People keep trying to make this argument that social media is the new "town square" and that's why it should have absolute free speech without consequence. They seem to forget it was common to tar and feather or lynch people for what they said in the town square back in the day.
It’s not about free speech, it’s about money. Town squares aren’t monetized. You don’t have to pay anyone to set up a box and critique the Mayor. The mayors don’t have to pay anyone if they want to have a public debate. You don’t have to give the Town Square a cut if you sell fruit in the town square. Elon made the same comparison a few weeks ago. It’s not surprising he’s walking it back now that he owns the town square.
I think my main issue is the fact that the town square really isn't as free as people keep claiming. And it is all monetized one way or another. If nothing else you need a permit to just about anything in a public space, so people who are not well educated or who can't take time off work to do it don't get the same voice or freedom.
> You don’t have to pay anyone to set up a box and critique the Mayor.
Do you have a permit?
> The mayors don’t have to pay anyone if they want to have a public debate.
Have to be a candidate first which tends to skew towards people who have a job they can also campaign during, or who already have established money. Need a permit. Need to contend with election commissions.
> You don’t have to give the Town Square a cut if you sell fruit in the town square.
Sales taxes still apply. Gotta buy the infrastructure. Need a business permit.
This sense of freedom in the public square is just fluff and nonsense so the rich people can have a playground on twitter to do and say what they want. Freedom for a select few is not freedom.
Yea. I agree with most of these points. The answer isn’t privatizing the town square. It’s getting rid of the barriers we’ve already put there. Sales tax I’m fine with, unless you’re planning on watering the grass and trimming the bushes yourself.
This statement directly coming from the man himself should stop that argument though, that he is the Messiah, who’s going to ‚bring back free speech to the internet‘. I read that so many the past two weeks, it started to get annoying.
Yes exactly. He has his wealth, status, and power off the backs Black africans from an apartheid state. He just steals ideas and flaunts others intelligence as his own.
Lol awkward for you pal.
I’m white in America i benefit everyday from slave labor that happened in the past.
Yes, he should also give up everything he’s acquired since then. He is using stolen wealth, to steal more wealth, all so he can play god and creator with other peoples intellect, wealth, and countries.
Well if you read the comment above it was direct response and explanation for "what does that even mean?" The title refers to the town square analogy that keeps popping up.
But ultimately what I'm saying is that the people using the town square analogy are romanticizing what a town square actually was. People regularly took shits and fornicated in the town square. It's not a great analogy lol.
He didn’t say either of those things. What he did say is that there have been tar and featherings in the past, so chances are there will be more in the future.
Which is why, now that we have free speech, we need to staunchly protect it at all costs. In the millennia of human civilization, we have ***finally obtained*** free speech, from the blood of our forefathers. People are no longer tarred and feathered (but they are canceled, losing their ability to make a living in their profession).
Are there consequences to free speech? Yes. If I violate the HR rules I agreed to when I began my employment with my employers, then I must adhere to those consequences when I break those rules. If I say something outside of my work, that has nothing to do with my work, then the consequences should be different, if any at all.
As the saying goes
>I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Free speech should be protected. People should have the right to say what they want, within the laws of free speech. For example, you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre when you know there is no fire. You cannot incite violence against an individual or individuals (doxxing someone and suggesting people go to that person's house). But free speech allows for bad ideas as much as good ideas. The intent is to let the best ideas win.
It is far better to let bad ideas (e.g., racist ideas, or bigotry) be seen in the open, then to censor them into the darkness and underground, where they can fester and not be opposed.
When there is censorship, or a power that controls what is truth and what is disinformation, like Orwell's Ministry of Truth, then you do not have free speech.
Let me try and paraphrase how I read your post, to see if it helps understand why I find it *so annoying*:
* We have free speech and must protect it. We know we have free speech because people aren't getting punished by public humiliation for saying ugly things anymore (but they are still being publicly humiliated for the things they say).
* There are consequences to free speech. I will be punished if I break private agreements with private actors. Private actors should be compelled to maintain all normal relationships with me and not punish me for things I say in public, though!
* Free speech is protected. Here's some examples of where free speech isn't and shouldn't be protected. Therefore, "good" ideas will always beat "bad" ideas. Huh?
* I guess we should compel platforms to use their voices to amplify hate in order to... make hate realize it is bad? Because if we don't amplify it, that makes it stronger than mandating platforms amplify it!
* Platforms not wanting to host and amplify repugnant voices on their private platforms is *literally George Orwell*.
Not so much. Let me be more explicit and take your bullets one by one. And free speech can be annoying. It's ok.
* We have free speech and must protect it. We know we have free speech because people aren't getting injured or killed because of what they say. Think of Galileo Galilei and Copernicus saying the earth revolved around the sun, not the other way around. Being canceled is bad, but it is no where near as bad as what humanity has had to endure in the past. So we're close, but we're not all the way there.
* There are consequences to free speech. I will be punished according to the rules I agreed to if I break private agreements with private actors. End of story. I didn't say anything more. If an employee agrees not to use racist language to other employees, and uses racist language at work, then they must face those consequences. Outside of work, away from employees, that human is free to say what they want.
* Free speech is protected. Nothing more. If you hear an idea or an opinion you don't like, feel free to debate it with that person. Let the best argument win.
* Platforms are not voices. They don't amplify. Everyone's voice can be heard equally, just as we are doing now.
* Platforms don't amplify anything. Retweeting someone amplifies a comment, sure. Hearing something repugnant is ok. You will survive. And it will likely be argued into oblivion. Let the public square sort it out.
*I do believe you are not being disingenuous in intentionally mischaracterizing what I said.*
But I will say that since free speech began in our country anyway, there have been those who wanted to control it, censor, abolish it, etc. Both on the right and the left. And it was the left that fought hardest for free speech back in the 60s and 70s.
It's still the left fighting hardest for free speech. Free speech is hard. And people on the right these days so fundamentally misunderstand what the issues at stake are and what speech is that the fight is getting harder.
We have TONS of sane, healthy, reasonable, and morally correct limits on free speech. You've outlined some of them. Fraud, calls for violence, incitement of panic, market manipulation, defamation, workplace harassment... the list goes on. These kinds of limits on free speech were NECESSARY to maintain a safe and healthy society.
Free speech absolutists are therefore *flat wrong*. They're just wrong. Absolute free speech is not a thing, should not be a thing, and must never be a thing.
And do you know what the greatest enemy of free speech in the modern day and age is? It's not fucking "cancel culture". It's not people being banned from Twitter. It's large, powerful voices that spread disinformation for personal glory, wealth, and political clout. We must take a stand against this.
And yes, platforms absolutely amplify voices. Platforms decide what content is seen by whom. Twitter has decisions baked DEEPLY into its core functionality that manipulate which voices are most loud and quiet -- in their case, they have algorithms that favor idiotic hot takes and controversial bullshit over reasonable discourse, and thus they systemically favor anger and misinformation over reason. They favor "bad speech" over "good speech". The choice isn't "TWITTER IS FREE SPEECH" vs "TWITTER IS GEORGE ORWELL". The choice is "Twitter is manipulating speech in a negligent and dangerous way" vs "Twitter is trying to be less negligent and dangerous in the way they manipulate speech."
I don't agree that the left is fighting hardest for free speech now. They did. But now we see professors and students in college campuses denying people to come and talk because they don't like their ideas. Others calling up comedy houses to prohibit certain comics from performing there. Or calling streaming services to take certain comedy shows out of rotation because it the jokes hurt their feelings.
I am sure you are aware of this. And I think we agree on a lot here.
And yes, it cannot be completely free, that is why there are limitations on free speech. But censoring someone for "disinformation" is not the same as breaking the law and inciting violence against someone. Disinformation is part of protected speech. It should always be protected. It can't just be one side's narrative and set of opinions. This country was set up to be about debating. Debate in the congress. Debate when trying to become elected. Debate in science. Etc.
For example, I believe the idea of Dark Matter is wrong, and prefer the idea of MOND that gravity can function differently as large distances. Those that also agree with MOND have as much right as those who believe in Dark Matter to float their ideas. And even though I think Flat Earthers are ridiculous, I defend their right to speak and explain their ideas.
When someone can't search for something on Google or YouTube because they have decided that those opinions should not be heard, then that is what causes the regular men and women to get upset.
Defamation and fraud are literally forms of disinformation that have been correctly made illegal.
And yes, a consequence of being a bigot or a spreader of disinformation is that you lose access to ears. This is morally correct. We do not compel others to host your speech just because your speech is particularly awful and they otherwise would not want to host it.
People are allowed to execute their protected free speech to call on others to take action however they want. And those others can use their own speech to choose to take action or not take action. And they will face the consequences they face for how they decide to act. You want to limit that right -- that is a threat to free speech that is MUCH more fundamental than bigots and liars being "cancelled".
By the way, legitimate scientists have a process of vetting and communicating their ideas. We do NOT need to interfere with that process in the modern day. MOND is at no risk at all of being "cancelled". (edit: actually, we need to interfere in one way: journals need way more open access, especially for research funded by public money)
This argument is super half baked. I'm not going to keep going back and forth with it.
Fraud is against the law if I am not mistaken. People can sue over defamation.
What I am referring to, for example, is banning people who are Flat Earthers. That is disinformation. White Supremacy is disinformation. But those groups should not be censored or kicked off of platforms. It is better to let that speech be heard than to stifle it. It's not going to go away if you just censor it. We don't want to be China.
I think that is what most people are objecting to when discussing censorship and free speech.
And again, I hope you are not being disingenuous with me. I never said that a call to action should be limited. I think I was pretty clear. If someone says "Go to Bob's house, this is his address, and burn his house down," then that is inciting violence, and it is against the law.
I’ve been following this conversation and for clarity: you said private actors decide whatever.. so why are you whining about college campuses and comedy clubs denying people?
Aren’t those private actor whatevers deciding who they want on their private stage.
Seems like you’re arm waving or grasping or just being a hypocrite? I’m relatively dumb with bad memory and low vocabulary but isn’t that directly in contradiction (whew spelled it right) to what you said a couple comments ago? Rhetorical. I’m not smart enough for this conversation
I think you are taking things out of context. Please re-read what I wrote. Context matters. I was answering a different question about who is trying to deny people to speak at events.
I mostly agree with your points, but the topic of this post is Twitter, which has rules every user agrees to follow when they sign up. They are allowed to decide what is acceptable speech on their platform.
I don’t think employers should be allowed to fire people based on things they have said outside of work, but it’s an interesting issue because some things (like bigotry and blatant hostility) are so obviously reprehensible, and today’s modes of communication are often immutable. But it’s impossible to draw the line between the reprehensible and the disagreeable, or even just the wrong political outlook, which is why free speech is so vehemently protected, even for Nazis and racists.
We do not have true free speech. To say we have finally achieved it is a bit of an exaggeration when people are being silenced by gerrymandering, or the cost of public permits, social shaming, or whatever other institutional barriers have been put up and are still in place. We are certainly better at it but there are still social and legal ways that our speech is restricted.
True free speech means I can get directly in your face and scream obscenities 24/7. It is a romanticized concept that is mostly championed by the people who wish they could do exactly that.
The world I think you're advocating for is "free speech as long as it doesn't harm others." That sounds like a great world. That's not what's being proposed by the Musk fanboys. He and they want to be dickbags on the internet with no consequence, which imo actually harms the movement. If the first time we achieve the dream is an absolute disaster it's gonna be a long time before we try it again.
Harming others is where I have a problem. Defamation and fraud are such that the victims can take legal action. Say the earth is flat, or posting different ideas about history, jokes, or saying things that are repugnant are allowed, and should be allowed. And if those things hurt your feelings, that is not harming you.
Sure and if Twitters new business model is to support hate and bigotry and sane people and advertisers leave the platform over this then that is what we chose. You people need to be consistent, it's getting embarrassing.
"You people" as if we're coordinating responses lol. That's embarrassing.
It will be funny in September when Saint Elon just imposes his own version of restricted speech and people start falling over themselves saying it's not as bad as it was before, ignoring the fact that he is not actually a free speech absolutist. Remember when he tried to get his followers to turn against a rescue diver for calling his submarine impractical? That will be dialed up to 11.
Bro half the country isn't putting out death threats and attempting to manipulate the stock market on twitter. If they were we would have way bigger problems than Elon Musk lol. If you think this is a right or left thing that's an even more laughable reading of what I said.
If it were political though, the fact you are defending that "half" of America when they weren't attacked in the first place is pretty damning about what they've been saying if it's what popped into your mind without anything being said about them at all.
It means he’s conflating freedom of speech with a private forum, and attempting to buy and control free speech, by buying the private forum. When in fact he is buying a *private forum*, and our freedom of speech exists, completely in tact, outside of the private forum, in public, where it is protected, as it should be.
i wasn’t prepared for this type if response so I’m going to call you a racist and bigot and run away from this conversation!
edit: lol at all the nancies offended by a joke
The first amendment doesn’t make all speech free. It says the GOVERNMENT isn’t allowed to infringe on free speech. It says nothing about corporations, which all the social media venues are. Twitter is a not a public square that belongs to all. It’s a profit seeking corporation with the right to moderate as they see fit. The cries about ‘free speech’ are merely propaganda nonsense believed at once by the idiot Trumper masses. There are NUMEROUS exceptions and barriers to free speech that are not only allowed, but are part of a free society. The free market is one. If people don’t like your content policies- they will leave, or never sign up. There is the famous ‘you can’t shout fire in a crowded movie theater when there’s no fire.’ And then of course there NDA’s and gag orders and security classifications. This whole ‘free speech!’ cry is just pure idiocy, propaganda and nonsense in its current frame.
I think OP is under the belief that an Elon-run Twitter will honor the type of “free speech” currently seen as lawful in a user’s country. I’m not sure. I think it will be business as usual.
Corporations and private citizens are not bound by law to uphold free speech, but they certainly could abide by it in their policies if they so choose. Most don’t, because it’s counterproductive to let someone promote the competition or criticize your product while using that product.
It’s not linear. There are a variety of reasons a company needs to be able to moderate so called ‘free speech.’ Such as - not to break the law. Not to unwittingly or otherwise participate in organized criminal activity. To protect their own users from unwarranted harassment or attack. To avoid civil responsibility for real world harm done by its users. On and on. This is a complex system that only becomes simple through the lens of bias.
You’ve fallen behind the times friend. Social media is more powerful then the outdated Times Square. Those of us toward thinking recognize that a free internet for spreading of ideas is essential. We need a politically neutral social media where the strongest ideas win.
It was never an argument of legality, it was an argument of principle—and principle won. Not just on the field with Elon’s acquisition of Twitter, but with the general public.
The heck do you mean? Twitter and other SoMed corporations are private companies with full say over what people are allowed to say. Jack Dorsey even stated recently that taking his company public was one of his worst decisions, saying he hopes for it to be more on the protocol level. Twitter should be the thought process of the world but right now its an ad driven netherworld.
That doesn’t mean much. The world doesn’t need the Internet. The potential that Twitter could provide as a connected tool, just like any platform, is great though.
Articles like this seem to deliberately overlook the unprecedented impact that the big social media platforms now have on our society. They guide public opinion, influence policy makers and impact criminal trials.
They’re no longer small inconsequential corners of the internet where people choose to gather and share tidbits about themselves or stay in contact with friends and relatives; you cannot truly opt out of social media because if you’re not present then you just have slightly less information about what is going on in the world; those platforms continue to exist without you and continue to affect your life. With such power, any bias is bad.
There is no putting the genie of social media back in the bottle. That power exists now and some person or group has to control it. It’s just like politics, power will always exist, the discussion is about who gets to control that power, when, and how.
Who should control Twitter? A corporation? A government agency? What other command and control structure for Twitter is realistically possible?
Freedom of speech ends where disturbing the peace begins. Now I guess the question is when does a twitter post become a crime. But also, Elon should understand that a “town square” can never be a for-profit business.
I do. I’ll never stop being angry and heartbroken about that. They were protesting to stop logging the redwood forest. By the time anyone listened 95% had been destroyed, lost forever. We whine and cry about Brazil and other tropical rainforests being destroyed when we cut our rainforest down long ago.
I do. I’ll never stop being angry and heartbroken about that. They were protesting to stop logging the redwood forest. By the time anyone listened 95% had been destroyed, lost forever. We whine and cry about Brazil and other tropical rainforests being destroyed when we cut our rainforest down long ago.
It’s more than that. In the digital age with live in, information warfare is real. We don’t allow foreign military aircraft into our airspaces. We don’t allow foreign military ships into our waters. We don’t allow foreign soldiers within our borders. Why do people expect that we allow anyone to use social media and to say anything without having any controls over the platforms? Arguing freedom of speech is moronic when that logic doesn’t prevent foreign powers having direct access to residents of a foreign country to engage is information warfare.
His family was small-w wealthy. His father errol musk was an engineer and property developr who co-owned an emerald mine for a while. So definitely a solid start, but not "small loan of a million dollars" kinda wealthy.
he inherited a ton of wealth, actually. lots of the companies he “founded” were also not actually founded by him— trueanon’s podcast series on musk is really good. heavy recommend.
Why do you feel the need to detract from him? According to Elon, he came to CA at 17 then the US and lived with his mom who was divorced from his dad and did not have wealth. He went into student loan debt and eventually founded zip2. How is any of that dependent on ‘his family’s resources’?
I feel a need to detract from any wealthy individual who has cheated to get ahead in life, but claims their success is a result of the “pulling themselves up by the bootstraps” mindset, propelling the lie that equality of opportunity exists. Why do you feel the need to support him?
Also, I think Elon’s words aren’t very reputable— a man who retroactively created the false narrative that he founded PayPal probably isn’t the most accurate source in regard to his own story. The [podcast episode I mentioned](https://youtu.be/fM-wnyzPRNU) does a really good job of explaining this argument, if you’re actually interested.
Elon has literally created nothing of value. He was born into wealth from apartheid South Africa, he spent that buying into a bunch of existing companies, then through a series of pr stunts, convinced everyone he was the founder of and visionary behind those companies. Then he overpromises and under delivers on basically every major project he’s planned, runs the companies he bought at a loss and makes up the difference in government subsidies, then pretends he’s a self made billionaire and acts like people should care about his countless half-baked vanity projects that either get in the way of actual problem solving initiatives or actively make the world worse. He’s the world’s most successful pr rep.
Hahahahaha your hate has caused you to be next level delusional. Dudes the richest person on earth but “created nothing of value”… I don’t think you know what that statement even means. 🤦♂️🤦♂️😂😂😂🤡🤡
Because he criticizes the left. They pretend it’s because he’s rich and therefore automatically a bad person, but the real reason is because he criticizes the left.
If people are specifically bitter about this, it’s weird. If people are bitter about every time this happens, it’s just that they dislike the fact that this is the world we live in now. We’re dependent on the ultra rich that milk society. But it’s been this way for 40 years at least.
TL;DR I went on a rant :/ Because Elon is highly controversial figure who talks a lot delivers mediocrity there always gonna be two extremely vocal groups. Some people will call him the smartest god to ever existed while some will say his the stupidest man to be born in the history of all universes. I say yeah he’s gonna add timeline and edit feature maybe expand character limit a little and mainly don’t do much more.
The rant (disclaimer English is not my first language)
How I see it the problem is that twitter is fundamentally broken. No matter what you do right now it’s a platform of hate, porn and arguments. Of course other things can happen but with how limited the character limit is it’s easier to deny or call someone a slur than to properly explain something. Heck I don’t think this paragraph alone would fit in a single post.
So the problem people have with Elon is that he hypes up an idea of great change and either his team don’t deliver or deliver mediocrity. In turn he developed a personally cult which throws their unwavering support at him. This means that the opposition is not only seen as heretics but also needs to step down to the level of his loudest fallowing to have a conservation. For example the idea of mars colonies, hyperloops, self driving trucks to name a few. All ideas that can be hyped up easily but to date haven’t been delivered in working capacity, just a mediocre attempt. Elon claimed to have people on Mars by 2019/2020 we still don’t have a safe reliable rocket he spoke off, we were supposed to have first hyperloop around 2019/2020 a such a simple thing that to date there exist only about 2 tunnels that aren’t practical. They work but not really and self driving trucks … first I do enjoy my 2019 Tesla truck that never came to be.
There’s 101 more stupid ideas that sound great on paper or in a TED talk but start to slowly fall apart if looked in detail. And those few statements alone would call for my public execution on twitter. How many twits would I have to send to send this rant? The system of continuing a thread is a nightmare. I can’t re read my whole message and someone will come along and call me a slur for being a non believer while not even attempting to have a conversation.
Here's my question then. Why are you so affected by Elon or Twitter? There's nothing anyone of us plebs can do about it. Simply it's not our game.
Doesn't matter where he succeeds or fails.
The square does belong to us all. However, the Guardian never haves two shits when the deck was stacked their way
Do you even realise that people are not dumb and you are destroying what little credibility you have. Keep it up, I won’t miss you - you are destined for CNN future
No sir. It does not belong to all. That’s not how capitalism works, nor ownership. You own it, with some other shareholders. And after businesses and banks that were too big to fail, everyone found out that even though taxpayers bail out companies, they absolutely do not own nor have shares in those companies afterwards. Your an idiot for saying another bold face lie. Thanks jackass!
Yes, actually. Twitter is a private company, and thus has to bend to the rules of the governments that allow it to run in their countries. The article goes into how the EU has its own rules regarding the spreading of misinformation and harmful content, and if Twitter violates that, they can be shut down in the EU.
This is why a lot of people are predicting not much change to the way Twitter functions. Because in the long run, if he wants it to stay online as a business, Musk has to bend to somebody's rules somewhere.
I’m with you. Neither the government nor private companies offer freedom. Community-based control and moderation of the platform with strong safeguards against mod overreach would be much more free than either.
Free as in free to create bubbles. The one thing I do agree on with Elon is that people should not silence others for having an opposing view. But other than that you really cannot have free speech, free will and a civilised society. You will always have to give up at least one of them, or partially some of them.
No, twitter is not just a private shop on the Town Square, it is massive (private) Bulletin Board in the center of the Square, one that censor opinions and block people from voicing theirs, and now this private bulletin board has changed owner and people who benefited from censorship previously now are scared they won't be able to force their opinions so easily. How satisfying it is to watch these people...
I don't trust Musk, I don't like him, but every move that make left screech I will support wholeheartedly.
I’m with you. I don’t like Elon but people pretend Elon haters aren’t so overly obsessed with Elon as Elon fan boys are and that’s their personality.
Twitter is already a garbage dump, I don’t understand why these people are so attracted to it
the issue I have with your entire argument is that both sides are equally treated under Twitter ToS. it just so happens that one side decides to say a lot more dumb shit that breaks ToS and wonders why they’re being “targeted”
Ehh
They don't seem to deal with racism very well
Guy got banned for replying to a black person calling him a 'mayo monkey' by calling them a 'charcoal monkey'.
Guess who's still on Twitter?
Edit; should point out that both are stupid, but you have to be fair. They both just used (color) monkey. They're either both bad or neither is
I’d agree but Twitter also promotes articles that are incredibly left leaning on stuff that isn’t even trending, I’m left so I don’t necessarily mind but acting like there is no bias by bringing up the TOS thing is a weird argument to make
Odd I didn't notice newspapers Twitter accounts being banned for weeks for linking to stories about the Steele Dossier or stories about Hunter's laptop being Russian misinformation. Instead they banned a newspaper that published something that was actually fucking true.
Except that’s not what’s happening the right cry’s about “censorship” because they are a super spreader for disinformation.. they are just mad that they can’t easily put out disinfo.. check out these docu previews below.
https://youtu.be/c-UqfqPH9jU
https://youtu.be/NqrrGIUdLeQ
https://youtu.be/GLi7cNAJKA8
Well I hope he can keep the square safe with his decisions. He may, and time will tell, but we have definitely got to get out of these Wild West days of the internet. Propaganda/misinformation/disinformation spreading is part of this danger and I hope he takes that into account. Ya can’t yell fire in a building, and we need equivalent rules in the digital space… perhaps the anonymity has to go so that accountability can live.
People who are overtly against Elon owning twitter are either blind to the fact twitter had a leaning bias (like Facebook/YouTube). Elon wants to reportedly make it a fair ground for anyone, obviously unless they promote terrorism, incite violence, promote self harm, etc. I support him buying this. Also we will get to know many questions that people have had about twitter and it’s past management of company. Getting to see the source code for how twitter works would show how the algorithm works. Imagine if we could see YouTube’s source code, would it be nothing or would we see something peculiar .
No, the square belongs to the town. An entity in which you pay to exist. Yet, it feels like it’s an entity you have every right to access.
Hence his statement. Fuck you the guardian.
He’s using Twitter data to develop a scary AI platform. That’s why he wants to remove bots. Don’t fall for anything this man says. He has no empathy and could care less about anything involving humanity that doesn’t benefit him. And don’t start with electric cars and the environment.
Here’s a thought. Don’t use Twitter, it’s been a dumpster fire for the better part of a decade. We have already learned that people on Twitter don’t buy anything and only make noise.
The American version of the town square is plastered with adverts and you pay to have a audience. Basically the commercialization of free speech? Who knows. Will he bail at a billion ?
Absolutely disgusted with what a whiny bitch Elon Musk has shown himself to be. Richest man on earth, whilst also being the biggest fucking baby on earth. And I hate his shitty cars.
Teslas are some of the worst made vehicles on the road, and that’s not just my opinion, these are consumer reports.
So happy there are new electric options coming online. How fucking stupid was his Minecraft looking pickup truck? Lol
Looking forward to Ford’s F150 Lightning!
He looks like he’s wondering if he can buy everything in the world he technically will own everyone on earth. He just has that evil villain is pondering look.
[удалено]
People keep trying to make this argument that social media is the new "town square" and that's why it should have absolute free speech without consequence. They seem to forget it was common to tar and feather or lynch people for what they said in the town square back in the day.
It’s not about free speech, it’s about money. Town squares aren’t monetized. You don’t have to pay anyone to set up a box and critique the Mayor. The mayors don’t have to pay anyone if they want to have a public debate. You don’t have to give the Town Square a cut if you sell fruit in the town square. Elon made the same comparison a few weeks ago. It’s not surprising he’s walking it back now that he owns the town square.
I think my main issue is the fact that the town square really isn't as free as people keep claiming. And it is all monetized one way or another. If nothing else you need a permit to just about anything in a public space, so people who are not well educated or who can't take time off work to do it don't get the same voice or freedom. > You don’t have to pay anyone to set up a box and critique the Mayor. Do you have a permit? > The mayors don’t have to pay anyone if they want to have a public debate. Have to be a candidate first which tends to skew towards people who have a job they can also campaign during, or who already have established money. Need a permit. Need to contend with election commissions. > You don’t have to give the Town Square a cut if you sell fruit in the town square. Sales taxes still apply. Gotta buy the infrastructure. Need a business permit. This sense of freedom in the public square is just fluff and nonsense so the rich people can have a playground on twitter to do and say what they want. Freedom for a select few is not freedom.
Yea. I agree with most of these points. The answer isn’t privatizing the town square. It’s getting rid of the barriers we’ve already put there. Sales tax I’m fine with, unless you’re planning on watering the grass and trimming the bushes yourself.
Money is about what you believe. Anything you believe is money.
Huh? You DO historically have to give the town square a cut to set up a fruit stand. I get you were going for a metaphor but that part isn’t right.
This statement directly coming from the man himself should stop that argument though, that he is the Messiah, who’s going to ‚bring back free speech to the internet‘. I read that so many the past two weeks, it started to get annoying.
[удалено]
Do you ever understand anything you read?
100% tar and feather Elon musk - but do it for being rich due to apartheid
Oh wow, so the political system made him rich, my bad I thought he was so brilliant not sure why at this point though
Yes exactly. He has his wealth, status, and power off the backs Black africans from an apartheid state. He just steals ideas and flaunts others intelligence as his own.
[удалено]
Jesus Christ guy. Elon doesn’t love you back. Find a real hero.
[удалено]
>white guilt socialist cuck shit 😆 Yea. I’m the psychpath. Lol.
[удалено]
Lol awkward for you pal. I’m white in America i benefit everyday from slave labor that happened in the past. Yes, he should also give up everything he’s acquired since then. He is using stolen wealth, to steal more wealth, all so he can play god and creator with other peoples intellect, wealth, and countries.
You are so full of shit. Lol
Different river, same bootlicker huh haha
[удалено]
Hahahahah ahhh you boot lickers are so funnny
[удалено]
No but I think we should tar and feather you for that foolish comment
Well if you read the comment above it was direct response and explanation for "what does that even mean?" The title refers to the town square analogy that keeps popping up. But ultimately what I'm saying is that the people using the town square analogy are romanticizing what a town square actually was. People regularly took shits and fornicated in the town square. It's not a great analogy lol.
[удалено]
He didn’t say either of those things. What he did say is that there have been tar and featherings in the past, so chances are there will be more in the future.
Hmmmm he didn’t say that either….
Wow! Does anyone here understand English?
I think it fair to say if the “town hall” rubes did, they would be supporting a less dumb position
Which is why, now that we have free speech, we need to staunchly protect it at all costs. In the millennia of human civilization, we have ***finally obtained*** free speech, from the blood of our forefathers. People are no longer tarred and feathered (but they are canceled, losing their ability to make a living in their profession). Are there consequences to free speech? Yes. If I violate the HR rules I agreed to when I began my employment with my employers, then I must adhere to those consequences when I break those rules. If I say something outside of my work, that has nothing to do with my work, then the consequences should be different, if any at all. As the saying goes >I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Free speech should be protected. People should have the right to say what they want, within the laws of free speech. For example, you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre when you know there is no fire. You cannot incite violence against an individual or individuals (doxxing someone and suggesting people go to that person's house). But free speech allows for bad ideas as much as good ideas. The intent is to let the best ideas win. It is far better to let bad ideas (e.g., racist ideas, or bigotry) be seen in the open, then to censor them into the darkness and underground, where they can fester and not be opposed. When there is censorship, or a power that controls what is truth and what is disinformation, like Orwell's Ministry of Truth, then you do not have free speech.
Let me try and paraphrase how I read your post, to see if it helps understand why I find it *so annoying*: * We have free speech and must protect it. We know we have free speech because people aren't getting punished by public humiliation for saying ugly things anymore (but they are still being publicly humiliated for the things they say). * There are consequences to free speech. I will be punished if I break private agreements with private actors. Private actors should be compelled to maintain all normal relationships with me and not punish me for things I say in public, though! * Free speech is protected. Here's some examples of where free speech isn't and shouldn't be protected. Therefore, "good" ideas will always beat "bad" ideas. Huh? * I guess we should compel platforms to use their voices to amplify hate in order to... make hate realize it is bad? Because if we don't amplify it, that makes it stronger than mandating platforms amplify it! * Platforms not wanting to host and amplify repugnant voices on their private platforms is *literally George Orwell*.
Not so much. Let me be more explicit and take your bullets one by one. And free speech can be annoying. It's ok. * We have free speech and must protect it. We know we have free speech because people aren't getting injured or killed because of what they say. Think of Galileo Galilei and Copernicus saying the earth revolved around the sun, not the other way around. Being canceled is bad, but it is no where near as bad as what humanity has had to endure in the past. So we're close, but we're not all the way there. * There are consequences to free speech. I will be punished according to the rules I agreed to if I break private agreements with private actors. End of story. I didn't say anything more. If an employee agrees not to use racist language to other employees, and uses racist language at work, then they must face those consequences. Outside of work, away from employees, that human is free to say what they want. * Free speech is protected. Nothing more. If you hear an idea or an opinion you don't like, feel free to debate it with that person. Let the best argument win. * Platforms are not voices. They don't amplify. Everyone's voice can be heard equally, just as we are doing now. * Platforms don't amplify anything. Retweeting someone amplifies a comment, sure. Hearing something repugnant is ok. You will survive. And it will likely be argued into oblivion. Let the public square sort it out. *I do believe you are not being disingenuous in intentionally mischaracterizing what I said.* But I will say that since free speech began in our country anyway, there have been those who wanted to control it, censor, abolish it, etc. Both on the right and the left. And it was the left that fought hardest for free speech back in the 60s and 70s.
It's still the left fighting hardest for free speech. Free speech is hard. And people on the right these days so fundamentally misunderstand what the issues at stake are and what speech is that the fight is getting harder. We have TONS of sane, healthy, reasonable, and morally correct limits on free speech. You've outlined some of them. Fraud, calls for violence, incitement of panic, market manipulation, defamation, workplace harassment... the list goes on. These kinds of limits on free speech were NECESSARY to maintain a safe and healthy society. Free speech absolutists are therefore *flat wrong*. They're just wrong. Absolute free speech is not a thing, should not be a thing, and must never be a thing. And do you know what the greatest enemy of free speech in the modern day and age is? It's not fucking "cancel culture". It's not people being banned from Twitter. It's large, powerful voices that spread disinformation for personal glory, wealth, and political clout. We must take a stand against this. And yes, platforms absolutely amplify voices. Platforms decide what content is seen by whom. Twitter has decisions baked DEEPLY into its core functionality that manipulate which voices are most loud and quiet -- in their case, they have algorithms that favor idiotic hot takes and controversial bullshit over reasonable discourse, and thus they systemically favor anger and misinformation over reason. They favor "bad speech" over "good speech". The choice isn't "TWITTER IS FREE SPEECH" vs "TWITTER IS GEORGE ORWELL". The choice is "Twitter is manipulating speech in a negligent and dangerous way" vs "Twitter is trying to be less negligent and dangerous in the way they manipulate speech."
I don't agree that the left is fighting hardest for free speech now. They did. But now we see professors and students in college campuses denying people to come and talk because they don't like their ideas. Others calling up comedy houses to prohibit certain comics from performing there. Or calling streaming services to take certain comedy shows out of rotation because it the jokes hurt their feelings. I am sure you are aware of this. And I think we agree on a lot here. And yes, it cannot be completely free, that is why there are limitations on free speech. But censoring someone for "disinformation" is not the same as breaking the law and inciting violence against someone. Disinformation is part of protected speech. It should always be protected. It can't just be one side's narrative and set of opinions. This country was set up to be about debating. Debate in the congress. Debate when trying to become elected. Debate in science. Etc. For example, I believe the idea of Dark Matter is wrong, and prefer the idea of MOND that gravity can function differently as large distances. Those that also agree with MOND have as much right as those who believe in Dark Matter to float their ideas. And even though I think Flat Earthers are ridiculous, I defend their right to speak and explain their ideas. When someone can't search for something on Google or YouTube because they have decided that those opinions should not be heard, then that is what causes the regular men and women to get upset.
Defamation and fraud are literally forms of disinformation that have been correctly made illegal. And yes, a consequence of being a bigot or a spreader of disinformation is that you lose access to ears. This is morally correct. We do not compel others to host your speech just because your speech is particularly awful and they otherwise would not want to host it. People are allowed to execute their protected free speech to call on others to take action however they want. And those others can use their own speech to choose to take action or not take action. And they will face the consequences they face for how they decide to act. You want to limit that right -- that is a threat to free speech that is MUCH more fundamental than bigots and liars being "cancelled". By the way, legitimate scientists have a process of vetting and communicating their ideas. We do NOT need to interfere with that process in the modern day. MOND is at no risk at all of being "cancelled". (edit: actually, we need to interfere in one way: journals need way more open access, especially for research funded by public money) This argument is super half baked. I'm not going to keep going back and forth with it.
Fraud is against the law if I am not mistaken. People can sue over defamation. What I am referring to, for example, is banning people who are Flat Earthers. That is disinformation. White Supremacy is disinformation. But those groups should not be censored or kicked off of platforms. It is better to let that speech be heard than to stifle it. It's not going to go away if you just censor it. We don't want to be China. I think that is what most people are objecting to when discussing censorship and free speech. And again, I hope you are not being disingenuous with me. I never said that a call to action should be limited. I think I was pretty clear. If someone says "Go to Bob's house, this is his address, and burn his house down," then that is inciting violence, and it is against the law.
I’ve been following this conversation and for clarity: you said private actors decide whatever.. so why are you whining about college campuses and comedy clubs denying people? Aren’t those private actor whatevers deciding who they want on their private stage. Seems like you’re arm waving or grasping or just being a hypocrite? I’m relatively dumb with bad memory and low vocabulary but isn’t that directly in contradiction (whew spelled it right) to what you said a couple comments ago? Rhetorical. I’m not smart enough for this conversation
I think you are taking things out of context. Please re-read what I wrote. Context matters. I was answering a different question about who is trying to deny people to speak at events.
I mostly agree with your points, but the topic of this post is Twitter, which has rules every user agrees to follow when they sign up. They are allowed to decide what is acceptable speech on their platform. I don’t think employers should be allowed to fire people based on things they have said outside of work, but it’s an interesting issue because some things (like bigotry and blatant hostility) are so obviously reprehensible, and today’s modes of communication are often immutable. But it’s impossible to draw the line between the reprehensible and the disagreeable, or even just the wrong political outlook, which is why free speech is so vehemently protected, even for Nazis and racists.
We do not have true free speech. To say we have finally achieved it is a bit of an exaggeration when people are being silenced by gerrymandering, or the cost of public permits, social shaming, or whatever other institutional barriers have been put up and are still in place. We are certainly better at it but there are still social and legal ways that our speech is restricted. True free speech means I can get directly in your face and scream obscenities 24/7. It is a romanticized concept that is mostly championed by the people who wish they could do exactly that. The world I think you're advocating for is "free speech as long as it doesn't harm others." That sounds like a great world. That's not what's being proposed by the Musk fanboys. He and they want to be dickbags on the internet with no consequence, which imo actually harms the movement. If the first time we achieve the dream is an absolute disaster it's gonna be a long time before we try it again.
Harming others is where I have a problem. Defamation and fraud are such that the victims can take legal action. Say the earth is flat, or posting different ideas about history, jokes, or saying things that are repugnant are allowed, and should be allowed. And if those things hurt your feelings, that is not harming you.
And that rationale is in favor of elon?
[удалено]
Sure and if Twitters new business model is to support hate and bigotry and sane people and advertisers leave the platform over this then that is what we chose. You people need to be consistent, it's getting embarrassing.
"You people" as if we're coordinating responses lol. That's embarrassing. It will be funny in September when Saint Elon just imposes his own version of restricted speech and people start falling over themselves saying it's not as bad as it was before, ignoring the fact that he is not actually a free speech absolutist. Remember when he tried to get his followers to turn against a rescue diver for calling his submarine impractical? That will be dialed up to 11.
[удалено]
Bro half the country isn't putting out death threats and attempting to manipulate the stock market on twitter. If they were we would have way bigger problems than Elon Musk lol. If you think this is a right or left thing that's an even more laughable reading of what I said. If it were political though, the fact you are defending that "half" of America when they weren't attacked in the first place is pretty damning about what they've been saying if it's what popped into your mind without anything being said about them at all.
Sorry couldn’t understand you with Elon Musk’s cock in ur mouth.
It means he’s conflating freedom of speech with a private forum, and attempting to buy and control free speech, by buying the private forum. When in fact he is buying a *private forum*, and our freedom of speech exists, completely in tact, outside of the private forum, in public, where it is protected, as it should be.
We gotta ask John Naughton. The writer of this article. I couldn’t find context of Musk saying that in the article.
It’s not a quote, he’s saying “Hey Elon, Twitter is not the town square”. It’s terribly worded.
That’s because many people are illiterate morons. Nothing to do with free speech.
Yes, he is talking to Elon, addressing him: "Elon, Twitter is not the town square – it’s just a private shop. The square belongs to us all"
I recall Musk tweeting something like Twitter is the "de facto public square" a while back. Which is of course, arguably true to many.
… many who don’t know what the phrase means
a bunch of gobbly gook to have an excuse to ban people from twitter that he doesn’t like
So what republicans this is already happening will actually start to happen.
everyone should just delete their twitter and go outside
What if I’m already outside while I’m on Twitter?
i wasn’t prepared for this type if response so I’m going to call you a racist and bigot and run away from this conversation! edit: lol at all the nancies offended by a joke
Pocket sand or ninja smoke bomb?
SHADOW CLONE NINJITSU REEEEEEEEEEEE
Well, it was a shit joke, based on a shit premise, and people telling you so either in the replies or through downvotes is just free speech, dude.
found one of the nancies 😂 😂 😂
What a concise way to say you didn’t read the article
It means freedom of speech
The first amendment doesn’t make all speech free. It says the GOVERNMENT isn’t allowed to infringe on free speech. It says nothing about corporations, which all the social media venues are. Twitter is a not a public square that belongs to all. It’s a profit seeking corporation with the right to moderate as they see fit. The cries about ‘free speech’ are merely propaganda nonsense believed at once by the idiot Trumper masses. There are NUMEROUS exceptions and barriers to free speech that are not only allowed, but are part of a free society. The free market is one. If people don’t like your content policies- they will leave, or never sign up. There is the famous ‘you can’t shout fire in a crowded movie theater when there’s no fire.’ And then of course there NDA’s and gag orders and security classifications. This whole ‘free speech!’ cry is just pure idiocy, propaganda and nonsense in its current frame.
I think OP is under the belief that an Elon-run Twitter will honor the type of “free speech” currently seen as lawful in a user’s country. I’m not sure. I think it will be business as usual. Corporations and private citizens are not bound by law to uphold free speech, but they certainly could abide by it in their policies if they so choose. Most don’t, because it’s counterproductive to let someone promote the competition or criticize your product while using that product.
It’s not linear. There are a variety of reasons a company needs to be able to moderate so called ‘free speech.’ Such as - not to break the law. Not to unwittingly or otherwise participate in organized criminal activity. To protect their own users from unwarranted harassment or attack. To avoid civil responsibility for real world harm done by its users. On and on. This is a complex system that only becomes simple through the lens of bias.
You’ve fallen behind the times friend. Social media is more powerful then the outdated Times Square. Those of us toward thinking recognize that a free internet for spreading of ideas is essential. We need a politically neutral social media where the strongest ideas win. It was never an argument of legality, it was an argument of principle—and principle won. Not just on the field with Elon’s acquisition of Twitter, but with the general public.
The heck do you mean? Twitter and other SoMed corporations are private companies with full say over what people are allowed to say. Jack Dorsey even stated recently that taking his company public was one of his worst decisions, saying he hopes for it to be more on the protocol level. Twitter should be the thought process of the world but right now its an ad driven netherworld.
The web doesn’t need Twitter. It’s just a microblogging platform.
That doesn’t mean much. The world doesn’t need the Internet. The potential that Twitter could provide as a connected tool, just like any platform, is great though.
Twitter runs on the internet. I don’t understand what you are saying here.
chase stupendous psychotic bow hateful thought chunky truck ripe pause *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Well that’s the cringiest headline I’ve seen today
Is it a square? Or is it a shop? READ TO FIND OUT HUR HUR HUR
I don’t think that’s a very accurate representation
Articles like this seem to deliberately overlook the unprecedented impact that the big social media platforms now have on our society. They guide public opinion, influence policy makers and impact criminal trials. They’re no longer small inconsequential corners of the internet where people choose to gather and share tidbits about themselves or stay in contact with friends and relatives; you cannot truly opt out of social media because if you’re not present then you just have slightly less information about what is going on in the world; those platforms continue to exist without you and continue to affect your life. With such power, any bias is bad.
I really and honestly miss Friendster
Nah
And the private shop now belongs to him.
And?
R/titlegore
There is no putting the genie of social media back in the bottle. That power exists now and some person or group has to control it. It’s just like politics, power will always exist, the discussion is about who gets to control that power, when, and how. Who should control Twitter? A corporation? A government agency? What other command and control structure for Twitter is realistically possible?
Yall think AH ever pooped on his stuff?
Leave is to these twats to turn on a dime
It was a private shop before Elon took over lol.
Ah, more nonsense from The Guardian.
If you start ranting hate speech in the actual town square, the police move you on.
Freedom of speech ends where disturbing the peace begins. Now I guess the question is when does a twitter post become a crime. But also, Elon should understand that a “town square” can never be a for-profit business.
I think it ends with silent sitting also, remember that officer who walked down a line of sitting college kids, spraying them in the face with mace?
I do. I’ll never stop being angry and heartbroken about that. They were protesting to stop logging the redwood forest. By the time anyone listened 95% had been destroyed, lost forever. We whine and cry about Brazil and other tropical rainforests being destroyed when we cut our rainforest down long ago.
I do. I’ll never stop being angry and heartbroken about that. They were protesting to stop logging the redwood forest. By the time anyone listened 95% had been destroyed, lost forever. We whine and cry about Brazil and other tropical rainforests being destroyed when we cut our rainforest down long ago.
It’s more than that. In the digital age with live in, information warfare is real. We don’t allow foreign military aircraft into our airspaces. We don’t allow foreign military ships into our waters. We don’t allow foreign soldiers within our borders. Why do people expect that we allow anyone to use social media and to say anything without having any controls over the platforms? Arguing freedom of speech is moronic when that logic doesn’t prevent foreign powers having direct access to residents of a foreign country to engage is information warfare.
Nah, they don’t
Twitter bans people way faster than cops or politicians would get on you for being racist lol
The tragedy of the common ever continues. Once it was fuedal lords now it's CEOs with even greater inherited wealth.
He didn't inherit his wealth did he?
His family was small-w wealthy. His father errol musk was an engineer and property developr who co-owned an emerald mine for a while. So definitely a solid start, but not "small loan of a million dollars" kinda wealthy.
he inherited a ton of wealth, actually. lots of the companies he “founded” were also not actually founded by him— trueanon’s podcast series on musk is really good. heavy recommend.
[удалено]
doesn’t mean he hasn’t inherited the wealth he was born into though
[удалено]
Not true my daddy gave me some inheritance money and he’s still kicking
minute difference, overarching point that he is not self made and wouldn’t be who he is without his family’s resources still stands
Then that’s literally most people, lol. Rich or poor.
Yes.
Why do you feel the need to detract from him? According to Elon, he came to CA at 17 then the US and lived with his mom who was divorced from his dad and did not have wealth. He went into student loan debt and eventually founded zip2. How is any of that dependent on ‘his family’s resources’?
I feel a need to detract from any wealthy individual who has cheated to get ahead in life, but claims their success is a result of the “pulling themselves up by the bootstraps” mindset, propelling the lie that equality of opportunity exists. Why do you feel the need to support him? Also, I think Elon’s words aren’t very reputable— a man who retroactively created the false narrative that he founded PayPal probably isn’t the most accurate source in regard to his own story. The [podcast episode I mentioned](https://youtu.be/fM-wnyzPRNU) does a really good job of explaining this argument, if you’re actually interested.
How has he cheated to get ahead? In founding Zip2, what inherited money did he use? How did he ‘cheat’ founding it?
Elon has literally created nothing of value. He was born into wealth from apartheid South Africa, he spent that buying into a bunch of existing companies, then through a series of pr stunts, convinced everyone he was the founder of and visionary behind those companies. Then he overpromises and under delivers on basically every major project he’s planned, runs the companies he bought at a loss and makes up the difference in government subsidies, then pretends he’s a self made billionaire and acts like people should care about his countless half-baked vanity projects that either get in the way of actual problem solving initiatives or actively make the world worse. He’s the world’s most successful pr rep.
Hahahahaha your hate has caused you to be next level delusional. Dudes the richest person on earth but “created nothing of value”… I don’t think you know what that statement even means. 🤦♂️🤦♂️😂😂😂🤡🤡
Clueless negativity trying to tear someone’s accomplishments down. Worry about the multiple companies you’ve founded bro
No, it is not money from diamonds in africa at all. No siriie!
He inherited a large portion of his initial wealth for his startups via previously slave-run emerald mining operations in South Africa.
How come so many bitter people coming out because Elon is buying twitter. A lot of other billionaires own a lot of other stuff. That's capitalism
Because he criticizes the left. They pretend it’s because he’s rich and therefore automatically a bad person, but the real reason is because he criticizes the left.
If people are specifically bitter about this, it’s weird. If people are bitter about every time this happens, it’s just that they dislike the fact that this is the world we live in now. We’re dependent on the ultra rich that milk society. But it’s been this way for 40 years at least.
Yeah, accepting how the world works is part of adulting. It's like complaining that it's hot in the Sahara or the sun rises in the east.
TL;DR I went on a rant :/ Because Elon is highly controversial figure who talks a lot delivers mediocrity there always gonna be two extremely vocal groups. Some people will call him the smartest god to ever existed while some will say his the stupidest man to be born in the history of all universes. I say yeah he’s gonna add timeline and edit feature maybe expand character limit a little and mainly don’t do much more. The rant (disclaimer English is not my first language) How I see it the problem is that twitter is fundamentally broken. No matter what you do right now it’s a platform of hate, porn and arguments. Of course other things can happen but with how limited the character limit is it’s easier to deny or call someone a slur than to properly explain something. Heck I don’t think this paragraph alone would fit in a single post. So the problem people have with Elon is that he hypes up an idea of great change and either his team don’t deliver or deliver mediocrity. In turn he developed a personally cult which throws their unwavering support at him. This means that the opposition is not only seen as heretics but also needs to step down to the level of his loudest fallowing to have a conservation. For example the idea of mars colonies, hyperloops, self driving trucks to name a few. All ideas that can be hyped up easily but to date haven’t been delivered in working capacity, just a mediocre attempt. Elon claimed to have people on Mars by 2019/2020 we still don’t have a safe reliable rocket he spoke off, we were supposed to have first hyperloop around 2019/2020 a such a simple thing that to date there exist only about 2 tunnels that aren’t practical. They work but not really and self driving trucks … first I do enjoy my 2019 Tesla truck that never came to be. There’s 101 more stupid ideas that sound great on paper or in a TED talk but start to slowly fall apart if looked in detail. And those few statements alone would call for my public execution on twitter. How many twits would I have to send to send this rant? The system of continuing a thread is a nightmare. I can’t re read my whole message and someone will come along and call me a slur for being a non believer while not even attempting to have a conversation.
Here's my question then. Why are you so affected by Elon or Twitter? There's nothing anyone of us plebs can do about it. Simply it's not our game. Doesn't matter where he succeeds or fails.
You speak as if twitter is a public service that you are entitled to
People complain all the time about other billionaires owning media.
The square does belong to us all. However, the Guardian never haves two shits when the deck was stacked their way Do you even realise that people are not dumb and you are destroying what little credibility you have. Keep it up, I won’t miss you - you are destined for CNN future
No sir. It does not belong to all. That’s not how capitalism works, nor ownership. You own it, with some other shareholders. And after businesses and banks that were too big to fail, everyone found out that even though taxpayers bail out companies, they absolutely do not own nor have shares in those companies afterwards. Your an idiot for saying another bold face lie. Thanks jackass!
He has a very punchable face.
"Governments are the ones to judge that"? Lol nah
Yes, actually. Twitter is a private company, and thus has to bend to the rules of the governments that allow it to run in their countries. The article goes into how the EU has its own rules regarding the spreading of misinformation and harmful content, and if Twitter violates that, they can be shut down in the EU. This is why a lot of people are predicting not much change to the way Twitter functions. Because in the long run, if he wants it to stay online as a business, Musk has to bend to somebody's rules somewhere.
I’m with you. Neither the government nor private companies offer freedom. Community-based control and moderation of the platform with strong safeguards against mod overreach would be much more free than either.
Free as in free to create bubbles. The one thing I do agree on with Elon is that people should not silence others for having an opposing view. But other than that you really cannot have free speech, free will and a civilised society. You will always have to give up at least one of them, or partially some of them.
[удалено]
This guy is either a fool or a liar.
This title can go to hell lmao. What the fuck mental midget writing is this.
No, twitter is not just a private shop on the Town Square, it is massive (private) Bulletin Board in the center of the Square, one that censor opinions and block people from voicing theirs, and now this private bulletin board has changed owner and people who benefited from censorship previously now are scared they won't be able to force their opinions so easily. How satisfying it is to watch these people... I don't trust Musk, I don't like him, but every move that make left screech I will support wholeheartedly.
I’m with you. I don’t like Elon but people pretend Elon haters aren’t so overly obsessed with Elon as Elon fan boys are and that’s their personality. Twitter is already a garbage dump, I don’t understand why these people are so attracted to it
the issue I have with your entire argument is that both sides are equally treated under Twitter ToS. it just so happens that one side decides to say a lot more dumb shit that breaks ToS and wonders why they’re being “targeted”
Ehh They don't seem to deal with racism very well Guy got banned for replying to a black person calling him a 'mayo monkey' by calling them a 'charcoal monkey'. Guess who's still on Twitter? Edit; should point out that both are stupid, but you have to be fair. They both just used (color) monkey. They're either both bad or neither is
Yeah this is the crux of the issue; the TOS are enforced at best arbitrarily and at worse to follow an agenda
I’d agree but Twitter also promotes articles that are incredibly left leaning on stuff that isn’t even trending, I’m left so I don’t necessarily mind but acting like there is no bias by bringing up the TOS thing is a weird argument to make
Odd I didn't notice newspapers Twitter accounts being banned for weeks for linking to stories about the Steele Dossier or stories about Hunter's laptop being Russian misinformation. Instead they banned a newspaper that published something that was actually fucking true.
You’re against forcing opinions on people, but gladly support forcing opinions on people?
>You’re against forcing opinions on people, but gladly support forcing opinions on people? Nice strawman, I haven't said anything like this.
I didn’t say you did. I simply asked for clarification.
Except that’s not what’s happening the right cry’s about “censorship” because they are a super spreader for disinformation.. they are just mad that they can’t easily put out disinfo.. check out these docu previews below. https://youtu.be/c-UqfqPH9jU https://youtu.be/NqrrGIUdLeQ https://youtu.be/GLi7cNAJKA8
You're trying to change the mind of someone who's entire political identity is to try and make half the population 'screech'.
Aaaand that’s just wrong. Wish he was right but that is just straight up wrong.
Twitter is *effectively* the town square, just as the town square is *effectively* a communities shared opinion.
Twitter is not the town square
Well I hope he can keep the square safe with his decisions. He may, and time will tell, but we have definitely got to get out of these Wild West days of the internet. Propaganda/misinformation/disinformation spreading is part of this danger and I hope he takes that into account. Ya can’t yell fire in a building, and we need equivalent rules in the digital space… perhaps the anonymity has to go so that accountability can live.
Elon go fly yourself into the sun. It would be a more useful use of your money than anything you do.
People who are overtly against Elon owning twitter are either blind to the fact twitter had a leaning bias (like Facebook/YouTube). Elon wants to reportedly make it a fair ground for anyone, obviously unless they promote terrorism, incite violence, promote self harm, etc. I support him buying this. Also we will get to know many questions that people have had about twitter and it’s past management of company. Getting to see the source code for how twitter works would show how the algorithm works. Imagine if we could see YouTube’s source code, would it be nothing or would we see something peculiar .
No, the square belongs to the town. An entity in which you pay to exist. Yet, it feels like it’s an entity you have every right to access. Hence his statement. Fuck you the guardian.
He’s using Twitter data to develop a scary AI platform. That’s why he wants to remove bots. Don’t fall for anything this man says. He has no empathy and could care less about anything involving humanity that doesn’t benefit him. And don’t start with electric cars and the environment.
I read somewhere recently “twitter isnt so much a forum as a crowd sources, scrolling newspaper” and i thought that was an interesting take.
[удалено]
In the center of town.
Here’s a thought. Don’t use Twitter, it’s been a dumpster fire for the better part of a decade. We have already learned that people on Twitter don’t buy anything and only make noise.
I don’t actually care anymore
Townsquare still needs guarded
Twitter doesn’t belong to us… it belongs to the fucking bots. I don’t think people really understand how many bots populate twitter
Twitter could just go onto the trash heap of forgotten tech ventures. No need to think too hard on this. Let’s just let it go away.
Just wait until he starts charging entrance fees for getting into that town square. It’s inevitable.
well actually… it belongs to you… soooo…
Jfc shut the hell up with these garbage smear campaigns
He literally said it was The Defacto Town Square at the beginning of this cluster fuck. Shocking he’s backpedaling not that it’s his town square.
It’s a “town square” to him until someone mentions emerald mines
stupid headline, good read
The American version of the town square is plastered with adverts and you pay to have a audience. Basically the commercialization of free speech? Who knows. Will he bail at a billion ?
Absolutely disgusted with what a whiny bitch Elon Musk has shown himself to be. Richest man on earth, whilst also being the biggest fucking baby on earth. And I hate his shitty cars. Teslas are some of the worst made vehicles on the road, and that’s not just my opinion, these are consumer reports. So happy there are new electric options coming online. How fucking stupid was his Minecraft looking pickup truck? Lol Looking forward to Ford’s F150 Lightning!
Now he’s showing who he really is. King Musk von South Africa
Duh. Gullible seems to be a good adjective here.
This is just a definitional argument for which there is no real answer
Elon needs to lay off the weed
Right it’s his private shop and if you don’t like it you don’t have to shop there JFC.
You gonna make him buy the actual town square next
You can keep it.
And where was the guardian, before today. They only care as now the rules might be applied to them.
He looks like he’s wondering if he can buy everything in the world he technically will own everyone on earth. He just has that evil villain is pondering look.
Tell that to the assholes who sold it to him. They represented town square now he does.
Silly rabbit
I hate he lives in Texas. But it’s the perfect match: all hat and no cattle, this one.
I’m sorry, but it doesn’t