His conception of free speech is that he should be able to say whatever he wants with no consequences. It doesn't go beyond that, he doesn't want other people to be able to say whatever they want with no consequences unless they're saying nice things about him.
- YetAnotherNick 3y ago
  I am sure Musk has lot but issues but he has repeatedly said and acted like he is fine with consequences of his speech. Like he is fine with advertisers leaving twitter/X[1] for his speech. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK91Ji6GCZ8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK91Ji6GCZ8
  - BHSPitMonkey 3y ago
    1. The advertisers didn't leave Twitter (in the instance being discussed there) because of Musk's speech, they left because it was pointed out that their ads were being displayed amongst tweets containing hate speech. 2. That interview is not him acting "fine" with those advertisers leaving; it's him emotionally lashing out in anger at them for doing so.
    - mlindner 3y ago
      1. This is factually false. They're not being displayed amongst tweets containing hate speech. (The reporting group basically reverse engineered Twitter's protocol to force an ad to appear next to a hate speech comment.)
  - maxbond 3y ago
    He's said so sure, but I don't think he's acted like it. He's frequently sued people or threatened to sue them for criticizing his speech (criticism being a consequence of speaking). He's recently embarked on just such a lawsuit against Media Matters, in connection with the affair you reference. He threatened to sue Vernon Unsworth for calling his rescue sub idea a publicity stunt, when asked directly about it in an interview. You can think whatever you will about Media Matter's reporting and Unsworth's analysis, but I don't think that's accepting the consequences of his speech. To me that seems like trying to intimidate people who criticize you.
alephnan 3y ago
It's a private company that does not have a legal or moral obligation to extend free speech to employees. Employees are paid to produce value for their bossses and are free to leave if they don't like it.
rsynnott 3y ago
> The simplest explanation is that his idea of speech that should be free is: "stuff I agree with" and anything that falls outside of that box can be freely censored or actioned against. Is there an alternative explanation I'm not seeing? No; that's about the size of it. This is a surprisingly common stance for people who go on about "free speech" a lot; they often don't mean free speech at all. Freedom from personal criticism would be closer to the mark.

camhart 3y ago

Freedom of speech does not mean employees can say whatever they want and not be fired. Freedom of speech means the government can't silence its citizens.

AlexandrB 3y ago
We're discussing Musk's definition of "freedom of speech", not yours, mine, or the constitution's. He seems to believe you should be able to say whatever you want (on Twitter) and not get fired. This is the definition that's relevant here because his ideas about freedom of speech from his many tweets on the subject don't align with his actions as a leader at Tesla and SpaceX.
- brandonagr2 3y ago
  Where do you get "and not get fired" from? You seem to be just inventing your own definition and falsely attributing it to Musk. Not being banned from a platform for a legal post that might be unpopular is not at all the same as never getting fired from an employer.
  - AlexandrB 3y ago
    To quote Musk's Tweet[1] on the topic: > If you were unfairly treated by your employer due to posting or liking something on this platform, we will fund your legal bill. > No limit. > Please let us know. Now "unfairly treated" leaves some wiggle room, but the obvious implication here is that if you get "unfairly" fired for Tweeting something Musk will fund your legal bills. Why would he make this offer if he did not believe that you should have freedom to say (Tweet) things your employer hates without retribution such as getting laid off? [1] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1688022163574439937 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1688022163574439937
    - jeswin 3y ago
      "On this platform". That's not circulating grievances/politics on a company's internal channels. How are we confusing these two?
      - dralley 3y ago
        First of all, let's dispense with the notion that "on twitter" actually matters, given the man is so petty that he canceled a dude's Tesla order over a tweet that criticized him. Anyway: "grievances/politics" It came out that he paid a $250,000 settlement for a sexual harassment suit and he decided to respond to this by making jokes on twitter, quote: “Hi Chad, long time no see! Fine, if you touch my wiener, you can have a horse.” Can we not act like this is "politics"? This is about the basic decency people should expect from any employer.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        throwaway2037 3y ago
        Wow, that Twitter quote is crazy. Can you imagine any other CEO (or C-suite) for a major corp writing the same thing? They would be instantly fired. You see it on Wall Street frequently for much less, and at all ranks of employees. After many costly sexual harassment lawsuits against Wall Street banks, the culture has changed significantly in the last 20 years.
bugglebeetle 3y ago
It does, to an extent, in many countries with stronger labor protections. The US has a unique conception of individual rights where they disappear the moment you step into a workplace. This is not, however, universal.

sumeno 3y ago

His conception of free speech is that he should be able to say whatever he wants with no consequences. It doesn't go beyond that, he doesn't want other people to be able to say whatever they want with no consequences unless they're saying nice things about him.

YetAnotherNick 3y ago
I am sure Musk has lot but issues but he has repeatedly said and acted like he is fine with consequences of his speech. Like he is fine with advertisers leaving twitter/X[1] for his speech. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK91Ji6GCZ8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK91Ji6GCZ8
- BHSPitMonkey 3y ago
  1. The advertisers didn't leave Twitter (in the instance being discussed there) because of Musk's speech, they left because it was pointed out that their ads were being displayed amongst tweets containing hate speech. 2. That interview is not him acting "fine" with those advertisers leaving; it's him emotionally lashing out in anger at them for doing so.
  - mlindner 3y ago
    1. This is factually false. They're not being displayed amongst tweets containing hate speech. (The reporting group basically reverse engineered Twitter's protocol to force an ad to appear next to a hate speech comment.)
- maxbond 3y ago
  He's said so sure, but I don't think he's acted like it. He's frequently sued people or threatened to sue them for criticizing his speech (criticism being a consequence of speaking). He's recently embarked on just such a lawsuit against Media Matters, in connection with the affair you reference. He threatened to sue Vernon Unsworth for calling his rescue sub idea a publicity stunt, when asked directly about it in an interview. You can think whatever you will about Media Matter's reporting and Unsworth's analysis, but I don't think that's accepting the consequences of his speech. To me that seems like trying to intimidate people who criticize you.

alephnan 3y ago

It's a private company that does not have a legal or moral obligation to extend free speech to employees. Employees are paid to produce value for their bossses and are free to leave if they don't like it.

rsynnott 3y ago

> The simplest explanation is that his idea of speech that should be free is: "stuff I agree with" and anything that falls outside of that box can be freely censored or actioned against. Is there an alternative explanation I'm not seeing? No; that's about the size of it. This is a surprisingly common stance for people who go on about "free speech" a lot; they often don't mean free speech at all. Freedom from personal criticism would be closer to the mark.