8 ms·

just yesterday the owner of twitter was getting his employees to delete the accounts of posts he disagreed with

by rrix2 2y ago

lazyeye 2y ago
What do you mean?
- DonHopkins 2y ago
  Pretending to be ignorant doesn't change the facts, reinforce your point, or bolster your ridiculous argument that Musk supports free speech. You couldn't possibly be more wrong, and pretending to be ignorant doesn't make you right. You have access to the same internet everyone else does. Look it up yourself instead of trying to argue with people who are paying attention and put in the time to be informed. https://www.axios.com/2024/12/27/musk-x-loomer-h1b-maga-verification https://www.axios.com/2024/12/27/musk-x-loomer-h1b-maga-veri... MAGA vs. Musk: Right-wing critics allege censorship, loss of X badges. A handful of conservative critics of Elon Musk are alleging censorship and claiming they were stripped of their verification badges on X after challenging his views on H-1B visas for highly skilled foreign workers.
  - WillPostForFood 2y ago
    You want to go on the record support Laura Loomer as a credible source? Nothing in the article about account deletions, and nothing but one notorior crank claiming, without evidence, they are being censored.
    - DonHopkins 2y ago
      Laura Loomer's credibility isn't the issue. It's already quite well established and non-debatable that despite hypocritically gaslighting and declaring himself a "Free Speech Absolutist", that he is so thin-skinned and anti-free-speech that he shadowbans, demonetizes, and kicks off many many people he doesn't agree with, and promotes and amplifies the White Supremacists and Nazis and racists he does agree with, and he doesn't support anyone's free speech except his own. The thing about him censoring Laura Loomer only illustrates what a ridiculous point it's gotten to. It's not his censorship and anti-free-speech she's complaining about, it's that it's now to a point that it finally applies to her. She's not against leopards eating people's faces, she's just against leopards eating HER face. If you still believe Elon Musk supports free speech because you're skeptical of Laura Loomer, you're just as gullible and ignorant and dishonest and unethical as she is. Of course, just like Musk and Loomer, you're not even arguing in good faith, since your own words prove you obviously didn't read the article. You said "Nothing in the article about account deletions, and nothing but one notorior crank claiming, without evidence, they are being censored.", but right up at the top the article clearly states that THREE people were complaining, and he's deleted or threatened to delete the accounts of several other people and organizations: >Driving the news: Trump's conspiracy-minded ally Laura Loomer, New York Young Republican Club president Gavin Wax and InfoWars host Owen Shroyer all said their verification badges disappeared after they criticized Musk's support for H-1B visas, railed against Indian culture and attacked Ramaswamy, Musk's DOGE co-chair. And also: >He threatened to reassign NPR's account handle last year and marked some links to the site as "unsafe" when users click through. >Musk also removed the verification badge of The New York Times in 2023. >X also suspended independent journalist Ken Klippenstein's account after he shared Sen. JD Vance's vetting document from the alleged Iranian hack of Trump's campaign. And as someone who's not arguing in good faith, you know very well it's absolutely true Elon Musk doesn't support free speech, and the list of people and organizations he's banned or demonetized because he doesn't approve of THEIR free speech goes on and on, and there's nowhere near enough room in a typical article or attention span in a typical reader to list them all. You have a lot of nerve to be that blatantly dishonest in a discussion about ethics. But you're so intellectually lazy, you didn't even read the article you're facetiously pretending to have read, so don't demand other people write and read exhaustive 50 page well researched detailed articles enumerating every fact and scrap of evidence for you, if you're too lazy to read a one page article yourself. Because you risk embarrassing yourself again by having your own words and the article's words quoted back to you in juxtaposition.
    - metabagel 2y ago
      She’s not the only one reporting loss of blue check status, subscribers, and ability to monetize her account.
  - lazyeye 2y ago
    I dont know whether this is true or not as I only have the mainstream media as the source. And as any objective observer knows, the media lies, distorts, misdirects, deceives, obsfucates and so on. So not saying it didnt happen, I just dont have any valid proof. And anyway, if it's a choice between a hypocrite billionaire and the censorship industrial complex of a corrupt govt, Elon Musk is the far lesser evil.
    - DonHopkins 2y ago
      Oh of course, when all the hard cold facts and indisputable evidence is against you, and after getting called on trying to use your own pretend ignorance as a shield, then you pathetically resort to the old "It's impossible to know any facts, because there is no such thing as truth" argument. That's unmitigated bullshit. Elon Musk now IS the censorship industrial complex of a corrupt government. You sure have a lot of nerve and contempt and disrespect for the HN community to repeatedly be THAT brazenly unethical and dishonest in a discussion about ethics. Read the room and take the L. With all due respect, as Musk would tell you, and I literally quote, which you can independently verify yourself: "Please post a bit more positive, beautiful or informative content on this platform." [1] ... "Take a big step back and FUCK YOURSELF in the face." [2] [1] Notorious troll Elon Musk ripped for demanding more ‘positive, beautiful’ content on his social media platform: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/elon-musk-x-positive-content-b2671550.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic... [2] Musk Appears to Quote Popular Film in ‘F** Yourself in the Face’ Tweet: https://www.thedailybeast.com/elon-musk-appears-to-quote-tropic-thunder-with-f-yourself-in-the-face-tweet/ https://www.thedailybeast.com/elon-musk-appears-to-quote-tro...
      - lazyeye 2y ago
        Wooah I think you are a BIG fan of censorship. Just the kind you like. And as to "reading the room" its hard to put into words how uninterested I am in conforming to the smug, out of touch culture of Silicon Valley.
warkdarrior 2y ago
How is that unethical? X is Musk's toy to do with as he pleases. You as a user of X need to understand that he has absolutely no responsibility to you as a user.
- kelseyfrog 2y ago
  Any time there are consequences to actions, the matter of ethics arises. The very act of making decisions that have consequences demands responsibility. This is the reality of being human. Whether you or anyone else organize consequences as meaningful or not is a moral abdication. The first thing an immoral person does is justifying the consequences of their actions as inconsequential. This happens to such a degree that doing so is a signal of immorality. Immorality doesn't look like choosing evil, it looks like choosing inconsequentialism.
- Uehreka 2y ago
  (Regina George voice) So you agree? There are no “user protections” on X?
- WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
  > How is that unethical? X is Musk's toy to do with as he pleases. I offer that that rights aren't ethics. Musk has a reasonable right to censor speech on his platform that he doesn't agree with. However, when someone establishes themselves as a free speech absolutist, it is arguably unethical for them to remove, suppress and continually work to eliminate speech they disagree with.
- metabagel 2y ago
  Your statement is basically “might makes right”, which is antithetical to ethics.
StanislavPetrov 2y ago
I'm no fan of Musk but this is has been standard practice at Twitter since it was founded. They are just using slightly different "standards" to decide who to delete/suppress/shadowban.
- bdangubic 2y ago
  you can’t be that naive… he bought it apparently for “free speech reasons” which he repeats every chance he gets (even on the same day he is silencing his critics). Xi Jinping is more for free speech than Elon is :)
- metabagel 2y ago
  Moderation isn’t censorship. The previous site was pretty well moderated. The current site is pretty awful, and the site owner is capricious about meting out punishment to those who offend him. It’s all personal, whereas before it was based on moderation policy.
  - tbrownaw 2y ago
    > Moderation isn’t censorship. Yes it is, it's just censorship that (most of) the people who would have heard whatever's being censored want.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
fsckboy 2y ago
what hypocrisy! it's like my alcoholic doctor telling me I need to cut my drinking: his advice may be sound, but it's rich coming from him. I'm referring to the people who denied or did not decry the previous twitter administration deleting huge volumes of tweets they didn't like, the people who now populate bluesky and the fediverse they themselves are quite open about saying, because it's a cozy little echo chamber world where the people who disagree are erased from their view
- wrs 2y ago
  The previous Twitter administration was quite open about the censorship they were doing and the reasons they did it. You may not like the result, but at least they tried to deal with their inherent conflict of interest (commerce vs. societal good) in a thoughtful way. The current one, on the other hand, constantly trumpets its free-speech absolutism while Elon tells the staff to delete whatever he wants whenever he wakes up in a bad mood, and artificially boost his own trolling.
  - fsckboy 2y ago
    >The previous Twitter administration was quite open about the censorship they were doing and the reasons they did it that is completely false. you should work on developing respect for the opposing views of people of honest intent.
    - wrs 2y ago
      I doubt it's completely false. So...same to you, I guess.
- metabagel 2y ago
  Moderation isn’t censorship. Many comments are “killed” on this very website. You can see them with the “show dead” option.
  - fsckboy 2y ago
    censoring evidence of covid gain of function research and subsequent lab leak is not moderation shadowbanning which stops people from seeing content is also censorship, you're wrong (and don't confuse mix this site with twitter either)

just yesterday the owner of twitter was getting his employees to delete the accounts of posts he disagreed with

by rrix2 2y ago

just yesterday the owner of twitter was getting his employees to delete the accounts of posts he disagreed with

lazyeye 2y ago

What do you mean?

DonHopkins 2y ago
Pretending to be ignorant doesn't change the facts, reinforce your point, or bolster your ridiculous argument that Musk supports free speech. You couldn't possibly be more wrong, and pretending to be ignorant doesn't make you right. You have access to the same internet everyone else does. Look it up yourself instead of trying to argue with people who are paying attention and put in the time to be informed. https://www.axios.com/2024/12/27/musk-x-loomer-h1b-maga-verification https://www.axios.com/2024/12/27/musk-x-loomer-h1b-maga-veri... MAGA vs. Musk: Right-wing critics allege censorship, loss of X badges. A handful of conservative critics of Elon Musk are alleging censorship and claiming they were stripped of their verification badges on X after challenging his views on H-1B visas for highly skilled foreign workers.
- WillPostForFood 2y ago
  You want to go on the record support Laura Loomer as a credible source? Nothing in the article about account deletions, and nothing but one notorior crank claiming, without evidence, they are being censored.
  - DonHopkins 2y ago
    Laura Loomer's credibility isn't the issue. It's already quite well established and non-debatable that despite hypocritically gaslighting and declaring himself a "Free Speech Absolutist", that he is so thin-skinned and anti-free-speech that he shadowbans, demonetizes, and kicks off many many people he doesn't agree with, and promotes and amplifies the White Supremacists and Nazis and racists he does agree with, and he doesn't support anyone's free speech except his own. The thing about him censoring Laura Loomer only illustrates what a ridiculous point it's gotten to. It's not his censorship and anti-free-speech she's complaining about, it's that it's now to a point that it finally applies to her. She's not against leopards eating people's faces, she's just against leopards eating HER face. If you still believe Elon Musk supports free speech because you're skeptical of Laura Loomer, you're just as gullible and ignorant and dishonest and unethical as she is. Of course, just like Musk and Loomer, you're not even arguing in good faith, since your own words prove you obviously didn't read the article. You said "Nothing in the article about account deletions, and nothing but one notorior crank claiming, without evidence, they are being censored.", but right up at the top the article clearly states that THREE people were complaining, and he's deleted or threatened to delete the accounts of several other people and organizations: >Driving the news: Trump's conspiracy-minded ally Laura Loomer, New York Young Republican Club president Gavin Wax and InfoWars host Owen Shroyer all said their verification badges disappeared after they criticized Musk's support for H-1B visas, railed against Indian culture and attacked Ramaswamy, Musk's DOGE co-chair. And also: >He threatened to reassign NPR's account handle last year and marked some links to the site as "unsafe" when users click through. >Musk also removed the verification badge of The New York Times in 2023. >X also suspended independent journalist Ken Klippenstein's account after he shared Sen. JD Vance's vetting document from the alleged Iranian hack of Trump's campaign. And as someone who's not arguing in good faith, you know very well it's absolutely true Elon Musk doesn't support free speech, and the list of people and organizations he's banned or demonetized because he doesn't approve of THEIR free speech goes on and on, and there's nowhere near enough room in a typical article or attention span in a typical reader to list them all. You have a lot of nerve to be that blatantly dishonest in a discussion about ethics. But you're so intellectually lazy, you didn't even read the article you're facetiously pretending to have read, so don't demand other people write and read exhaustive 50 page well researched detailed articles enumerating every fact and scrap of evidence for you, if you're too lazy to read a one page article yourself. Because you risk embarrassing yourself again by having your own words and the article's words quoted back to you in juxtaposition.
  - metabagel 2y ago
    She’s not the only one reporting loss of blue check status, subscribers, and ability to monetize her account.
- lazyeye 2y ago
  I dont know whether this is true or not as I only have the mainstream media as the source. And as any objective observer knows, the media lies, distorts, misdirects, deceives, obsfucates and so on. So not saying it didnt happen, I just dont have any valid proof. And anyway, if it's a choice between a hypocrite billionaire and the censorship industrial complex of a corrupt govt, Elon Musk is the far lesser evil.
  - DonHopkins 2y ago
    Oh of course, when all the hard cold facts and indisputable evidence is against you, and after getting called on trying to use your own pretend ignorance as a shield, then you pathetically resort to the old "It's impossible to know any facts, because there is no such thing as truth" argument. That's unmitigated bullshit. Elon Musk now IS the censorship industrial complex of a corrupt government. You sure have a lot of nerve and contempt and disrespect for the HN community to repeatedly be THAT brazenly unethical and dishonest in a discussion about ethics. Read the room and take the L. With all due respect, as Musk would tell you, and I literally quote, which you can independently verify yourself: "Please post a bit more positive, beautiful or informative content on this platform." [1] ... "Take a big step back and FUCK YOURSELF in the face." [2] [1] Notorious troll Elon Musk ripped for demanding more ‘positive, beautiful’ content on his social media platform: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/elon-musk-x-positive-content-b2671550.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic... [2] Musk Appears to Quote Popular Film in ‘F** Yourself in the Face’ Tweet: https://www.thedailybeast.com/elon-musk-appears-to-quote-tropic-thunder-with-f-yourself-in-the-face-tweet/ https://www.thedailybeast.com/elon-musk-appears-to-quote-tro...
    - lazyeye 2y ago
      Wooah I think you are a BIG fan of censorship. Just the kind you like. And as to "reading the room" its hard to put into words how uninterested I am in conforming to the smug, out of touch culture of Silicon Valley.

warkdarrior 2y ago

How is that unethical? X is Musk's toy to do with as he pleases. You as a user of X need to understand that he has absolutely no responsibility to you as a user.

kelseyfrog 2y ago
Any time there are consequences to actions, the matter of ethics arises. The very act of making decisions that have consequences demands responsibility. This is the reality of being human. Whether you or anyone else organize consequences as meaningful or not is a moral abdication. The first thing an immoral person does is justifying the consequences of their actions as inconsequential. This happens to such a degree that doing so is a signal of immorality. Immorality doesn't look like choosing evil, it looks like choosing inconsequentialism.
Uehreka 2y ago
(Regina George voice) So you agree? There are no “user protections” on X?
WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
> How is that unethical? X is Musk's toy to do with as he pleases. I offer that that rights aren't ethics. Musk has a reasonable right to censor speech on his platform that he doesn't agree with. However, when someone establishes themselves as a free speech absolutist, it is arguably unethical for them to remove, suppress and continually work to eliminate speech they disagree with.
metabagel 2y ago
Your statement is basically “might makes right”, which is antithetical to ethics.

StanislavPetrov 2y ago

I'm no fan of Musk but this is has been standard practice at Twitter since it was founded. They are just using slightly different "standards" to decide who to delete/suppress/shadowban.

bdangubic 2y ago
you can’t be that naive… he bought it apparently for “free speech reasons” which he repeats every chance he gets (even on the same day he is silencing his critics). Xi Jinping is more for free speech than Elon is :)
metabagel 2y ago
Moderation isn’t censorship. The previous site was pretty well moderated. The current site is pretty awful, and the site owner is capricious about meting out punishment to those who offend him. It’s all personal, whereas before it was based on moderation policy.
- tbrownaw 2y ago
  > Moderation isn’t censorship. Yes it is, it's just censorship that (most of) the people who would have heard whatever's being censored want.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

fsckboy 2y ago

what hypocrisy! it's like my alcoholic doctor telling me I need to cut my drinking: his advice may be sound, but it's rich coming from him. I'm referring to the people who denied or did not decry the previous twitter administration deleting huge volumes of tweets they didn't like, the people who now populate bluesky and the fediverse they themselves are quite open about saying, because it's a cozy little echo chamber world where the people who disagree are erased from their view

wrs 2y ago
The previous Twitter administration was quite open about the censorship they were doing and the reasons they did it. You may not like the result, but at least they tried to deal with their inherent conflict of interest (commerce vs. societal good) in a thoughtful way. The current one, on the other hand, constantly trumpets its free-speech absolutism while Elon tells the staff to delete whatever he wants whenever he wakes up in a bad mood, and artificially boost his own trolling.
- fsckboy 2y ago
  >The previous Twitter administration was quite open about the censorship they were doing and the reasons they did it that is completely false. you should work on developing respect for the opposing views of people of honest intent.
  - wrs 2y ago
    I doubt it's completely false. So...same to you, I guess.
metabagel 2y ago
Moderation isn’t censorship. Many comments are “killed” on this very website. You can see them with the “show dead” option.
- fsckboy 2y ago
  censoring evidence of covid gain of function research and subsequent lab leak is not moderation shadowbanning which stops people from seeing content is also censorship, you're wrong (and don't confuse mix this site with twitter either)