Comment by jgaa

While you’re correct as to his intentions, it’s still important to point out his hypocrisy as he called himself “a free speech absolutist,” and claimed to want Twitter to be part of that vision. He explicitly called left wing and right wing views as things he wants.

Yes, we know it was all lies but not putting out the evidence allows people like Musk and his acolytes to make it the new truth without a fight.

[flagged]

No, he did not misunderstand. This is 100% malice.

What makes you say that? I've started using X recently and I would argue it's pretty free, you see a lot more range of opinions than on a site like reddit. Aggressively pro-trans posts come across my feed all the time, including some right-wing content

The biggest problem with the term "Free Speech" is that almost everyone makes exceptions for things that they believe should be restricted/censored.

Therefore the only standard should be the legality of that speech in a particular country. In the US those things you put as exemptions are permitted. So pre-musk Twitter wasn't about free-speech as those exemptions are restrictions on speech that are greater than US law restricts (which isn't much tbh).

Generally you have a trade off on any of these platforms between what you can say without breaking terms of service and the popularity of that platform. Generally less popular platforms are less restrictive.

If you don't want your speech restricted, you should probably just go back to hosting your blog and using a mailing list.

I would argue it appeared after the Twitter purchase. Originally Twitter had been dying through excessive bans, now you can find major political influencers on both sides of the spectrum

> about free speech, except it was trying to fight bots, hate speech

> about free speech

> fight hate speech

Do you realize how absurd you sound?

[flagged]

[flagged]

Also how liberals were celebrating Elons "genius" just a decade ago will never not be funny to me, they also don't seem to mind Gates at all. I don't think they have much of a problem with oligarchy, they just want a liberal oligarchy instead.

> You can still say anything you like on X

You cannot even say the word "cisgender" on X.

You can't criticize Elon on X...

Except that Musk claims to be a "free speech absolutist", and part of the noise he made around buying Twitter was to stop censorship.

Not that it's news that he's a hypocrite.

When has Signal called for a violent overthrow of the US government?

Good of you to admit that Musk is as bad as what you hated in the past.

I would even argue he's worse.

> If I own a platform I’m not under any obligation to allow you to say whatever you like on that platform.

Correct. It still makes him a liar, given what he claimed before the purchase to have meant:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/aug/06/elon-musk...

https://xcancel.com/elonmusk/status/1499976967105433600

https://xcancel.com/elonmusk/status/1519036983137509376

Plus this pair:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/musk-threatens-to-sue-adl-for-...

vs.

https://www.reuters.com/article/technology/tesla-boss-elon-m...

Stop carrying water for the world’s richest person. Musk has claimed multiple times he’s a free speech absolutist and bought Twitter to make it the free speech platform.

I agree, it’s his platform and he can do what he wants within the law. But, how you or anyone else can continue to defend Musk when he has made clear multiple times he’s a lying hypocrite is beyond my understanding.

> If I own a platform I’m not under any obligation to allow you to say whatever you like on that platform

This is complicated massively by Elon's role at DOGE.

Twitter has the right to block whomever they want (and always did). But given "multiple federal workers...said they’ve moved sensitive conversations from text messages and Facebook Messenger to the encrypted messaging app Signal" [1], it's unclear whether this is a private or public action.

(Folks in this thread are complaining about Musk's hypocrisy in criticizing pre-Muskian Twitter for blocking accounts and content when he's doing the same thing. But again, that is eclipsed in importance by the corruption and abuse of power questions.)

[1] https://www.theverge.com/news/610951/federal-workers-privacy...

You're equivocating. Elon didn't just say that he believed in free speech, he said that Twitter would be a platform for free speech.

People know this. This isn't confusing. The hypocracy being pointed out is when Elon Musk says that he is a free speech absolutist[1], yet consistently blocks his critics and competitors.

This is ignoring his very confused notion of what free speech is[2]

> By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law.

> I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law.

> If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect.

Not only is this inconsistent with his 'free speech absolutist' views, and inconsistent with Twitter's actions, but it states that he's actually all for the government censoring people. That's not even non-absolutist free speech.

[1]: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1499976967105433600

[2]: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1519036983137509376

Nobody has an issue with this stance. It is that before he was the owner and as part of his argument for becoming owner, Elon had a different stance.

> If I own a platform I’m not under any obligation to allow you to say whatever you like on that platform.

Before the Internet this was not the case. In Marsh v. Alabama, it was ruled (in line with all previous precedent) that privately owned roadways and sidewalks had to allow religious pamphleters, even though it is private property. The court asserted that anywhere that is the forum for public discussion is de facto allowed for political and religious speech regardless of property rights. In the very early days of the Internet things changed, when people tried to assert First Amendment claims on Compuserve chats. Compuserve claimed they weren't the public square, that they were a private service. I think they were correct, in that Compuserve was a very marginal private space and couldn't possibly have been "the public square". But precedent over this tiny service were eventually laundered into much larger and more critical bits of social infrastructure.

In contrast to Compuserve, Twitter and Facebook are definitely the public square. You cannot petition for a redress of grievances or lobby for policy changes without using them. And the political left delights in suppressing their opponents on them but files lawsuits claiming their rights are infringed when they aren't given access to every inch -- such as when they sued Trump for blocking them on his Twitter account:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-dismisses-trump-t...

When Democrats were barred from interacting even with a very small part of a platform, it is a critical First Amendment violation. When conservatives, racists, sexists, or whatever term you want to use are barred, well, it's a private company bigot.

This hypocrisy must quickly end, or we as a country will end up in a violent conflict. There must be open, public debate on every major platform, and Americans must be entitled to express their opinions because the only other alternative is violence.