3 ms·

> He’s elevated a particular kind of speech which historically was cancelled but has, since Trump’s election in 2016, had zero problem gaining mainstream access

by cbeach 2y ago

> He’s elevated a particular kind of speech which historically was cancelled but has, since Trump’s election in 2016, had zero problem gaining mainstream access. Musk has allowed conservative voices on x.com which were systematically banned from Twitter and other Big Tech sites. I'd highly recommend reading the Twitter Files to get an understanding of how the public square was politically manipulated prior to Musk's takeover of Twitter. It's important we all understand that free speech is one of the most fundamental parts of the American Constitution. The Founding Fathers came to America with the knowledge of what society looks like when people's speech is controlled. They wanted America to be better than that.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Twitter Files to get an understanding of how the public square was politically manipulated This is mostly bunk. It’s true about Twitter in a limited sense. But claiming conservatives didn’t have Fox News, One America, et cetera [1], to say nothing of having their views amplified, even if critically, in all manner of national press prior to Musk is false. Musk amplified right-wing populist (not conservative) views while silencing others’. That’s fine, it’s a private platform. But it’s not free speech. Going back to the original point, it’s a position that has almost certainly cost Tesla billions in sales. Lucid isn't going to out-Musk Musk among the NewsMax crowd, that's pulling a DeSantis. > Founding Fathers came to America with the knowledge of what society looks like when people's speech is controlled What are you citing that shows the founders expressing this view? The founders mostly concerned themselves with factionalism [2][3], which is historically how republics have failed. The First Amendment was framed as it was--limiting the Congress, not the public--with intent [4]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_media_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_media_in... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10 [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._27 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._27 [4] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/historical-background-on-free-speech-clause https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/h...
- cbeach 2y ago
  > claiming conservatives didn’t have Fox News, One America, et cetera [1], to say nothing of having their views amplified, even if critically, in all manner of national press prior to Musk is false. I was describing Big Tech (not legacy media like Fox News). On social media, sharing narratives inconvenient to the leftwing establishment resulted in conservative voices being systematically de-platformed (e.g. anyone that shared the Hunter Biden Laptop story - which, by the way, was later proved to be a genuine story, not a conspiracy theory) > Musk amplified right-wing populist (not conservative) views while silencing others Musk is allowed to tweet and retweet whomever he likes, just like anyone else. That's how free speech works. Can you give any examples of noteworthy accounts that followed the guidelines, and the law, yet got arbitrarily silenced by Musk? > What are you citing that shows the founders expressing this view? The British govt was notorious for silencing inconvenient voices. There were strict controls on speech and the press in the colonies e.g. the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, the NY printer who was charged for publishing criticism of the colonial governor. Or the Stamp Act, which taxed newspapers to suppress opposition to British govt policy. You mentioned the Federalist Papers (a series of essays that were pivotal in shaping American political philosophy) but you didn't mention No. 84. In this paper, Hamilton argues against the need for a Bill of Rights, asserting that the Constitution itself is a bill of rights. Hamilton’s argument was that the Constitution’s structure — featuring separated powers and checks and balances — provided sufficient safeguards against government tyranny, which includes protecting freedoms like speech and the press.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > was describing Big Tech (not legacy media like Fox News). On social media, sharing narratives inconvenient to the leftwing establishment resulted in conservative voices being systematically de-platformed Within FAANG, sure. That's probably still true, unless one counts Twitter as "big tech." (And if one does, it's wild to ignore Fox News's online presence.) My point is the right-wing talking points didn't have any trouble gaining traction. Speech and amplification were both amply available. One can similarly complain about left-wing arguments not gaining traction on Fox News or 4chan; that's not a legitimate claim to censorship. > Can you give any examples of noteworthy accounts that followed the guidelines, and the law, yet got arbitrarily silenced by Musk? The Elon Jets account suspension (and ad hoc rule change) was petty [1]. Suspending journalists speaks for itself [2]. (Neither would be something the Congress could do.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ElonJet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ElonJet [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2024/01/09/elon-musk-silencing-his-critics-as-journalists-are-suspended-by-x/?sh=15f4b9902588 https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2024/01/09/elon-mus...
SR2Z 2y ago
Musk didn't claim to support conservative voices - he claimed to be a free speech absolutist and then immediately began censoring it once it was inconvenient for him. Conservatives are not entitled to free megaphones to blast calls for violence and racist nonsense at random people. They're especially not entitled to demand that from liberal tech companies full of immigrants and other minorities which they consistently demonize. If you want to hear conservative voices, go to Truth Social or Parler.

by cbeach 2y ago

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Twitter Files to get an understanding of how the public square was politically manipulated This is mostly bunk. It’s true about Twitter in a limited sense. But claiming conservatives didn’t have Fox News, One America, et cetera [1], to say nothing of having their views amplified, even if critically, in all manner of national press prior to Musk is false. Musk amplified right-wing populist (not conservative) views while silencing others’. That’s fine, it’s a private platform. But it’s not free speech. Going back to the original point, it’s a position that has almost certainly cost Tesla billions in sales. Lucid isn't going to out-Musk Musk among the NewsMax crowd, that's pulling a DeSantis. > Founding Fathers came to America with the knowledge of what society looks like when people's speech is controlled What are you citing that shows the founders expressing this view? The founders mostly concerned themselves with factionalism [2][3], which is historically how republics have failed. The First Amendment was framed as it was--limiting the Congress, not the public--with intent [4]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_media_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_media_in... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10 [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._27 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._27 [4] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/historical-background-on-free-speech-clause https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/h...

cbeach 2y ago
> claiming conservatives didn’t have Fox News, One America, et cetera [1], to say nothing of having their views amplified, even if critically, in all manner of national press prior to Musk is false. I was describing Big Tech (not legacy media like Fox News). On social media, sharing narratives inconvenient to the leftwing establishment resulted in conservative voices being systematically de-platformed (e.g. anyone that shared the Hunter Biden Laptop story - which, by the way, was later proved to be a genuine story, not a conspiracy theory) > Musk amplified right-wing populist (not conservative) views while silencing others Musk is allowed to tweet and retweet whomever he likes, just like anyone else. That's how free speech works. Can you give any examples of noteworthy accounts that followed the guidelines, and the law, yet got arbitrarily silenced by Musk? > What are you citing that shows the founders expressing this view? The British govt was notorious for silencing inconvenient voices. There were strict controls on speech and the press in the colonies e.g. the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, the NY printer who was charged for publishing criticism of the colonial governor. Or the Stamp Act, which taxed newspapers to suppress opposition to British govt policy. You mentioned the Federalist Papers (a series of essays that were pivotal in shaping American political philosophy) but you didn't mention No. 84. In this paper, Hamilton argues against the need for a Bill of Rights, asserting that the Constitution itself is a bill of rights. Hamilton’s argument was that the Constitution’s structure — featuring separated powers and checks and balances — provided sufficient safeguards against government tyranny, which includes protecting freedoms like speech and the press.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > was describing Big Tech (not legacy media like Fox News). On social media, sharing narratives inconvenient to the leftwing establishment resulted in conservative voices being systematically de-platformed Within FAANG, sure. That's probably still true, unless one counts Twitter as "big tech." (And if one does, it's wild to ignore Fox News's online presence.) My point is the right-wing talking points didn't have any trouble gaining traction. Speech and amplification were both amply available. One can similarly complain about left-wing arguments not gaining traction on Fox News or 4chan; that's not a legitimate claim to censorship. > Can you give any examples of noteworthy accounts that followed the guidelines, and the law, yet got arbitrarily silenced by Musk? The Elon Jets account suspension (and ad hoc rule change) was petty [1]. Suspending journalists speaks for itself [2]. (Neither would be something the Congress could do.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ElonJet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ElonJet [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2024/01/09/elon-musk-silencing-his-critics-as-journalists-are-suspended-by-x/?sh=15f4b9902588 https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2024/01/09/elon-mus...

SR2Z 2y ago

Musk didn't claim to support conservative voices - he claimed to be a free speech absolutist and then immediately began censoring it once it was inconvenient for him. Conservatives are not entitled to free megaphones to blast calls for violence and racist nonsense at random people. They're especially not entitled to demand that from liberal tech companies full of immigrants and other minorities which they consistently demonize. If you want to hear conservative voices, go to Truth Social or Parler.