4 ms·

This storyline was a rare case of me supporting Elon, but once again, he goes too far, childishly, for his ego. He is just proving a lot of people i don't parti

by orwin 2y ago

This storyline was a rare case of me supporting Elon, but once again, he goes too far, childishly, for his ego. He is just proving a lot of people i don't particularly like right, that billionaires are supranational powers. Which does support a very marxist view on capitalism (and productivism sadly), that it enable money to create power above political power.

malermeister 2y ago
Marx was right and people like Musk and Thiel are living proof.
mrmlz 2y ago
Haha - oh no, he is going to far with allowing free speech. The sender and the tone is more important to you I guess?
- boesboes 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - mrmlz 2y ago
    I dont care about his motives - why should i ?
    - malermeister 2y ago
      Because he's a huge hypocrite and only uses the excuse of free speech to enable right wing radicals, while not granting it to anyone he disagrees with.
- malermeister 2y ago
  Was it free speech when he banned a bunch of leftists for disagreeing with his views?
  - mrmlz 2y ago
    No (I have no idea who he has banned or not) but that sounds like a powertrip!
    - fmajid 2y ago
      Not just leftists, but also journalists critical of him: https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/x-journalist-ban-elon-musk-b2476153.html https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/x-journalist-ban-elon-mus... His so-called free-speech absolutism is a sham and he does not deserve the benefit of doubt on this.
      - mrmlz 2y ago
        I dont believe he is altruistic - his actions in this instance is however positive and i enjoy seeing that.
      - mike_hearn 2y ago
        He didn't ban any of those people: > All the accounts were restored in a few hours
        Timon3 2y ago
        What state were they restored to? If they were accessible, why did they have to be restored? If you're going to argue "a ban doesn't count if it's reversed after a couple of hours", what's the threshold? Could Elon ban people for a week without it counting as a ban? What if it happens repeatedly?
        mike_hearn 2y ago
        If these accounts were banned due to censorship they'd have stayed banned. There are plenty of accounts that were shut down on Twitter that are still disabled today.
        2y ago
- orwin 2y ago
  What sender and tone? The issue is that an individual show power superior to that of a state. And a powerful and rich one at that. I would care if he did the same to Turkey or India where similar demand were made (it wasn't legislative power there, but still). I really appreciate the fact that he called Brazil out, i would have really appreciated if he called India or Turkey out, i think this is going too far. And as for "going to far with allowing free speech", why doesn't he do the same in China, where free speech issues seems to be far greater, and the great Firewall is blocking way more than just X? No, he was just sightly hypocritical but seemed mostly principled before this choice, now he just seems too powerful, hypocritical and egotistic. You know what my theory is? Brazil just died as a Tesla importer because of BYD, so he chose to make a stand on it, while India and Turkey used to be potential countries he could invest in at the time so he shut up and let them walk over him. It seems its just about money, so he grandstand on his principles when almost no money is being made, and shut up when he doesn't want to upset people with dollars he could get.
  - mrmlz 2y ago
    I guess you would be on the barricades fighting for DDRs right to suppress free speech as well. I take whatever victories I can. I don't care about his motives, I'm sure they are nefarious or money related. But that doesn't matter. I don't care about his motivation I care about the results.
    - orwin 2y ago
      The result will be that speech will be suppressed for 99% of the population and only a select few can talk. If it was a principled position the effects would be 10 times greater but since he compromised himself for money, the effects would be minimal. I've thought about it more. I think the reason why he refused was because it was a public court order, so everyone could see him cooperate. If they did it like Erdoğan or Modi, i.e with private communication, Twitter would have done it. If this is the reason, it's in fact Anti-free speech, as transparency is a pillar of that right, no? [edit] Also, free personal attacks twice now, really nice of you.
      - 2y ago
mulmen 2y ago
Assuming capitalism exists without regulation is grade school philosophy.
davidguetta 2y ago
Im confused of your point. Power is power.. of course a bilionaire or even milionaire is gonna be "more powerful" than some nations.. there are some with < 50M gdp. But at the end of the day its just about internet. X has every right to say fuck off to some countries its not based in, while countries has the "right" if they decide it to censor some parts of the internet. Thats not really the point in the end. The point is really "is free speech, including hate speech and disinformation should be right or not in your country" Its a very hard question that im not sure i have the answer. Someones's hate speech is always someone else's "speaking the truth" but ibknow some cases where censoring made sense.

by orwin 2y ago

malermeister 2y ago

Marx was right and people like Musk and Thiel are living proof.

mrmlz 2y ago

Haha - oh no, he is going to far with allowing free speech. The sender and the tone is more important to you I guess?

boesboes 2y ago
[flagged]
- mrmlz 2y ago
  I dont care about his motives - why should i ?
  - malermeister 2y ago
    Because he's a huge hypocrite and only uses the excuse of free speech to enable right wing radicals, while not granting it to anyone he disagrees with.
malermeister 2y ago
Was it free speech when he banned a bunch of leftists for disagreeing with his views?
- mrmlz 2y ago
  No (I have no idea who he has banned or not) but that sounds like a powertrip!
  - fmajid 2y ago
    Not just leftists, but also journalists critical of him: https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/x-journalist-ban-elon-musk-b2476153.html https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/x-journalist-ban-elon-mus... His so-called free-speech absolutism is a sham and he does not deserve the benefit of doubt on this.
    - mrmlz 2y ago
      I dont believe he is altruistic - his actions in this instance is however positive and i enjoy seeing that.
    - mike_hearn 2y ago
      He didn't ban any of those people: > All the accounts were restored in a few hours
      - Timon3 2y ago
        What state were they restored to? If they were accessible, why did they have to be restored? If you're going to argue "a ban doesn't count if it's reversed after a couple of hours", what's the threshold? Could Elon ban people for a week without it counting as a ban? What if it happens repeatedly?
        mike_hearn 2y ago
        If these accounts were banned due to censorship they'd have stayed banned. There are plenty of accounts that were shut down on Twitter that are still disabled today.
        2y ago
orwin 2y ago
What sender and tone? The issue is that an individual show power superior to that of a state. And a powerful and rich one at that. I would care if he did the same to Turkey or India where similar demand were made (it wasn't legislative power there, but still). I really appreciate the fact that he called Brazil out, i would have really appreciated if he called India or Turkey out, i think this is going too far. And as for "going to far with allowing free speech", why doesn't he do the same in China, where free speech issues seems to be far greater, and the great Firewall is blocking way more than just X? No, he was just sightly hypocritical but seemed mostly principled before this choice, now he just seems too powerful, hypocritical and egotistic. You know what my theory is? Brazil just died as a Tesla importer because of BYD, so he chose to make a stand on it, while India and Turkey used to be potential countries he could invest in at the time so he shut up and let them walk over him. It seems its just about money, so he grandstand on his principles when almost no money is being made, and shut up when he doesn't want to upset people with dollars he could get.
- mrmlz 2y ago
  I guess you would be on the barricades fighting for DDRs right to suppress free speech as well. I take whatever victories I can. I don't care about his motives, I'm sure they are nefarious or money related. But that doesn't matter. I don't care about his motivation I care about the results.
  - orwin 2y ago
    The result will be that speech will be suppressed for 99% of the population and only a select few can talk. If it was a principled position the effects would be 10 times greater but since he compromised himself for money, the effects would be minimal. I've thought about it more. I think the reason why he refused was because it was a public court order, so everyone could see him cooperate. If they did it like Erdoğan or Modi, i.e with private communication, Twitter would have done it. If this is the reason, it's in fact Anti-free speech, as transparency is a pillar of that right, no? [edit] Also, free personal attacks twice now, really nice of you.
    - 2y ago

mulmen 2y ago

Assuming capitalism exists without regulation is grade school philosophy.

davidguetta 2y ago

Im confused of your point. Power is power.. of course a bilionaire or even milionaire is gonna be "more powerful" than some nations.. there are some with < 50M gdp. But at the end of the day its just about internet. X has every right to say fuck off to some countries its not based in, while countries has the "right" if they decide it to censor some parts of the internet. Thats not really the point in the end. The point is really "is free speech, including hate speech and disinformation should be right or not in your country" Its a very hard question that im not sure i have the answer. Someones's hate speech is always someone else's "speaking the truth" but ibknow some cases where censoring made sense.