3 ms·

I don't know about this case specifically but X has certainly not lived up to Elon's free speech claims. I guess that shouldn't be a surprise - people with big

I don't know about this case specifically but X has certainly not lived up to Elon's free speech claims. I guess that shouldn't be a surprise - people with big egos often have thin skin and can't live up to their supposed principles when it affects them in some way. Actually a lot of people have trouble living up to their principles when it affects them. Human nature I guess.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Human nature I guess Sorry, plenty of people and companies live up to their principles. Including many of Musk’s. Free speech was simply never a value of his, and that’s pretty clear if you observe how he’s hired and fired.
- tsunamifury 3y ago
  Everyone billionaire needs to control a media outlet to protect themselves and project their ideology. It was never about free speech
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Everyone billionaire needs to control a media outlet to protect themselves and project their ideology Most billionaires who owned newspapers did so as patrons. They were fiercely defensive of the press, e.g. Kay Graham, or left things alone, e.g. Bezos. This independence is historically what separated journalism from tabloids.
    - tsunamifury 3y ago
      I worked in journalism for a decade. Owning publications allowed them to catch and kill, publish their own opinions and defend their strategic positions in ways people never noticed. Larry Page literally attempted to block his name from Google News. It was not at all like you think.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > worked in journalism for a decade Can you say where you worked? I know a number of journalists, and none has described something like that, though they’re all at reputable publications. (The New York Post, on the other hand, obviously engages in those shenanigans.)
        tsunamifury 3y ago
        Gave an explicit example already. Also the nyt famously caught and killed several whistle blowers because the owners family wanted to stay tight with the administration. WSJ regularly publishes Murdoch op-eds and cutouts. On and on. This is not uncommon. Many journalist I worked with were nice enough reporters but not very smart about Corp situations behind the scenes.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > Gave an explicit example already Google News doesn't have journalists. Tech company CEOs have never been expected to keep things impersonal. > the nyt famously caught and killed several whistle blowers because the owners family wanted to stay tight with the administration Scummy, but not an editorial decision. > WSJ regularly publishes Murdoch op-eds and cutouts Sure, owners and the editorial board put their slant on opinion sections. Granted. You’ve not really given any indication that the actual journalism is being toyed with. The best examples you might have put forward would be the Murdochs. But their nonsense tends to focus around TV.
        tsunamifury 3y ago
        You seem to be focused on arguing rather than just accepting the point within reason. Also patently wrong, the nyt case was absolutely and editorial decision made by “Keller” under pressure from the ownership family. So I don’t think you’re really gonna concede any rational point here.
      - defrost 3y ago
        You're likely then to be familiar with Dennis Potter and his scathing skewering of Rupert Murdoch's debasement of Fleet Street then. Point being that #NotAllMedia owners run tabloids or obsessively micromanage their journalists .. although it'd be a rare owner that didn't try to bend a narrative a few times here and there. Some owners are scum, the Murdochs and the Conrad Blacks take that dial to 11 for starters and then bend the needle further. Others are far less hands on and can actually seem to support free and fearless journalism (mostly). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Potter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Potter

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> Human nature I guess Sorry, plenty of people and companies live up to their principles. Including many of Musk’s. Free speech was simply never a value of his, and that’s pretty clear if you observe how he’s hired and fired.

tsunamifury 3y ago
Everyone billionaire needs to control a media outlet to protect themselves and project their ideology. It was never about free speech
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Everyone billionaire needs to control a media outlet to protect themselves and project their ideology Most billionaires who owned newspapers did so as patrons. They were fiercely defensive of the press, e.g. Kay Graham, or left things alone, e.g. Bezos. This independence is historically what separated journalism from tabloids.
  - tsunamifury 3y ago
    I worked in journalism for a decade. Owning publications allowed them to catch and kill, publish their own opinions and defend their strategic positions in ways people never noticed. Larry Page literally attempted to block his name from Google News. It was not at all like you think.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > worked in journalism for a decade Can you say where you worked? I know a number of journalists, and none has described something like that, though they’re all at reputable publications. (The New York Post, on the other hand, obviously engages in those shenanigans.)
      - tsunamifury 3y ago
        Gave an explicit example already. Also the nyt famously caught and killed several whistle blowers because the owners family wanted to stay tight with the administration. WSJ regularly publishes Murdoch op-eds and cutouts. On and on. This is not uncommon. Many journalist I worked with were nice enough reporters but not very smart about Corp situations behind the scenes.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > Gave an explicit example already Google News doesn't have journalists. Tech company CEOs have never been expected to keep things impersonal. > the nyt famously caught and killed several whistle blowers because the owners family wanted to stay tight with the administration Scummy, but not an editorial decision. > WSJ regularly publishes Murdoch op-eds and cutouts Sure, owners and the editorial board put their slant on opinion sections. Granted. You’ve not really given any indication that the actual journalism is being toyed with. The best examples you might have put forward would be the Murdochs. But their nonsense tends to focus around TV.
        tsunamifury 3y ago
        You seem to be focused on arguing rather than just accepting the point within reason. Also patently wrong, the nyt case was absolutely and editorial decision made by “Keller” under pressure from the ownership family. So I don’t think you’re really gonna concede any rational point here.
    - defrost 3y ago
      You're likely then to be familiar with Dennis Potter and his scathing skewering of Rupert Murdoch's debasement of Fleet Street then. Point being that #NotAllMedia owners run tabloids or obsessively micromanage their journalists .. although it'd be a rare owner that didn't try to bend a narrative a few times here and there. Some owners are scum, the Murdochs and the Conrad Blacks take that dial to 11 for starters and then bend the needle further. Others are far less hands on and can actually seem to support free and fearless journalism (mostly). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Potter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Potter