Elon Musk should be the last person to control Twitter, but now he does!

Originally posted by cdtm
The ACLU has complained about government influences on social media:

https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/government-trying-influence-speech-social-media-how

In the name of counter terrorism, of course.

This works both ways though. It's easy to curtail speech because Russia or terrorists or Hunter Biden embarrassment on the president.

The thing you aren't understanding, is I'm sceptical of authority in a general sense. I don't CARE which side is in charge or what the excuse is, I ASSUME bad intentions any time speech is at stake.

This is because historically, speech has always always ALWAYS been used as cover for tyrants.

That's just how it is, bad actors are too dangerous to allow to reign unchecked, and the public is terrible at vetting their leaders.

The only solution is to assume what does not kill you should be allowed, and that everyone is responsible for their own actions. Your speech may incite violance, but that is squarely on those who commit violence.

I'm not arguing the government is omni-benevolent. I'm pointing out that it's silly to think these corporations and billionaires are somehow on your side, or victims. They've successfully mind-screwed the public into thinking goddamn Elon, of all people, represents them.

He's no freedom fighter. He's no common man. He exists on the same continuum of exploitation and abuse the government does, and these billionaires/corporations often have disproportionate impacts on government policy themselves via the money they throw around.

They get upset when the state doesn't bend rules for them, then try to spin this narrative of the oppressive government picking on the individual. It's ridiculous.

Originally posted by cdtm
Who decides what is disinformation.

What stops authorities from simply lying to the public.
.

Remember Iraq.

I'd also argue the public should be more willing to do some fact-checking themselves. We have the most powerful information gathering tool in human history at our fingertips.

Originally posted by Smurph
In this case, I think the free speech angle is a red herring anyways.

Twitter is in the the FTC's crosshairs due to concerns for the safety and privacy of user data rather than, specifically, the content on the site. I see it as adjacent to the freedom of speech discussion but not directly related. Disinformation creates serious concern for democratic reasons, sure, but it's not hard to see why Markey's alarm about Musk enabling impersonators overlaps with the FTC's ongoing concerns re: whether Twitter is protecting its users.

Which makes sense... because Twitter's whole defense within the freedom of speech debate (beyond the fact that it's a private corporation, as you note) is that: while tweets are a form of expression, they're not *Twitter's* expression. Twitter says that it's not a newspaper with an editorial mandate to avoid lies, it's just a social media platform (whatever that means). So Twitter aggregates data but doesn't curate. That position changed slightly after Jan 6, when Twitter was finally forced to grow a bit of a backbone, but I think it's still generally the industry stance.

Regardless, the FTC says: content of expression aside, you host and aggregate way too much data and metadata to play this fast and loose. And that warning comes with teeth; they fined Twitter $150 million in 2011, and Facebook $5 billion in 2019.

It's all a different debate than, say, in 2018 when the SEC personally fined Musk $20 million for tweeting lies about Tesla that manipulated stock prices.

I just also want them to know they're wrong, even if we entertain the free speech angle. Lol

Ya

Not sure how Twitter can be a protected haven for free speech and also subject to Elon's everyday whims on policy over expression and registration.

If the speech is only "protected" when your politics align, then... it's not actually protected.

Originally posted by StyleTime
In that same article, they complain about the lack of transparency from the companies themselves that enables these potential governmental abuses too though.

I'm not arguing the government is omni-benevolent. I'm pointing out that it's silly to think these corporations and billionaires are somehow on your side, or victims. They've successfully mind-screwed the public into thinking goddamn Elon, of all people, represents them.

He's no freedom fighter. He's no common man. He exists on the same continuum of exploitation and abuse the government does, and these billionaires/corporations often have disproportionate impacts on government policy themselves via the money they throw around.

They get upset when the state doesn't bend rules for them, then try to spin this narrative of the oppressive government picking on the individual. It's ridiculous.

Separate issue. This is why whistleblowers and journalists are important though.

I'd also argue the public should be more willing to do some fact-checking themselves. We have the most powerful information gathering tool in human history at our fingertips.

Originally posted by StyleTime
In that same article, they complain about the lack of transparency from the companies themselves that enables these potential governmental abuses too though.

I'm not arguing the government is omni-benevolent. I'm pointing out that it's silly to think these corporations and billionaires are somehow on your side, or victims. They've successfully mind-screwed the public into thinking goddamn Elon, of all people, represents them.

He's no freedom fighter. He's no common man. He exists on the same continuum of exploitation and abuse the government does, and these billionaires/corporations often have disproportionate impacts on government policy themselves via the money they throw around.

They get upset when the state doesn't bend rules for them, then try to spin this narrative of the oppressive government picking on the individual. It's ridiculous.

Separate issue. This is why whistleblowers and journalists are important though.

I'd also argue the public should be more willing to do some fact-checking themselves. We have the most powerful information gathering tool in human history at our fingertips.

For me personally, the basic philosophy is the issue.

The first amendment is a means, but that doesn't necessarily mean private industry squashing speech on a whim is a good thing. Nor is threatening people with advertising pulls, or drumming up protests (As Uber factually did, as exposed by the Uber files).

Even something like Kanye West should be heard in my opinion, because there is absolutely grains of truth to what he's saying. Jews absolutely are overrepresented in entertainment, and Kanye absolutely did get screwed over by Jewish representatives.

Rebutting against claims that you can never criticize the entire Jewish community by pointing out the times entire communities absolutely ARE criticized is also fair.

Not trying to open up those arguments ftr, but this is how I see the issue. You can't cut out trolls and protect legitimate speech, the likes are always too fuzzy and there are always people out to game the system, like the mentioned Uber driver.

If we can't at least hash out the philosophy first, the details of what and when becomes a shouting match of different assumptions.

Originally posted by Smurph
Ya

Not sure how Twitter can be a protected haven for free speech and also subject to Elon's everyday whims on policy over expression and registration.

If the speech is only "protected" when your politics align, then... it's not actually protected.

Because it was never about principles. Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. Elon and his dick-riders just wanted to be the in-group.

So Musk wont allow Alex Jones back on.

Good or bad ?

Originally posted by Darth Thor
So Musk wont allow Alex Jones back on.

Good or bad ?

Alex Jones is poison.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Because it was never about principles. Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. Elon and his dick-riders just wanted to be the in-group.

Adam does not understand conservatism.

Or libertarians.

Or principles.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
So Musk wont allow Alex Jones back on.

Good or bad ?

good, but still trump (far more dangerous) is allowed back on. so i say "thanks for that, elon. now please hop onto one of your dick rockets and go be the king of the moon...better yet, emperor of the sun"

"Anyone I don't like should be banned" Bash

Elon Musk should be allowed to buy ALL the social medias. In the hope that they'll all collapse and we can get rid of the most toxic, socially destructive invention in history.

#VoteJaden2024

May be onto something here, I'll write you in.

I agree with that. Social media is terrible.

Originally posted by cdtm
"Anyone I don't like should be banned" Bash

So this is the issue. What's the limit on free speech and who decides?

Didn't he allow some sort of vote on Trump? But with Alex Jones it was a straight up No.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
So this is the issue. What's the limit on free speech and who decides?

Didn't he allow some sort of vote on Trump? But with Alex Jones it was a straight up No.

With Alex, Elon claimed his infant died in his arms, and exploiting the deaths of children for fame and fortune is unforgivable to him.

Can't fault him there.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
So this is the issue. What's the limit on free speech and who decides?

Didn't he allow some sort of vote on Trump? But with Alex Jones it was a straight up No.

So then it's just... What's the limit on tweets and who decides?

Elon does.

Originally posted by Smurph
But that's the point Style made. "Free" is an unnecessary and incorrect adjective here. Twitter can make whatever promises it wants about free speech but it's not enforceable against Twitter in the way that US citizens assert their rights against government.

So then it's just... What's the limit on tweets and who decides?

Elon does.

But that has always been such.

When Youtube or Facebook bans an alt righty, the excuse has always been "Well, they get to decide."

Is your problem with who gets to decide then?

Originally posted by Smurph
But that's the point Style made. "Free" is an unnecessary and incorrect adjective here. Twitter can make whatever promises it wants about free speech but it's not enforceable against Twitter in the way that US citizens assert their rights against government.

So then it's just... What's the limit on tweets and who decides?

Elon does.

I mean what should be the standard. The legal standard.

End of the day social media is the biggest platform for free speech.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
I mean what should be the standard. The legal standard.

End of the day social media is the biggest platform for free speech.

The legal standard should be what it is. Who gets free speech should depend on whether what they say makes the megalomaniacal snake oil salesman happy or sad.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
I mean what should be the standard. The legal standard.

End of the day social media is the biggest platform for free speech.

As far as I know, the current working legal standard is as a platform, which exempts them from liability over content or something, yet they are expected to actively eradicate ip infringements and police against the limits of the 1a.

In addition they must keep advertisers happy, and pressure groups have influence with advertisers for some reason.