4 ms·

No, the issue people are having is musk claims he has to allow nazis, transphobes, homophobes, racism, sexism, fake pornography of people, etc because otherwise

by olliej 2y ago

No, the issue people are having is musk claims he has to allow nazis, transphobes, homophobes, racism, sexism, fake pornography of people, etc because otherwise it would be censorious and an attack on free speech. But things that attack or are damaging to him or his beliefs are frequently censored. The issue is not what he chooses to censor or not censor. The issue is that he claims that the reason he chooses not to censor horrific abuse and attacks on minorities is because he’s a free speech absolutist and all censorship is bad. He hides behind the claim of the sanctity of free speech as the justification for what he allows, publishes, and promotes, when he very clearly holds, and enforces, no such belief. Posts like this that claim that people are just disagreeing about politics, when the political viewpoint on one side is that the other side has no right to exist are entirely demonstrative of people who are so bigoted that they don’t see their own bigotry as that, because it could only be bigotry if the targets of their bullshit were people, which to them they aren’t.

smsm42 2y ago
> he has to allow <all the people you disagree with and despise> because otherwise it would be censorious and an attack on free speech Yes. Because all these people, however unpleasant their speech may be for you or me, have the same right to speak their mind on the questions of public importance as you and me. Yes, even racists. However, publishing somebody's private information that can easily lead to deadly attack on him or his family is in entirely different class of speech. It does not contribute to any public discussion or does anything positive, just endangers people and enables violence. It is not severe enough to make the law involved, but it is going far enough that restricting it on social media is summarily a positive thing. The owner of the social media platform has to draw the line, which speech is allowed on the platform and which is not. Some would draw it on "anything legal is allowed". Some would even do "anything is allowed" but those will find themselves in trouble with the law pretty quickly. Some would say "some legal speech - like porn - is not allowed", or "some legal speech - like revealing private information of public figures and their relatives - is not allowed", etc. These are valid choices (as it is valid to criticize them), and they are not inconsistent at all. You can support free speech without supplying your platform to organize attacks on public figures or hurting their families. You do not have to be "all or nothing" - and in fact, nobody has advocated "all or nothing" policy towards Twitter or Facebook or any of the social media platforms ever, before Musk. Now, because Musk is also not "all or nothing" - as is everybody else - how is he any special? His line is such that publishing private information about people that can hurt them is not ok, good for him I say. > when the political viewpoint on one side is that the other side has no right to exist Yes, I know, you only have to be bad because your opponents are so much worse. Always a good excuse. It is totally OK for good people to be bad to bad people, after all, we are good people and they are bad people, that makes it right when we do it to them, but wrong when they do it to us!
- olliej 2y ago
  > However, publishing somebody's private information that can easily lead to deadly attack on him or his family is in entirely different class of speech. Got it, encouraging people to execute gay and trans people is completely fine, and is clearly nowhere near as bad as publishing information sent by a person running for vice president. I get your point, on the one hand the people saying "LGBT/black/hispanic people are not actually people and don't have the right to exist" are only causing harm to people who aren't really people. On the other hand you have the emails and information about a major public figure running for political office with secret service protection who is running on a platform of "brown people are illegal and killing your pets, and lgbt people should be illegal" while encouraging bomb threats against minorities. > The owner of the social media platform has to draw the line, His entire justification for not restricting attacks on minorities is free speech, he actively promotes false information about political groups he does not like, while actively censoring things like this that are, again, a dossier about a public figure running for a major office. So his line is "anything, no matter how wretched, gross, false, or fraudulent, as long as it doesn't attack my political friends". Stop pretending these are equivalent. > > when the political viewpoint on one side is that the other side has no right to exist > Yes, I know, you only have to be bad because your opponents are so much worse. The idea that a leaked "dossier" about a public figure is somehow "bad" is so fucking bullshit. The fact that you consider this equivalent to promoting violence against minorities tells me everything I need to know about your world view. The fact that you think leaking a dossier about a political candidate is "bad" tells me that your opinion is free speech ends once it hurts political figures, which means I don't give a shit about your position. I'm glad I'll never meet you, and I hope you're never in a position where someone vulnerable depends on you.
  - decremental 2y ago
    [dead]
  - matwood 2y ago
    The hypocrisy of Musk around 'free speech' has been on full display since he bought Twitter. It's wild to me that you're still having to argue with people on this point. Twitter is a Musk Speech platform, and has very little to do with free speech.

by olliej 2y ago

smsm42 2y ago

> he has to allow <all the people you disagree with and despise> because otherwise it would be censorious and an attack on free speech Yes. Because all these people, however unpleasant their speech may be for you or me, have the same right to speak their mind on the questions of public importance as you and me. Yes, even racists. However, publishing somebody's private information that can easily lead to deadly attack on him or his family is in entirely different class of speech. It does not contribute to any public discussion or does anything positive, just endangers people and enables violence. It is not severe enough to make the law involved, but it is going far enough that restricting it on social media is summarily a positive thing. The owner of the social media platform has to draw the line, which speech is allowed on the platform and which is not. Some would draw it on "anything legal is allowed". Some would even do "anything is allowed" but those will find themselves in trouble with the law pretty quickly. Some would say "some legal speech - like porn - is not allowed", or "some legal speech - like revealing private information of public figures and their relatives - is not allowed", etc. These are valid choices (as it is valid to criticize them), and they are not inconsistent at all. You can support free speech without supplying your platform to organize attacks on public figures or hurting their families. You do not have to be "all or nothing" - and in fact, nobody has advocated "all or nothing" policy towards Twitter or Facebook or any of the social media platforms ever, before Musk. Now, because Musk is also not "all or nothing" - as is everybody else - how is he any special? His line is such that publishing private information about people that can hurt them is not ok, good for him I say. > when the political viewpoint on one side is that the other side has no right to exist Yes, I know, you only have to be bad because your opponents are so much worse. Always a good excuse. It is totally OK for good people to be bad to bad people, after all, we are good people and they are bad people, that makes it right when we do it to them, but wrong when they do it to us!

olliej 2y ago
> However, publishing somebody's private information that can easily lead to deadly attack on him or his family is in entirely different class of speech. Got it, encouraging people to execute gay and trans people is completely fine, and is clearly nowhere near as bad as publishing information sent by a person running for vice president. I get your point, on the one hand the people saying "LGBT/black/hispanic people are not actually people and don't have the right to exist" are only causing harm to people who aren't really people. On the other hand you have the emails and information about a major public figure running for political office with secret service protection who is running on a platform of "brown people are illegal and killing your pets, and lgbt people should be illegal" while encouraging bomb threats against minorities. > The owner of the social media platform has to draw the line, His entire justification for not restricting attacks on minorities is free speech, he actively promotes false information about political groups he does not like, while actively censoring things like this that are, again, a dossier about a public figure running for a major office. So his line is "anything, no matter how wretched, gross, false, or fraudulent, as long as it doesn't attack my political friends". Stop pretending these are equivalent. > > when the political viewpoint on one side is that the other side has no right to exist > Yes, I know, you only have to be bad because your opponents are so much worse. The idea that a leaked "dossier" about a public figure is somehow "bad" is so fucking bullshit. The fact that you consider this equivalent to promoting violence against minorities tells me everything I need to know about your world view. The fact that you think leaking a dossier about a political candidate is "bad" tells me that your opinion is free speech ends once it hurts political figures, which means I don't give a shit about your position. I'm glad I'll never meet you, and I hope you're never in a position where someone vulnerable depends on you.
- decremental 2y ago
  [dead]
- matwood 2y ago
  The hypocrisy of Musk around 'free speech' has been on full display since he bought Twitter. It's wild to me that you're still having to argue with people on this point. Twitter is a Musk Speech platform, and has very little to do with free speech.