Comment by mghackerlady

> ... when the amount of impressions are no longer worth doing it for

> The Numbers Aren't Working Out

I don't know. That's front and center. Can to share how that's an "outright rejection"?

You are being, and have been, played. What is happening to the left now is exactly what you thought was happening to the right before Elon.

Which viewpoints?

Bro. He's still censoring viewpoints. He's also boosting his ideological viewpoints, which diminishes the reach of everything else.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/how-elon-musk-uses-his...

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/04/23/business/elon...

He ran DOGE and illegally destroyed science and arts funding across the US government. [0] He continues to interfere in elections, committing what is likely fraud. He silences viewpoints that disagree with him on twitter and routinely interferes with grok’s training to promote his own viewpoints.

Oh and he begged to visit Epstein’s child sex slavery island. [2]

I get that your moral compass might not be fully functional, but I draw the line at fascism, treason, and pedophilia.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Government_Effic...

[1] https://www.thebulwark.com/p/yes-elon-musk-vote-buying-is-ag...

[2] https://people.com/emails-reveal-that-elon-musk-asked-jeffre...

> You don’t have a freedom to make anyone else agree with or believe in your views…

No one has asserted this.

If your views suck, people have the freedom to say "ok, bye".

(Musk asserts otherwise, of course. https://www.npr.org/2025/02/01/nx-s1-5283271/elon-musk-lawsu...)

I think that's the point. The owner of X as well as most of the remaining denizens are actively working on taking away the freedom of others to believe in their own views and make them adhere to their beliefs.

>"freedom is intersectional" is a fancy way of saying "I only support freedom for people I agree with."

That is the exact opposite of what that means. It means freedom should be supported for all, especially for the oppressed. Those who stand for oppression in one way serve to benefit other forms of oppression

Universality of human rights is a great principle that breaks down horribly the moment it makes contact with people who do not want you to have those rights. Like, even if you're a single-issue free speech maximalist, it is entirely self-defeating to argue that censorious tyrants should be afforded the benefits of free speech. The only purpose tyrants have of free speech is to use it to amass power to destroy free speech.

And yes, to be clear, Elon Musk is a censorious tyrant. All the big tech leaders are, both because some of them started out as outright fascists and because the rules of the tech CEO game are, in the Nash equilibrium, unfavorable to liberal ideals.

Dehumanization is another common tactic of tyrants. You look at the group of dissidents you want to censor, identify those who are weak enough to silence, and use your control over society and government to make them pay for not being on their side. Rinse and repeat until you've salami-sliced away every dissident's rights. The only effective means of stopping dehumanization is to render it ineffective by making lots of friends who understand and defend against these attacks. [0] The interminably dense social justice literature uses jargon terms like "solidarity" and "intersectionality", which seem almost calculated to piss off the unenlightened into reflexively opposing social justice because we might as well be wizards chanting Latin curses at people to sound smart. But the idea is simple.

So yes, freedom is intersectional - because it it ultimately comes from the people as a whole exercising their power to check the power of tyrants.

[0] "Apes together strong", in case HN doesn't render emoji correctly.