Elon Musk now owns 9.2% of twitter...update.. will soon be the sole owner as Board of Directors accepts his purchase offer

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Is 'Hey Muskie, you're a big ol' weenie head!!!' free speech?

Would it stay if you posted it?

 

[HurleyBird]

I think this misses the point. Twitter and Facebook censoring viewpoints they don’t like is ALSO their free speech

I've said this several times already.

and to oppose that is to oppose free speech.

Oppose viewpoint discrimination in principle, or oppose the right to discriminate?

If the former, you're wrong. If the later, you agree with me.

Free speech is about tolerating viewpoints. It does not mean you have to agree.

There is no way to be truly and purely free speech as in all cases there are competing free speech claims that are irreconcilable.

As a society, or as an individual?

As a society, we can only hope to foster an overall spirit of tolerance. The closer we get to that ideal, the fewer competing claims.

If you're speaking of individuals however, you're wrong. As an advocate for free speech it isn't my job to adjudicate free speech claims. I can be tolerant of Alex Jones' crazy theories while simultaneously disagreeing with those theories, just as I can be tolerant of some platform suppressing Alex Jones' viewpoints while simultaneously disagreeing with that intolerance.

 

[cytg111]

I've said this several times already.



Oppose viewpoint discrimination in principle, or oppose the right to discriminate?

If the former, you're wrong. If the later, you agree with me.

Free speech is about tolerating viewpoints. It does not mean you have to agree.



As a society, or as an individual?

As a society, we can only hope to foster an overall spirit of tolerance. The closer we get to that ideal, the fewer competing claims.

If you're speaking of individuals however, you're wrong. As an advocate for free speech it isn't my job to adjudicate free speech claims. I can be tolerant of Alex Jones' crazy theories while simultaneously disagreeing with those theories, just as I can be tolerant of some platform suppressing Alex Jones' viewpoints while simultaneously disagreeing with that intolerance.

By free speech you also mean anonymous free speech right?
Cause when this whole free speech thing was contemplated in its inception, no-one had the internet in mind.

 

[ivwshane]

I've said this several times already.



Oppose viewpoint discrimination in principle, or oppose the right to discriminate?

If the former, you're wrong. If the later, you agree with me.

Free speech is about tolerating viewpoints. It does not mean you have to agree.



As a society, or as an individual?

As a society, we can only hope to foster an overall spirit of tolerance. The closer we get to that ideal, the fewer competing claims.

If you're speaking of individuals however, you're wrong. As an advocate for free speech it isn't my job to adjudicate free speech claims. I can be tolerant of Alex Jones' crazy theories while simultaneously disagreeing with those theories, just as I can be tolerant of some platform suppressing Alex Jones' viewpoints while simultaneously disagreeing with that intolerance.

I don’t think tolerance is the word you mean to be using. It implies not interfering with speech but you’ve already posted many examples where you see no problem with speech being interfered in.

You keep referencing allowing different viewpoints, what exactly are you talking about? Who isn’t allowing different points of view?

 

[fskimospy]

I've said this several times already.

Oppose viewpoint discrimination in principle, or oppose the right to discriminate?

If the former, you're wrong. If the later, you agree with me.

Free speech is about tolerating viewpoints. It does not mean you have to agree.

The right to discriminate is an absolutely vital part of true support for free speech.

That was of course my entire point and how it relates to Twitter. The free speech position for Twitter is to simultaneously endorse both the user’s right to speak and Twitter’s right to decline to speak. If you say you oppose twitter’s censorship of those people because it’s intolerant, you’re not tolerating their free speech rights so you’re no better.

As a society, or as an individual?

As a society, we can only hope to foster an overall spirit of tolerance. The closer we get to that ideal, the fewer competing claims.

If you're speaking of individuals however, you're wrong. As an advocate for free speech it isn't my job to adjudicate free speech claims. I can be tolerant of Alex Jones' crazy theories while simultaneously disagreeing with those theories, just as I can be tolerant of some platform suppressing Alex Jones' viewpoints while simultaneously disagreeing with that intolerance.

This is nonsense, of course if we are speaking about individuals it is your job to adjudicate these claims. Imagine someone standing in your living room screaming racial slurs and your response is ‘who am I to judge?’

 

[fskimospy]

I don’t think tolerance is the word you mean to be using. It implies not interfering with speech but you’ve already posted many examples where you see no problem with speech being interfered in.

You keep referencing allowing different viewpoints, what exactly are you talking about? Who isn’t allowing different points of view?

From my understanding as it relates to social media ‘allow’ means ‘this private entity must publish my speech at their own expense’.

 

[HurleyBird]

The right to discriminate is an absolutely vital part of true support for free speech.

Of course.

That was of course my entire point and how it relates to Twitter. The free speech position for Twitter is to simultaneously endorse both the user’s right to speak and Twitter’s right to decline to speak. If you say you oppose twitter’s censorship of those people because it’s intolerant, you’re not tolerating their free speech rights so you’re no better.

Again, when you say "you oppose twitter's censorship," do you mean oppose it in principle, or oppose their actual right to censor? You started out talking about the "right to discriminate." If you shift to opposing intolerance in principle as opposed to the right to be intolerant, you're equivocating between meanings. It's important to stay consistent.

Now, if you do mean that opposing the right to discriminate is anti-free speech we're in 100% agreement and we shouldn't be having this discussion.

If, however, you're saying that supporting a platform's right to censor viewpoints while disagreeing with that position is somehow itself intolerant and anti-free speech, then you're completely wrong. If you support their right, you are being tolerant by definition. You don't need to agree with a thing to tolerate it. Daryl Davis doesn't agree with KKK viewpoints, but he tolerates them. As an analogy, you can support Trump's right to run for president and also believe that he's dangerous to democracy if elected. That combination doesn't make one anti-democratic.

This is nonsense, of course if we are speaking about individuals it is your job to adjudicate these claims. Imagine someone standing in your living room screaming racial slurs and your response is ‘who am I to judge?’

You're equivocating again. "It is your job to adjudicate these claims" versus "someone standing in your living room screaming racial slurs." Obscenity is not the same thing as a claim. If someone is persistently screaming obscenity in your face, you're likely to kick them out of your house regardless of whatever their underlying views are. Kicking someone out of your house because you can't tolerate their opinions is a different matter.

 

[pmv]

I can be tolerant of Alex Jones' crazy theories while simultaneously disagreeing with those theories, just as I can be tolerant of some platform suppressing Alex Jones' viewpoints while simultaneously disagreeing with that intolerance.

You can be tolerant of Alex Jones stirring up his fans to harass parents who lost their young children to gun-violence? While merely 'disagreeing' with his doing so. Really?

 

[KMFJD]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1595570031831695368

Supposedly cut holiday pay now as well...

 

[KMFJD]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1595883662028902400

the free speech warrior banned reporter who was investigating a huge data breach

 

[HurleyBird]

You can be tolerant of Alex Jones stirring up his fans to harass parents who lost their young children to gun-violence? While merely 'disagreeing' with his doing so. Really?

I can be tolerant of Alex Jones coming up with a far fetched theory on Sandy Hook, the same way I can be tolerant of JFK, moon landing, and 9/11 conspiracy theories. I can simultaneously be intolerant of harassment. The former is an opinion, the later is an action. As for "stirring up," are people independently taking it upon themselves to hound parents based on hearing AJ's theory? Or is AJ specifically directing supporters to harass parents?

 

[Heartbreaker]

As for "stirring up," are people independently taking it upon themselves to hound parents based on hearing AJ's theory? Or is AJ specifically directing supporters to harass parents?

That's a BS cop out. Outrage merchants like Alex Jones, are still causing idiots to harass the grieving parents even if he doesn't specifically direct them to. There are multiple kinds of damage from these kinds out insane lies.

Jones also pushed the Pizzagate conspiracy that had people working at the restaurant locations receiving multiple death threats, an arson attempt, and an armed gunman shooting the place up.

This kind of provocation has potential dire consequence and no responsible organization should carry it.

It is one clear cut case in favor of strong content moderation, and yes banning people who post it.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

That's a BS cop out. Outrage merchants like Alex Jones, are still causing idiots to harass the grieving parents even if he doesn't specifically direct them to. There are multiple kinds of damage from these kinds out insane lies.

Jones also pushed the Pizzagate conspiracy that had people working at the restaurant locations receiving multiple death threats, an arson attempt, and an armed gunman shooting the place up.

This kind of provocation has potential dire consequence and no responsible organization should carry it.

It is one clear cut case in favor of strong content moderation, and yes banning people who post it.

I read something on Reddit where Elon said something to the effect:
I lost a baby, I held him in my arms and felt his heart stop. I will never allow Alex Jones to profit off children’s deaths.

edit:

Elon Musk explains why he kept Alex Jones off Twitter

Keeping “InfoWars” host Alex Jones off Twitter appears to be something Elon Musk is taking personally.

www.bostonherald.com

 

[zinfamous]

Not going to reply to everything that's been written since I went to bed, since I'm not a masochist, but I am going to respond to this, because it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the pro-free speech position that several of you have made, that being for free speech is somehow also being for coercion:



Absolutely not.

Intolerance of free speech is also speech.

I don't have to like that speech, but as a free speech advocate I must tolerate it.

I'm 100% in support of Facebook, Twitter, whoever, of having the right to moderate in any manner they see fit, even if I disagree when they censor and suppress viewpoints.

That's the pro-speech position. Wanting to legislate away the ability of these companies to speak is extremely anti-free speech, and that's where many on the right have found themselves today. Cheerleading the suppression of viewpoints on large platforms on the other hand, is also anti-free speech, encouraging a spirit of intolerance, and this is where many of you are.

This word, tolerance. I do not think it means what you think it means.



You need to do some more thinking on this, because you keep getting it wrong.

 

[zinfamous]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1595883662028902400

the free speech warrior banned reporter who was investigating a huge data breach

"please contact our support team."

lol, as if they have a support team now.

 

[HurleyBird]

That's a BS cop out. Outrage merchants like Alex Jones, are still causing idiots to harass the grieving parents even if he doesn't specifically direct them to. There are multiple kinds of damage from these kinds out insane lies.

Speech someone deems "too dangerous for society" is exactly the most important speech to protect. See Schenck v. United States. Assume that the person who is deciding what speech is too dangerous is the person you would least like to have that power. If you think the censor will always fall on your side, that is narcissistic and short sighted. The same spirit of intolerance that says Alex Jones is too dangerous could just as easily apply to the likes of BLM.

 

[ralfy]

My sense is that he's more reasonable than the wokes that were running the joint, which is why he let back not only Trump but even Griffin.

In addition, I read that he removed over 7,000 people, and it's down to 50, and yet the system's still running fine. What were those thousands of employees doing?

 

[fskimospy]

Of course.



Again, when you say "you oppose twitter's censorship," do you mean oppose it in principle, or oppose their actual right to censor? You started out talking about the "right to discriminate." If you shift to opposing intolerance in principle as opposed to the right to be intolerant, you're equivocating between meanings. It's important to stay consistent.

I don’t know where you’re getting this, my definition is the plain meaning of the words. I’m not sure why you are trying to introduce complexity where none exists.

Now, if you do mean that opposing the right to discriminate is anti-free speech we're in 100% agreement and we shouldn't be having this discussion.

If, however, you're saying that supporting a platform's right to censor viewpoints while disagreeing with that position is somehow itself intolerant and anti-free speech, then you're completely wrong. If you support their right, you are being tolerant by definition. You don't need to agree with a thing to tolerate it. Daryl Davis doesn't agree with KKK viewpoints, but he tolerates them. As an analogy, you can support Trump's right to run for president and also believe that he's dangerous to democracy if elected. That combination doesn't make one anti-democratic.
You're equivocating again. "It is your job to adjudicate these claims" versus "someone standing in your living room screaming racial slurs." Obscenity is not the same thing as a claim. If someone is persistently screaming obscenity in your face, you're likely to kick them out of your house regardless of whatever their underlying views are. Kicking someone out of your house because you can't tolerate their opinions is a different matter.

You still don’t get it. You’re saying that in order to be pro free speech Twitter must subordinate its speech interests to others, which is itself an anti free speech position on your part.

Someone speaking on Twitter and Twitter deciding to no longer publish their speech are two EXACTLY equivalent actions from a free speech standpoint. This is what you aren’t understanding. If you think Twitter’s decision not to publish people’s speech is an anti speech position that shows you don’t understand the right.

 

[Heartbreaker]

Speech someone deems "too dangerous for society" is exactly the most important speech to protect. See Schenck v. United States. Assume that the person who is deciding what speech is too dangerous is the person you would least like to have that power. If you think the censor will always fall on your side, that is narcissistic and short sighted. The same spirit of intolerance that says Alex Jones is too dangerous could just as easily apply to the likes of BLM.

It is protected. Alex Jones can make those comments.

I just said no reasonable organization should carry them. Forcing them to carry his hateful provocations would be insane.

 

[KMFJD]

My sense is that he's more reasonable than the wokes that were running the joint, which is why he let back not only Trump but even Griffin.

In addition, I read that he removed over 7,000 people, and it's down to 50, and yet the system's still running fine. What were those thousands of employees doing?

lmfao you said woke

 

[linkgoron]

My sense is that he's more reasonable than the wokes that were running the joint, which is why he let back not only Trump but even Griffin.

In addition, I read that he removed over 7,000 people, and it's down to 50, and yet the system's still running fine. What were those thousands of employees doing?

Your numbers are way off. The whole company was aound 7.5k, and I believe that engineering was around 3000, and it's probably down to around 1-1.5k engineers and 2.5k employees in total. 50 wouldn't be enough to manage the data centers alone. I'm not sure why anyone expected stuff to just break so quickly. They still have a lot of staff, and stuff breaks down when the weight gets too high. Engineering also worked on new features, not just maintenance. I assume that maintenance is a larger part now. You can also work more hours, or accept smaller issues that creep in without having them fixed.

 

[cytg111]

My sense is that he's more reasonable than the wokes that were running the joint, which is why he let back not only Trump but even Griffin.

In addition, I read that he removed over 7,000 people, and it's down to 50, and yet the system's still running fine. What were those thousands of employees doing?

Seriously, where did you read the 50 number?

 

[Amused]

I can be tolerant of Alex Jones coming up with a far fetched theory on Sandy Hook, the same way I can be tolerant of JFK, moon landing, and 9/11 conspiracy theories. I can simultaneously be intolerant of harassment. The former is an opinion, the later is an action. As for "stirring up," are people independently taking it upon themselves to hound parents based on hearing AJ's theory? Or is AJ specifically directing supporters to harass parents?

You can be tolerant of libel and slander for profit? Libel and slander that demonizes victims of crime for profit?

More egregiously, libel and slander that demonizes victims of crimes for a specific political end for profit?

Free Speech has legal and social responsibility and legal and social consequences. All freedom does.

It seems to me you want to remove those responsibilities and consequences.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Nice goin' Melvin ......


Twitter has lost 50 of its top 100 advertisers since Elon Musk took over, report says

Half of Twitter's top 100 advertisers appear to no longer be advertising on the website. A new report states that these 50 advertisers have spent almost $2 billion on Twitter ads since 2020.

 

[cytg111]

Nice goin' Melvin ......


Twitter has lost 50 of its top 100 advertisers since Elon Musk took over, report says

Half of Twitter's top 100 advertisers appear to no longer be advertising on the website. A new report states that these 50 advertisers have spent almost $2 billion on Twitter ads since 2020.

I want to know who the remaining 50 is.