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.
I think its funny how some conservatives used to advocate for common carrier regulation because they didn't have much control over social media platforms, now that they do, they don't care anymore about that.
But liberals do seem to stick to their principles of free market capitalism, "it’s his platform and he can do what he wants within the law". I see now why you are so ineffective in combating Trump/Musk if the only problem you have with them is their hypocrisy.
Perhaps you need to come to the realization that if you want liberal democracy you really do need to regulate mass communication platforms in a way that doesn't leech peoples brains out of their ears.
For the record, I wouldn't consider myself liberal or conservative using the US definitions. Probably more down the middle. But, I am a never Trump person, but even then I had a 'wait and see' attitude when he was first elected in 2016. Now I've seen, and I don't want any more of what he brings.
I have a lot of problems with both of them beyond hypocrisy, that was simply the big issue in this thread. And I do agree with your point. How can the left stick to some basic principles like following the law and still combat someone like Trump/Musk who ignore it at every turn. I really don't know what the answer is here, and it worries me that people will feel more and more trapped which can lead to violence.
I also think there could be some smart regulation around mass communication, but the problem is we have so few people in government who even understand social media. The average age in the senate is almost 65. The last two POTUSs will leave office in their 80s.
> 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.)
Isn't it fucking crazy that the world's richest person is also moonlighting a public office with massive conflicts of interest and virtually zero oversight? What the fuck is this timeline, is nothing serious anymore?? It's really not so long ago that this would be considered completely bonkers and something you would see on a "banana republic".
> Isn't it fucking crazy that the world's richest person is also moonlighting a public office with massive conflicts of interest and virtually zero oversight?
Trump team has said that Musk will self-determine conflict of interest when gutting govt. agencies.
It is lost on them that self-determination of conflict of interest is itself a conflict of interest.
On balance, I think you are correct. But: precisely because DOGE is a QUANGO* that's much harder to demonstrate, whereas the hypocrisy is very on-the-nose.
The problem with hypocrisy is it's a milquetoast charge. Plenty of people, including very powerful people, are hypocrites and we tolerate them fine. Most of us--hopefully--don't know someone who's corrupt.
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.
Many have an issue with that stance, including me. The public townsquare has rules about permitted speech, same is true for public plattforms that fulfill that role in the digital realm. Utilities are to be regulated etc. These types of censorship ought to be illegal, and e.g. in the EU this whole thinking of that the owner decides is already not the legal reality anymore.
> 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:
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.
You're spot on (I say this as a lefty). Big social media like fb, instagram, twitter, et al are bigger and more important than any physical public square that ever existed. They are way way WAY past the point where they need to be treated as such and regulated as both a public forum for 1A purposes and as a utility like phone or mail for privacy protection and non-discrimination purposes.
Just don't pretend that trying to censor people on social media is somehow a trait of the Left (in fact, in a thread about the right doing precisely that!)
> 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.
I think its funny how some conservatives used to advocate for common carrier regulation because they didn't have much control over social media platforms, now that they do, they don't care anymore about that.
But liberals do seem to stick to their principles of free market capitalism, "it’s his platform and he can do what he wants within the law". I see now why you are so ineffective in combating Trump/Musk if the only problem you have with them is their hypocrisy.
Perhaps you need to come to the realization that if you want liberal democracy you really do need to regulate mass communication platforms in a way that doesn't leech peoples brains out of their ears.
For the record, I wouldn't consider myself liberal or conservative using the US definitions. Probably more down the middle. But, I am a never Trump person, but even then I had a 'wait and see' attitude when he was first elected in 2016. Now I've seen, and I don't want any more of what he brings.
I have a lot of problems with both of them beyond hypocrisy, that was simply the big issue in this thread. And I do agree with your point. How can the left stick to some basic principles like following the law and still combat someone like Trump/Musk who ignore it at every turn. I really don't know what the answer is here, and it worries me that people will feel more and more trapped which can lead to violence.
I also think there could be some smart regulation around mass communication, but the problem is we have so few people in government who even understand social media. The average age in the senate is almost 65. The last two POTUSs will leave office in their 80s.
> 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...
Isn't it fucking crazy that the world's richest person is also moonlighting a public office with massive conflicts of interest and virtually zero oversight? What the fuck is this timeline, is nothing serious anymore?? It's really not so long ago that this would be considered completely bonkers and something you would see on a "banana republic".
> Isn't it fucking crazy that the world's richest person is also moonlighting a public office with massive conflicts of interest and virtually zero oversight?
Trump team has said that Musk will self-determine conflict of interest when gutting govt. agencies.
It is lost on them that self-determination of conflict of interest is itself a conflict of interest.
Mm.
On balance, I think you are correct. But: precisely because DOGE is a QUANGO* that's much harder to demonstrate, whereas the hypocrisy is very on-the-nose.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quango
The problem with hypocrisy is it's a milquetoast charge. Plenty of people, including very powerful people, are hypocrites and we tolerate them fine. Most of us--hopefully--don't know someone who's corrupt.
1 reply →
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.
Many have an issue with that stance, including me. The public townsquare has rules about permitted speech, same is true for public plattforms that fulfill that role in the digital realm. Utilities are to be regulated etc. These types of censorship ought to be illegal, and e.g. in the EU this whole thinking of that the owner decides is already not the legal reality anymore.
> 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.
You're spot on (I say this as a lefty). Big social media like fb, instagram, twitter, et al are bigger and more important than any physical public square that ever existed. They are way way WAY past the point where they need to be treated as such and regulated as both a public forum for 1A purposes and as a utility like phone or mail for privacy protection and non-discrimination purposes.
Just don't pretend that trying to censor people on social media is somehow a trait of the Left (in fact, in a thread about the right doing precisely that!)
[dead]
> This hypocrisy must quickly end, or we as a country will end up in a violent conflict
The country is currently massively pushing for violent conflict abroad...
Thanks for typing this.