Elon Musk Is Now Twitter’s Largest Shareholder; And That’s Probably Not A Good Thing
from the for-fuck's-sake dept
Elon Musk appears to have a childlike understanding of free speech, especially with regards to how content moderation and free speech work together. But after running a silly poll a few weeks ago, many people assumed that the reason Musk was agitating to see if people felt that Twitter “supported” free speech, was that he might try to buy the company. It turns out, he was already in the process of trying to do so. On Monday it was announced that Musk has accumulated nearly 10% of Twitter’s shares, via some pocket change, making him the single largest shareholder in the company.
The purchase, equal to 9.2 percent of the company, appears to make Mr. Musk Twitter’s largest shareholder. His holding is slightly larger than Vanguard’s 8.8 percent at the end of last year, and it dwarfs the 2.3 percent stake of Jack Dorsey, Twitter’s former chief executive. The shares represent a fraction of Mr. Musk’s reported $270 billion-plus net worth.
It’s unclear, in the short term, what that will mean for the company. It’s not clear, for example, that Musk will get a board seat or become a particularly active board member, but given his agitating, and the way he’s handled some of his other companies, it wouldn’t be much of a surprise if he does end up becoming quite active.
It is unclear what Mr. Musk’s plans are beyond the large shareholder position and whether he’ll ask — or be invited — to join Twitter’s board. Mr. Musk filed a securities document indicating that he planned for the investment to be passive, meaning he does not intend to pursue control of the company. But there was also speculation Monday that he could change the status of his investment, continue buying shares or even try to acquire the company outright, today’s DealBook newsletter reported.
“We would expect this passive stake as just the start of broader conversations with the Twitter board/management that could ultimately lead to an active stake and a potential more aggressive ownership role of Twitter,” Daniel Ives, an analyst at Wedbush Securities, said Monday morning.
Again, I think Musk deserves praise for driving some innovations forward, and having a unique vision on how to execute on big, challenging scientific problems — like sending rockets into space and building electric cars, among other things. But managing speech is not a scientific or engineering problem. It’s a human challenge. And Musk does not exactly have the greatest of track records in showing empathy, or, frankly, common decency.
When the initial rumors were that Musk might start a competing social network, I was at least intrigued to see how that might compete with something like Twitter. But I do wonder how much his naïve take on speech might do serious harm to Twitter.
Honestly, I hope this drives the Bluesky team to focus that much more on its efforts, because if Musk is intent on ruining Twitter, which may actually come to pass, having an easy offramp to building a better Twitter would be important.
Filed Under: content moderation, elon musk, speech
Companies: twitter
Comments on “Elon Musk Is Now Twitter’s Largest Shareholder; And That’s Probably Not A Good Thing”
Maybe he Will Learn Something
Hopefully now in this position he will understand the complexity and nuances involved in enforcing a websites policies that will make him walk back his prior comments and use his platform to teach others about what free speech is and how twitter/fb/etc are not out to get a certain political party (am I being too optimistic here?!)
Re:
Way, way too optimistic.
I think the people he hired that actually exhibit the expertise needed to address these issues deserve the praise. Musk is just an ego with a bank account.
Re:
The size of said ego rivals the size of the bank account.
Re:
I think there’s an argument to be made that hiring the right people to make that vision a reality is, as I said, responsible for driving those innovations forward.
Re: Re:
As is the attitude that failures are learning chances when pushing the boundaries of what can be done.
Re: Re:
Then the companies can survive without Musk. His pathetic proto-fascist libertarian ass deserves to get the boot and the people who work at these companies that are capable of showing basic human compassion and other emotions should take charge in full. Musk is a sociopath with money and power and nothing else.
Re: Re: Re:
Sure. Any company can survive without him. But there is a question of whether Tesla and SpaceX would have been as successful as they are without him. And I don’t think either would have been.
That’s not to say they might not be better without him going forward, but I think he does deserve credit for taking both companies to where they are, no matter what you think of the rest of his views.
So much for inheriting a fortune based on predatory exploration of natural resources in an underdeveloped country with layers of labor abuse, slavery and racist legislation. Billionaires are a cancer.
Re:
If you just have to be a hater, I don’t see why you have to make up bs about Elon Musk in order to do so. Trump provides lots of reasons to hate him, reasons just flow out of his own mouth pretty much continuously.
I spent over two hours searching with Google trying to find some sources to back up your statement. Nothing but baseless opinions.
Re: Re:
Elon Musk is/was South African and was, until he decided to make a clean break with his dad, benefitted from South African policies during the Apartheid era.
And his dad, who, if his “official biography” is right about, was not only a beneficiary of said apartheid policies, a douchebag of the highest order.
Re: Re:
You should’ve looked more. Specifically, you should have looked for results that point out how his family benefitted from the apartheid policies of South Africa. Or do you think he earned all his money by selling lemonade or delivering newspapers or, I’unno, working a non-unionized job for the U.S. minimum wage?
Some people answered “no” to Musk’s poll.
Some people understand the concept of free speech.
There is zero overlap between these two groups.
BlueSky is just a bunch of people with post-grad degrees passing white papers back and forth. It’ll be nowhere near ready for when it’ll be needed as an off-ramp.
Ah, but there are already alternatives:
“Truth” anybody? Because, you know, freedom of speech or something? Not? I’ll let myself out now. Just needed to have my tomato coat repelted.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Activist Tech Investor
In recent years, we’ve seen the rise of activist stock investors. Think: Olive Garden — smaller portions, smaller menu, and no unlimited breadsticks. All in an effort to boost the stock price.
Activist Investors are able to enforce change at a company because they can submit a policy document to other shareholders that will boost the share price of the company, and if the corporate management doesn’t follow the plan then the stockholders vote to oust the management. But I’m not so certain that Elon can create a social media engagement plan the same as a cost cutting initiative at a traditional company.
This might be more of an ingratiating strategy– censor Elon, and he dumps his shares, perhaps inflicting millions of dollars in market cap damage. Elon needs publicity, and now he has some insurance.
Re: You're gonna make me do the whole thing aren't ya?
Bravely bold Sir Koby
Rode forth from the Internet.
He was not afraid to die,
Oh brave Sir Koby.
He was not at all afraid
To be killed in nasty ways.
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Koby.
He was not in the least bit scared
To be mashed into a pulp.
Or to have his eyes gouged out,
And his elbows broken.
To have his kneecaps split
And his body burned away,
And his limbs all hacked and mangled
Brave Sir koby.
His head smashed in
And his heart cut out
And his liver removed
And his bowls unplugged
And his nostrils raped
And his bottom burnt off
And his penis
“That’s, that’s enough music for now lads, there’s dirty work afoot.”
Brave Sir Koby ran away.
(“No!”)
Re:
Which Olive Garden are you eating at? The menu may be a bit smaller — as every restaurant’s is since Covid — but the portion sizes remain the same as far as I can tell, and the breadsticks (and soup and salad) unlimited as of the last time I was there (about 2 weeks ago.)
Re:
Really? At my local Olive Garden, the portions are the same size, the menu is more or less the same, and we still have unlimited breadsticks. None of those changes appear to have happened.
Seriously, what are you talking about?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Musk has the left running scared...
Libs are terrified that Twitter may no longer be able to stifle views crazy leftists don’t agree with.
Re:
And which views are those, pray tell? Be specific.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
The view that biological men shouldn’t compete in women’s sports, for one.
I know why a group of lawyers and feminists are VERY scared of this. Musk is going to set things straight.
Re: Re: Re:
… said nobody capable of rational independent thought, ever.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
…You’ve not been paying attention to women’s sports lately and the trans athletes that are destroying women’s records or how much female athletes are complaining, have you?
Re: Re: Re:3
Pray tell, how many transgender female athletes are competing in girl’s/women’s athletics as a whole within the United States> Because according to the (Republican!) governor of Utah, of the 75,000 high school athletes in that state, only 4 are transgender—and only 1 of them is competing in girl’s sports.
And the Utah state legislature still passed a law banning trans female athletes from competing in girl’s sports. They literally passed a law to bully one trans girl out of sports. The cruelty is the point.
Re: Re: Re:4
The International Olympic Committee doesn’t share Bobmail Rosen’s mental disease.
Re: Re: Re:4
The thing that the governor of Utah doesn’t understand is that 1 is demonstrably enough to do a lot of real damage! Just look at the mess that is collegiate women’s swimming now because of one single trans athlete.
Re: Re: Re:5
You mean not at all? Seriously, it seems to be doing just fine.
Re: Re: Re:3
That’s what I just said.
Re: Re: Re:3
When actual transgender people have no idea how to even approach the topic, the bloody “right” has even less of an idea on how to understand the topic, much less approach the topic in a manner that does not involve cruelty and crimes against humanity.
I think I’ll stick to listening to the transgender people worrying their butts off over 73 million people who would be happy to murder the other half of the country for “liking black folk”.
Re: Re: Re: Still impotent
Hey Jhon, still waiting on that lawsuit you promised bro
Re: Re: Re:
Re: You know... those views...
Conservative: I have been censored for my conservative views
Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting lower taxes?
Con: LOL no…no not those views
Me: So…deregulation?
Con: Haha no not those views either
Me: Which views, exactly?
Con: Oh, you know the ones
(All credit to Twitter user @ndrew_lawrence.)
Re: Re:
Pray tell, which conservatives are saying that?
Go on. Show me where high profile conservatives or any conservative for that matter is saying stuff like that.
Re: Re: Re:
Seems you have missed the whole “conservatives are being censored for their views”, and when asked to give specific examples of said views that got censored there is no real answer.
Re: Re: Re:2
Though now we all know what they mean, after Texas Republicans officially codified Holocaust denial, vacci e disinformation, and terrorism are what constitutes “Conservative Values.”
Re: Re: Re:3
Literally never happened. Why are you still repeating this long-debunked lie?
Re: Re: Re:4
Where has it been debunked, exactly?
Re: Re: Re:5
You’ll never get any link showing the truth to be debunked, wereas when my direct reply to the gaslighting hack gets free from the autofilter, there’ll be a link where it was reinforced by indisputable primary sources.
Re: Re: Re:4
Are you trying to say you’re the same fuckwitted lying partisan sheep who disingenuously demanded I provided primary sources to back up my 100% obviously truthful (and never once debunked, natch) observation, then disappeared with your tail between your legs when I delivered thet proof in spades?
Re: Re: Re:5
Three days and counting. Seems like once again the lie-repeating bot goes silent every time I debunk them.
Re: Re: Re:6
Can’t say I’m surprised, all they have is gaslighting since reality itself disproves their claim and if they’re not honest enough to admit to being wrong in the face of facts all they can do is slink away.
Re: Re: Re: I can do this all day long bro
Tucker Carlson meet AC, AC meet Tucker Carlson.
Re:
Who exactly is terrified?
What “crazy leftists”?
What views?
Because I’m pretty sure none of that is true.
Re: Re:
Also, where are the commies?
If we’re talking leftists, then where’s the Marxists, Leninists and tankies?
Oh wait, there are none. No, people yabbering about their misunderstanding of the Communist Manifesto AND not reading Marxist writing doesn’t count.
Re: Re: Re:
Although we have run across a fair share of self-professed right-wingers who suggest in roundabout ways that “seizing the means of production” is just fine, so I guess we can count them as some kind of pseudo-communists…
Re: Spirits all look the same to me
Am I speaking with the spirit of Koby, Restless, Hyman, or another foul devil?
I COMPEL YOU TO ANSWER ME DEMON!
IN THE NAME OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, SECTION 230, AND PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION LAWS I COMPEL YOU!
Re: Re:
‘I need a young moderator and an old moderator! The power of 230 compels you, the power of 230 compels you!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Compelled
Hi, how may I be of service?
I don’t know how useful it is to say the same thing over and over across multiple posts, but sure, I’ll do it again.
Platforms such as Twitter and Facebook that have hundreds of millions of users tend to be perceived by the users as neutral forums hosting the speech of their users, not places where the opinions of one side will be silenced. To the extent that one side is silenced, that violates the free speech expectation of the users, even though it is within the free speech rights of the platforms to do it. (It’s not even clear that the privileged side knows that the other side is being silenced, or approves of it.) Even for the privileged side, such silencing prevents issues from being argued that expose the weak points of the privileged side, and gives the privileged side a false impression that their views are unchallenged.
There is a subset of ideologues that cannot stand to have their views challenged, and are happy when statements of dissent are silenced. They are the sort of people who like to characterize dissent as hate speech. They are the enemies of free speech, and are only too pleased to outsource censorship to private entities that are not bound by the 1st Amendment. Then they pretend that such censorship is free speech, willfully failing to understand the difference between the speech of the platforms and the speech of the users, and willfully failing to understand that legal suppression of free speech is still suppression of free speech.
Re: Re: Re:
[citation needed]
What “weak points” are there in issues like, say, “gay people deserve the same civil rights as straight people”? For that matter, what makes that stance an issue that even needs arguing?
The answer to the obvious question—“Who are those ideologues?”—can be found by looking up who is largely responsible for book bannings and laws against teaching “controversial topics” like the existence of queer people and the history of racism in America.
What you fail to understand is that “suppression of free speech” on Twitter is only “suppression” of speech on Twitter. Homophobes who get banned from Twitter can still spew their hateful bile anywhere else that wants to host it.
Re: Re: Re:2
“citation needed”
Here you go: http://wondermark.com/1k62/
“What weak point?”
Gods don’t exist. The Earth is a sphere. Men cannot be changed into women or vice versa. Physical reality does not care about what people wish.
“It’s only suppression on Twitter”
We’re talking about Twitter.
Re: Re: Re:3
So you make shit up and when called to task you think it’s “sealioning”? Hundreds of millions of user doesn’t give a shit about “neutral forums”, what they give a shit about are not having to wade through postings from assholes forcing themselves upon others.
Anyone who harps about “neutral platforms” or “neutral forums” are just plain stupid or uneducated because there is no such things.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4 Neutral Platforms
Musk wants one. The people who decamped from the establishment sites when they decided to silence a president / former president of the United States want at least a neutral site.
E-mail is a neutral site. The notion that it’s impossible merely serves the interest of the people who like the censorship regime because it currently favors them.
Re: Re: Re:5
No, what they want is a site that either doesn’t have rules or won’t visit consequences upon people who break those rules.
Email isn’t a site, it’s a protocol.
It isn’t impossible to have a “neutral” social media service. One needs only the willingness to host every bit of horrible yet legally protected speech—including spam, pornography, and positive reviews of Morbius. If such a service fails to garner a wide userbase or runs head-first into the “Worst People” Problem, well…tough shit.
Re: Re: Re:6
What pathologically lying mentally ill bigots call “a neutral site” is in reality known as “a Nazi bar.”
Re: Re: Re:6
It isn’t impossible to have a “neutral” social media service. One needs only the willingness to host every bit of horrible yet legally protected speech—including spam, pornography, and positive reviews of Morbius. If such a service fails to garner a wide userbase or runs head-first into the “Worst People” Problem, well…tough shit.
Balderdash, I’m sure it’s just a total coincidence that platforms that have rules as close to ‘anything goes’ as legally allowed are total cesspits and populated by a relative scant amount of users, the next one of those will surely force all the other platforms to eat crow by showing how desirable and popular such a truly ‘neutral’ platform would be.
Re: Re: Re:5
[Hallucinates facts contrary to evidence]
Re: Re: Re:5
What he wants and what reality is are completely two different things because there is no such thing as neutral when there are humans involved.
The rule has always been: Say stupid shit, win stupid prizes – even if you happen to be a president in name. And the number of people who “decamped” is comparable to a drop in the ocean because most of them stayed because they addicted to social media and grievances.
It’s a fucking protocol, but your comparison is even stupider than that, ALL major e-mail providers filter everything because people don’t want spam. Having your inbox drowning in spam is exactly like having your social-media feed drowning in opinions from toxic assholes.
Censorship regime? If you say stupid shit in my house I’ll kick you out, it’s as simple as that but you and your ilk are so fucking entitled that you think you can do as your please on others property. If you can intelligently debate your opinion without getting moderated you are either fucking stupid or you opinions aren’t palatable to most people.
Re: Re: Re:3
Well, since you made it easy to go point-by-point…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
1. You believe that people who choose to use a public generic speech forum like to have themselves silenced, and you want a citation that they don’t? You are the very model of a sealion.
2. (Former) President Trump was silenced. If that doesn’t demonstrate the problem to you, then you are the problem as well.
3. What do you mean “the rules”? The rules can support free speech principles or they can violate them. We’re talking about what the rules should be.
Re: Re: Re:5
Two things.
On Twitter. Which he didn’t have a right to use, even while he was the President of the United States. And I’ll remind you that Trump still manages to get his message out through press releases and rallies for his rabid(ly ignorant) fanbase, so saying he was “silenced” as if to imply he no longer had the ability to speak out is a great fucking example of the “I have been silenced” fallacy.
Please don’t play dumb with me.
And that’s irrelevant because you have no free speech rights on Twitter. They can suspend you for saying “Memphis” if they so desire. (Reminder: Although it was a technical glitch, people being suspended for tweeting “Memphis” actually happened.)
For what reason should Twitter change its rules to please racists, queerphobes, actual goddamned Nazis, and Donald Trump?
Re: Re: Re:6
Scunthorpe is the town they silenced.
Re: Re: Re:6
Not only that, they went ahead and made their own platform. They went ahead and did what Republicans have been screaming at everyone they screw over to do: pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.
Granted, now that the boot’s squarely on the other foot and people are antagonizing them, subtly or via market forces, they’re finally realizing that “bootstraps” is a pretty shit piece of advice.
Re: Re: Re:5
That’s not what anyone—including Stephen—has claimed.
First, no, people don’t like to have themselves be silenced, but they often do like to have others silenced, and they may find what speech of theirs that does get silenced to be okay to be silenced, at least as acceptable collateral damage compared to the benefits of using the platform.
Second, the citation was requested for a specific claim you made about people wanting a “neutral” platform. “Neutral” is not at all the same as “don’t silence anyone”. Being neutral could involve silencing all sides of a given topic equally, for example, and it is entirely possible to have a non-neutral platform that doesn’t actually silence anyone at all. Furthermore, seemingly neutral rules can lead to non-neutral outcomes.
Third, just because people may, in practice, prefer X over the alternatives doesn’t mean that they like X; they could simply find not-X to be worse than X.
Fourth, asking for a citation for a factual assertion you made doesn’t necessarily mean that we think your claim is false or likely false. It could also mean that we aren’t yet convinced that you’re necessarily right and would like you to provide evidence to support your claim. For example, if someone said that Pluto is brown-ish, I’d ask for a citation, not because I think that’s false or unlikely but because I need more evidence before I can take a position on the color of Pluto at all.
Re: Re: Re:5
A guy who was known to lie about things like the pandemic and for saying bigoted things on Twitter and who had (at least apparently) incited an insurrection on the Capitol was kicked off of Twitter—a privately-owned platform that he was never entitled to use—for violating their rules. This same guy has still had little trouble getting his message out to his followers by other means, including starting his own competing service.
Maybe I’m just an idiot, but I just don’t see any problem with that chain of events.
The rules Twitter has set up for people who want to use Twitter regarding what content they do or don’t find acceptable for them to host on their platform.
Even assuming that’s true, you haven’t demonstrated that Twitter’s rules in particular violate free-speech principles, and you haven’t defined “free-speech principles” clearly. IMO, Twitter’s rules don’t violate free speech principles.
Kinda, but all that you’ve said about that is that the rules should be “neutral”, again without really defining what that means in this context, and asserting that people shouldn’t be “silenced”. That is extremely vague. You also haven’t given specific examples of failures with Twitter’s rules beyond Trump not being able to post on Twitter anymore, and even then, you failed to explain how that’s a problem.
But really, what we’re actually discussing is whether or not Twitter should be allowed to set its own rules for people to follow when using their platform and whether “neutrality” is necessarily a desirable trait in all cases.
Re: Re: Re:3
I’m pretty sure that’s still hotly debated among many, so not exactly a weak point.
An oblate spheroid, but close enough. Also, I have no idea what “privileged” people would have to do with this.
Considering how hotly debated that is, that science supports trans rights, and that it kinda depends on how you define “man” and “woman” (something that is not as straightforward as many would assume it is), this seems like a stretch as far as “weak points” are concerned.
Not sure what privilege has to do with this, either, but I think most people agree on this; they just disagree on what that reality is.
Really, all these examples do is confuse me further. They range from obviously correct (or close enough) to highly debatable to too simplistic, and only one or two have anything to do with some sort of privilege. So please, define “weak point” more precisely, because I don’t see any similarities among your examples.
Re: Re: Re:
Platforms such as Twitter and Facebook that have hundreds of millions of users tend to be perceived by the users as neutral forums hosting the speech of their users, not places where the opinions of one side will be silenced.
Well those users have a perception problem then, no? And those folks are free to fuck off to other bastions of free speech like Truth Social and the like, no?
You’ve built platforms to take down Twitter, haven’t you? Why don’t you fuck off and use them?
Re: Re: Re:2
They find that saying things is not as much fun ,when the targets of their hatred are on a different platform.
Re: Re: Re: That sound you heard was the joke sailing over your head
“I don’t know how useful it is to say the same thing over and over across multiple posts.”
I’ll take the definition of insanity for 500 Alex.
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, it’s called the Republican Party.
Re: Wait I thought only the left did cancel culture
In related news over at Ars Technica
“Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and five other Republican state attorneys general last month urged DirecTV to reverse its decision, claiming that “your failure to do so will not only cause you to lose millions of dollars in business, but also drive many millions of Americans to simply cancel your services outright, as President Trump and other leading figures have already called for.”
Re: Re:
When the right does it, it’s not cancel culture, it’s righteous protest.
Re: Re: Re:
Not “The House Committee of Un-American Activities”?
Right, not the Cold War.
Just, no.
Re:
Only for putting space back into the minds of Americans.
Oh, and the electric vehicles thing.
Because back even in 1969, half of America hated the space program, and look where NASA is now.
Doing miracles on a shoestring budget because the American public wanted to cut funding to NASA.
Re:
He deserves praise for pushing the electric car industry and other technologies to major prominence. That he does not deserve praise in most other areas doesn’t mean that he deserves no praise whatsoever.
The offramp is already here
https://mastodon.social/web/getting-started
Re:
I would recommend that people look for a smaller Masto instance; the “flagship” instance is way too big to be moderated well and smaller instances will likely have local timelines that are more suited to whatever someone wants out of their social media.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Personal responsibility is out of fashion
There was a time in America; Bill Lear (8-track tape cartridge, Motorola, pusher aircraft & steam powered buses) Mr. Birdseye (frozen vegetables) Mr. Rockola (jukeboxes) Mr. Muntz (4-track stereo) Mr. & Mrs Ovshinsky (NiMH batteries, metal hydride fuel cells & PV) Mr. Ramo & Mr. Wooldridge (earth satellites & moon rocket engines) Mr. Martin and his Mother (PB-Y and a dozen other aircraft) Mr. Litton (Glass lathes) Miss Lynn Tilton (MD Helicopters) and a thousand other “brands” once owned by a guy or gal WHO CARED.
These brands are now controlled by stock-holding “Investors”, trademarked names are placed on branded junk, and sold like Solo paper cups: “if they don’t fail, we can’t sell another one!” Your Pyrex is NOT borosilicate any more, and will kill you.
I resented Mr. Musk for years until he has proven himself as CARE-ing, a four-letter word in this new America. Why must we expect the most successful engineer in the world to maintain a stiff upper lip? Caring is not silently giving dimes to street urchins.
Disclaimer: I destroyed my hand when the “Chanel-locks” i was using shattered, failing me last night. Fuck Investors
Re:
what the fuck are you even saying
Re:
what
This implies he could harm Twitter more than Twitter has harmed itself already.
Disclaimer: I think twitter is a shitshow.
I can’t even request to delete my locked out account because they’ve removed those pages.
Year later, I can’t get my data, can’t delete the account… for all of their talk about the users rights to their data and stuff they certainly are failing hard at this.
I could come up with a cell number and be back on twitter in 13 hours.
(Someone wanna loan me a number & email me the code they text? Then maybe I could get my data and delete the account.)
All I have to do is give up my identity or a governmental ID…
Not sure how well that works since TAC isn’t a real person with real ID so any other name wouldn’t authenticate ownership in any way shape or form, but would leave a record someone could subpoena or purchase access to to have a real name attached to TAC suitable for harassing. I mean dude sued Bill Barr, he totes will forgive and forget all about me right?
┻━┻︵ (°□°)/ ︵ ┻━┻
My shocked face to hit moderation yet again.
Re:
Don’t you know? If you get hit with moderation the site-owners are out to get you personally since they have nothing better to do than monitor what you post. Doubly so if you post anonymously – it’s your own fault for choosing that name!
/s
Re: Re:
stares
I don’t matter enough to Mike to get that special sort of treatment.
I do have a truly uncanny ability to trigger moderation.
While it is frustrating, I’m never that mad about it.
99% of the time I get freed from moderation pretty quick, the 1% does bug me because they sometimes don’t show up until much later, if at all.
My table flipping is my new version of tweeting at Mike or Tim asking them to ‘jiggle the handle’.
As to moderation on other sites… ummm yeah someone with some juice was out to get me and they got me.
Re: Re: Re:
That was a reference to the insane TD troll who rambles about “browser session poisoning” and how the spam filter is personally set to get him, specifically.
Re: Re: Re:
Try posting behind seven proxies.
/s
The irony of Techdirt whining that Elon Musk is most likely in control of Twitter. This from a group of dimwit bloggers who drone on about “You don’t like how a forum is run, create your own company.” Well, it looks like Musk took you up on that and did you one better. Let’s hope he can turn that Twitter cesspool into an actual free speech forum.
Re:
What irony? Of course, Twitter has every right to moderate how it sees fit, and if they chance their practices under Elon Musk none of us are going to deny that the company has every right to do so, even if it destroys the usefulness of the forum.
Re:
Since Musk’s goal is literally the opposite of that, none of your hallucinations will ever match anything out here in the real world.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Twitter has been censoring conservatives and even liberals who challenge feminist dogma, particularly on “trans rights” issues. It’s not just “those views” but “those people” make for a convenient strawman. No matter how the censors say it, they presume their mostly liberal (at present) views are “correct” and that anyone “wrong” is somehow “evil” or “stupid.”
Hopefully true conservatives in power at Twitter will censor no one except to the extent they have to, making it more like USENET-lite. It can be done.
The “forcing people to host speech they don’t like” is also a straw-man. Running a neutral platform requires just that, and no one is forced to declare their platform neutral.
A USENET-like speech code terrifies liberals because their logic cannot survive a truly open debate. The Will Smith case is a good one: if you support him, do you support domestic violence disguised as chivalry or do you “defend women?” Subjective views don’t belong on any thumbs tilting the scales.
Twitter has also allowed death threats and harassment (or doxing etc.) against those it deems “fair game” either explicitly or through inaction against the perpetrators. This will be ending under Musk, as will the insider access given to a small group of SuperPACs posing as nonprofits and thinktanks. THIS is how the 2020 election was tilted, though not explicitly rigged.
Censorship will never win out because it requires too much energy to suppress the truth, which requires no energy at all. Like that Star Trek episode where Spock pulled up a chair and waited for the fake Kirk to run out of energy.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
p.s. While I would like to think there are no races which are more prone to criminal behavior than others, I would not like to have to think that or risk losing my job and internet access.
Re: Re: See it can learn just like a real boy
Welcome to the concept of social consequences. Pity it took you this long to understand a thing most six years old have figured out but, hey, progress is progress.
Re:
So we can add “strawman” to the long list of concepts you lack comprehension of.
Re:
When those views include things like deadnaming or saying that “trans people are mentally ill” you have to wonder if “conservatives” know what debate is.
Every time someone try to use USENET as some kind of example they either don’t know how it works or they conveniently ignore that it is always the one operating a particular server who determines what is allowed or not.
It’s not a straw-man since every platform curates the content to fit their audience. The rest of your argument makes zero sense since there no such thing as a “neutral platform”.
Having a debate is one thing, trying to force yourself and your views upon others isn’t a debate. Average Joe doesn’t want to see shit-poster flooding his feed which is why USENET-like functionality is only attractive to a very small minority of people.
Seems you have a very weird definition of domestic abuse or are you suggesting that Chris Rock and Will Smith is in some secret relationship? It doesn’t really matter, because everything is subjective – anyone believing otherwise is a fool.
Context is always important which is probably why you avoided to specify why Twitter allowed it and against who.
You are putting to much faith into what Musk can and will do. Passively owning shares in a company doesn’t allow you to dictate how it is operated in any way.
You are aware that during the 2020 election if you compared the number of political posts on Twitter (or social media in general), those favoring conservatives/GOP far outweighed those favoring democrats?
You speak of “truth” but you don’t actually tell us what you mean by it but you are of course free to give us specific examples of “truth” that has been “censored”. Anyway, squelching assholes is a minimum effort because they can’t stop themselves from being assholes so they always stand out like a sore thumb.
Re: Re:
Having a seat on the board does, though.
Re: Re: Re:
Which he does now but not when I wrote the post.
Context matters…
Re:
You can always fuck off to Truth Social, whiner.
What’s conservatives’ infatuation with Twitter? You build your own freeze peach havens and are still here whining like a bunch of fools with perpetual periods.
You created your safe space. Second step is fucking using it.
Re:
Holy shit! Twitter has been stopping people from speaking their mind on trans issues anywhere? Christ, that’s awful! Surely you can cite an example of this happening so we know the exact details of this situation!
🙃
No, it really is “those views” that get dinged. As I’ve said before, I was once dinged by Twitter for using an anti-gay slur in a discussion of anti-gay attitudes, and I myself am queer. Don’t think for a minute that Twitter’s automated moderation magically knows who is and isn’t a conservative.
Which views would those be? Be specific.
Ah, I see—you believe in “censorship for thee, but not for me”. That explains a lot about your bullshit.
Except every time one of you assholes goes off on Twitter not being “neutral”, y’all always whine about how Twitter is a “public fora” and how it talks about being a place for open conversations and whatever other “It MuSt ReSpEcT fReE sPeEcH!” bullshit you can think of. For Twitter to be truly neutral towards speech, it must host speech it wouldn’t ordinarily host. That would include (but wouldn’t be limited to) spam, racial slurs, and anti-queer propaganda—all of which are legally protected speech in the United States, in case you forgot.
Every time you want Twitter to be a “neutral platform”, you’re demanding that Twitter associate itself with speech it doesn’t want to host. Speech and association aren’t free if they’re forced; you’d do well to remember that.
If anything, conservatives are terrified of “liberal speech”. Why else would they be going through all the trouble of banning books and trying to limit what historical facts about the United States can be taught to kids?
Two things.
[citation needed]
You do realize that he isn’t taking over all of Twitter, right? Dude may be on the board now, but that doesn’t make him the head of the table.
And yet, conservatives are still going around trying to ban books and alter lesson plans in schools. Lots of energy to burn there…though I probably shouldn’t mention books and burning in the same paragraph. That might give them…y’know…ideas.
Re: Any day now
“Censorship will never win out because it requires too much energy to suppress the truth, which requires no energy at all.’
Then stop wasting all your energy bitching about it…
“to suppress the truth”
blows the whistle, throws a flag
Assumes you would know the truth if it bit you on the ass.
You really really hope that what you believe is the truth & are demanding that others give you a platform to spread your “truth” and magically everyone will agree with you… and when they don’t you get very mad and throw tantrums.
You call out the actions of others, while pretending it is only ever done by “the other side” and managing to ignore that your side has problems too.
15 yard penalty, Loss of the down.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Why do you hate Free Speech, Mansick?
Every time I see an article on this website about free speech, it’s you ATTACKING the concept.
I’m NOT talking about 1A, I’m talking about FREE SPEECH!
They are NOT the same thing.
1A says the government cannot RESTRICT your free speech. MEANING, for those of you who failed basic reading comprehension, that you have FREE SPEECH as soon as you can talk. It’s not something the government gives you.
So, knowing that, WHY do you hate it?
It’s more and more obvious as time goes on that YOU, Mansick, and all your allies here, cannot comprehend do you like free speech.
BTW, someone asked me on a previous article “should companies be forced to host any legally protected speech?”
The answer: If the company’s primary purpose is communication between people (Facebook, Twitter, Gettr, Youtube) then YES! If it’s allowed under the US law, then YES! Companies SHOULD be forced to host it, even if they don’t like it.
Give people the tools to block those who are bothering them or who they don’t want to see. And if someone’s really being a pain, get a COURT ORDER!
So, YES! Twitter SHOULD allow ANY speech that isn’t illegal.
And if you disagree with that, then you hate free speech. Plain and Simple.
Re:
TIL anyone who doesn’t like spam hates free speech.
Re:
A fat lot of good those are when an orchestrated campaign is targeted at someone. How many thousand times will the block a new name before giving up with a platform.
And how does the person being attacked do that? All they have is a name on a social media site.
What you keep on demanding is a hecklers charter, allowing you and you mates to drive chosen targets off of social media.
Re:
You have no rights on someone else’s private property. You have the privilege of being on that property with the permission of its owner(s)—and they can always revoke that privilege.
Re:
By the same logic, you kicking someone off your property because they’re spouting obnoxious bile means that you hate free speech.
Re:
So how do you propose to force someone to associate with someone else they don’t want to be associated with?
The moment you start using the government to force something, freedom goes out the window.
Re: Re:
‘In order to protect (fictional) first amendment rights we must destroy (real) first amendment rights.’
Re:
Your desire to be a toxic asshole does not mean others have to just sit there and accept it in silence, they get to respond in turn and if you’re using someone else’s property to be an asshole on one of those responses is showing you the door.
Free speech has never been short for consequence-free speech, this is not a complex idea so your inability to comprehend it is on you.
Re:
[Citation Needed]
Re:
This is false. I can assure you there are few people as committed to free speech as I am. I have defended free speech where and when it matters, including the free speech rights against compelled speech and association that you appear to support.
That’s correct. But that does not mean you get to commandeer private property for your speech. Doing so would actually go against the concept of free speech in so many ways. In particular, if you could force services to host your speech in perpetuity it means very few would even be willing to host speech at all in the first place, meaning significantly less free speech. Your plan would literally close down spaces for free speech.
You are extremely anti-free speech.
So you are against free speech.
So spam, porn, harassment — all of which are legal — must be hosted by Twitter?
No. I actually understand and support actual free speech. If YOU want to set up a site where spam, porn, and harassment are prevalent, I support you doing so. Because I support your free speech rights. Please, go ahead. But when you support compelling the hosting of speech that someone doesn’t wish to host, then you are no longer in favor of free speech, but are in favor of commandeering private property, which is not just anti-free speech, but vaguely communist. I will not support such things.
Re: BINGO!!!
Fuck me that’s a RWNJ bingo right there in just one post.
Re: More than four less than a dozen
“And if someone’s really being a pain, get a COURT ORDER!”
One does wonder how many court orders are current lodged against you
Re:
So what you’re saying is,
I have to be forced to read your white supremacist drivel, and forced to listen to you go on about why Mein Kampf is your favorite book, when all I want to do is to eat my lunch in peace, in a privately-owned public space.
Because according to your definition of free speech, I am not allowed to leave where you are soapboxing. I would have to commit an actual crime to get you to shut up and leave, because the act of me leaving would be an actual, punishable crime because you are legally allowed to be a white supremacist in my vicinity.
I would not want to live in your fucked up world. I’d like to stay in THIS world, where I get to ignore and block you as per MY RIGHT TO NOT ASSOCIATE WITH WHITE SUPREMACISTS.
Musk is officially on the Twitter Board now. It’s going to be neat seeing how hard Musk can run the site into the ground.
So does Twitter have the right to block speech they don’t like on their platform, or are they only allowed to if you agree politically with the people doing it?
Re:
Yes. And before you go there: So does Gab, Parler, or any alt-right shitpit that disallows “leftist” speech. Their individual houses, their individual rules.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Wow. Just wow. You’re still using the term “alt-right”? You do know there’s no such thing, right?
A refresher for the terminally ignorant:
Re: Re: Re:
Tell me you’re ignorant (intentionally or not) about the Southern Switch in the wake of the Civil Rights Movement without telling me you’re ignorant (intentionally or not) about the Southern Switch in the wake of the Civil Rights Movement.
You seem to be deluded.
Now I know you’re deluded.
Not ones that mainstream right-wingers would own up to holding without fear of losing an election, anyway.
What media, Fox News?
Except for the Muslim travel ban, and referring to Black football players protesting police brutality as “sons of bitches”, and numerous other examples of his personal brand of racism he committed while in office. In fact, there’s a handy list of Trumpian atrocities that most definitely lists such examples.
You mean like Ronald Reagan, who invented the “welfare queen” stereotype to smear Black people?
[citation needed]
[citation needed]
…became mainstream Republicans, given their attacks on Critical Race Theory, queer people (and trans people in particular), “socialists” and “communists”, women’s reproductive rights, and any form of public education that doesn’t boil down to Christian indoctrination.
Re: Re: Re:2 Tell Me Without Tell--... Oh, Just Stop It
Tell me you use lame and tired Twitter cliches without telling me you use lame and tired Twitter cliches.
Re: Re: Re:3
I’ll use clichés all I want when my point is sound. Either dismantle my point or whine more about it—your choice, shitbird.
Re: Re: Re:4 Tell Me Without Tell--... Oh, Just Stop It
No one suggested you couldn’t. But that doesn’t mean we can’t laugh at your lameness for doing so.
Re: Re: Re:5
Keep crying, son. Your whine will go nicely with my cheese.
Re: Re: Re:6 Tell Me Without Tell--... Oh, Just Stop It
Laughter, chief. Laughter. In case you’re suffering from some kind of aphasia:
LAUGHTER: (noun) an expression or appearance of merriment or amusement.
Re: Re: Re:7
It ain’t laughter; if it was, you wouldn’t be interrupting me while I’m making a mistake.
Re: Re: Re:
Tell that to them. They made up the term to describe themselves.
Also, it’s been in use at least since the Bush years, likely even earlier, so everything you say after that is completely irrelevant to the actual origins of the term since it’s all 2016 or later.
Re: Re: Re:
Norice now none of AC’s hallucinations bear even the slightest resemblance to anything that happened in the real world.
Re: Re: Re:
FTFY
Re:
Twitter, like any website, has every right to block speech, whether or not I (or anyone who is not running Twitter) agrees with it.
I disagree with many of Twitter’s choices on their moderation practices. But they have the right.
Re: I think we all know the asnwer to that
So did you ask that leading ass question in order to go for a dumb ass gotcha that failed to materialize?
Re:
Yes. Also we have the right to not use Twitter if we disagree with what speech they allow on their platform, and we have the right to complain about their decisions.
Re:
Yes, they do. Same goes for Facebook, MySpace, Reddit, Gab, Truth, Parler, etc. If I disagree with their decision, I can voice my disagreement and/or choose not to use their platform, but they absolutely have the right to moderate as they see fit whether I agree with them or not.
I believe that Techdirt and most of my fellow readers are in agreement on that despite falling on different parts of the political spectrum and have made that position perfectly clear in the past, so I can only assume that you must be new here. Welcome!
The rabble rousers
It’s been a LONG time since.
It would be intriguing to see how he’d handle moderation. How much of what’s currently censored from the community would be allowed… how much that’s allowed becomes censored.
Won’t change my opinion of the platform regardless. It’s the content compression I hate. Limited post size.
And unless he turns them into a forum or blog site where actual communication can occurred, it’s still not a service for me.
But it would be a fun thing to watch from the stands with some popcorn!
Re:
ERROR DIV/0
Re: Re:
Sure, everyone knows your one of them that doesn’t call the localised removal from existence censorship.
Just like putting black bars across images in one platform and not another isn’t censorship either.
Yep. No censorship in magazines, books, movies, none at all.
Maybe take a look at game censorship over on YouTube to understand.
https://www.youtube.com/c/CensoredGaming/videos
How many times you idiots need to be hit over the head with it to understand: just because it’s available elsewhere doesn’t change local censorship.
Be it Xbox and PS4 or twitter and gabber or whatever.
:facepalm:
Re: Re: Re:
Most people realize that calling moderation censorship is a right wing tactic to try and force platforms to keep up speech that they do not want to carry.
Re: Re: Re:2
Only in the context of politics.
Again, the correct reaction is not to deny but explain the nuances and the action’s constitutional protection!
I respect Sony’s right to censoring their platform’s content. And exercise my right to not use censored content by choosing Nintendo and on occasion xBox games.
That’s how the system works.
Ignoring censorship in any context allow it to become a cancer elsewhere.
We should always recognise where and when it occurs. Tag the ‘offender’ and move on to less censored platforms.
We need MORE whataboutism. When a Republican says twitter is censored the reply should not be denial! It should be ‘so is truth’!
Recognition of the legal protection of private censorship cuts off government attempts at it. Here in the form of forced hosting.
Re: Re: Re:2
One need only to apply the logic to the physical world to see how absurd/dishonest the conflation is.
How many people would buy the claim that a person ejected from a local club for swearing at the staff and/or loudly talking about the inferiority of anyone not white and male was ‘censored’ because they could no longer do so at that club, and even if they did how many non-assholes would have a problem with that sort of person being told to leave?
Private Company
“It’s a private company, they can do whatever they want.” -TechDirt mantra
Re:
Yes. That’s correct. What in this article suggests otherwise? Of course Twitter is a private company and can do as it wants.
But that does not hinder people from pointing out the potential pitfalls of those decisions. I mean, from day fucking 1 of this site, we’ve always highlighted when we think companies are making bad choices. But that’s quite different from demanding that they act differently, or suggesting the gov’t should block them from acting in whatever dumb way they want to act.
So there is no contradiction here other than in your brain that can’t seem to comprehend some fairly basic concepts.
Re: Re:
Of course it doesn’t. But when anyone here has pointed out the pitfalls of the current pre-Musk Twitter censorship regime on society, we’ve been consistently met with a resounding chorus of “It’s a private company, they can do whatever they want.”
Just when I was just getting into the spirit of things, highlighting pitfalls suddenly becomes a good thing.
Re: Re: Re:
[Hallucinates facts not in evidence]
Re: Re: Re:
Bullshit. Don’t make stuff up. We have always said that they’re a private company and can do what they want AND that anyone is free to criticize them.
However, what we may push back on are (1) situations where there are attempts to use the power of the state, whether by regulation or through the courts to change those rules or (2) when people say stuff that is just blatantly ignorant, like claiming that Twitter is trying to “censor conservatives.”
In doing those thing we’re not challenging Twitter’s right to do what it wants. And when we criticize people it’s not for merely criticizing Twitter’s choices, but for either trying to force them to change or being ignorant or misleading about what’s going on.
You can tell the difference between those things, can’t you?
Re: Re: Re:2 Minor issue
If you don’t like the options buy it. I have no problem with that. If he becomes the guiding hand he has the ability to do that.
Re: Re: Re:2
Nope, I’ve been instantly vilified by your remoras here for merely suggesting that censorship on Twitter– which has become a de facto town square even if can’t be legally treated like one– is bad for society when it won’t allow even scientific facts to be discussed because they deem reality to be ‘harassing’ or some such nonsense.
Re: Re: Re:3
First, citation needed.
Second, even in your framing, I can see why people might call you out: Because your argument is stupid, ignorant, and devoid of any logic or reason.
But people calling you out for making a stupid argument is not saying that Twitter can’t make stupid decisions. Obviously, they can. Just as people can call out you for making stupid statements, they can call out Musk for having stupid ideas.
So, I still don’t think you’ve made whatever point you think you’ve made.
Re: Re: Re:3
…being an asshole who routinely says ridiculous bullshit in bad faith, insults others who are trying to have good-faith conversations, and expects everyone else to agree with you even when your arguments are bullshit.
Re: Re: Re:3
… said nobody capable of rational independent thought, ever.
(Which is why it’s not surprising to see,coming from you.)
Re: Re: Re:3
[Derangedly hallucinates facts not in reality]
Re:
And we’re allowed to question whether what a company does is a good thing.
Re:
Is this supposed to be some kind of gotcha?
They were though. And that’s the point. Not enough recognise that.
Because so many conflate hosting speech with supporting that speech,, the ability to not host speech becomes itself speech in the lack of supported hosting.
But you can’t draw arbitrary lines.
Are you going to tell me that Sony refusing to release a game without changing the content from the release on every other platform is not censorship?
The entire point of censorship is to decide what is and is not made available.
The ability of private censorship is a good thing for protection of self, even if I personally feel such a choice is an extreme that should not be exercised.
Because your choice to delete is just as important as my ability to host and hide. Showing that while I recognise local social norms, I support the ability of all voices to be heard and choose a path less destructive in all ways.
Re:
IMO you all should just acknowledge that you have different definitions of the word “censorship”, you’re never going to agree on what it means, and move on.
Re: Re:
I would. Generally have. Except I have no intention of pretending censorship is something else. And will not change my commentary to fit a modern minimalist usage of the term.
Twitter censors Republicans
Gabriel truth censors Democrats.
Sony censors games.
Pure flux censored movies. Etc
When you recognise censorship you can make an informed decision in consumption.
Reps are right:twit censors.
Dems are right: you can go elsewhere.
I never was all that familiar with the platforms of micro blogs (glorified text messengers). I don’t pot on twitter. I don’t follow it daily. I have a “feed” or “follow” or whatever with one single entity that decides using twit board was better than the reliable rss news feed for their most important news.
I have friends on face book. I probably wander in and check something once every month n half or so. When someone sends me a link by actual text that says go look:.
I don’t personally care much what the platforms do or don’t do. Ut I’m not going to bury my head in the dirt and pretend it doesn’t happen just because it’s politically advantageous.
One thing, certainly, that sets me apart is I’m consistent. I don’t care about your politics. I see censorship, I point and call it what it is. I bitch about the gabs as much as the twits.
Re: The boy who cried wolf v2.0
As I’ve noted in the past you’re welcome to apply the label of ‘censorship’ wide enough that it would apply to consequences for a person’s actions like kicking an abusive person out of a business but all you’re doing is watering the term down to the point that no-one will care when you assert it in the future, even if you manage to find an example they might have previously agreed with you on.
By all means keep using the term like that if you want to ensure that no-one will bat an eye when it’s used but if that’s not your goal you probably should work on your definition so it’s to encompassing enough to include both ‘person with power says you’re not allowed to say X anywhere‘ and ‘private person decides that they aren’t going to provide a platform/venue for someone to say X’.
Re: Re:
The problem with removing it he term “censorship” from social media moderation discussion is because it’s not just the man-at-bar equivalent.
We’re talking about removing (deleting) content based on an opinion on the content!
When Sony removes content from a game that is in that game on other platforms, it’s accurately and correctly called an act of censorship. Within the confines of the Sony owned system platforms. That’s localised censorship.
When paramount or FSL remove content that was in the theatrical and media blasters releases, that’s censorship. Localised to that company’s releasing.
Nobody here has
When twitter removes content (posts, twits) that are still shown on other sites, that’s censorship within the confines of the twitter platform.
Nobody has explained why we should not call it censorship when all these other examples are regularly called censorship.
Re: Re: Re:
We’re talking about removing (deleting) content based on an opinion on the content!
The man at the bar is told to leave and therefore can no longer speak at that business though he’s free to do so elsewhere. A person who has their posts deleted on social media is being told ‘not on our platform‘ though again they can always go elsewhere.
Sounds pretty similar to me, so if you really want to argue one is censorship I don’t see how you can avoid calling the other censorship as well.
Nobody has explained why we should not call it censorship when all these other examples are regularly called censorship.
Except they’re not? Unless the government or a similarly powerful group is stepping in and forcing the hands of those companies those examples are them decided that they’d rather not host certain content on their property, otherwise known as moderation, no different than a local store with a corkboard letting people post fliers but making clear that use is a privilege not a right and they can and will take down ones they don’t want to be associated with.
Again if you want to frame platforms/individuals choosing what content they will and will not allow on their property as censorship you’re welcome to do so but it’s not doing your argument any favors.
Re:
If somebody is thrown off Twitter or Facebook, they have not lost the ability to speak, or to be heard by those who want to listen to them, and the ability to direct attack those they think are lessor humans beings. Indeed, forcing a site to allow aggressive people speak on it silences more speech, by making the site toxic to minority groups.
So long as people know where to look, and can find people they want to listen to, nobody is being censored or silenced.
Re: Re: Silence
Yes, some sites like twitter choose to delete. Some like facebook add notes.
YouTube makes you sign I. And confirm
Techdirt like many sites hides things allowing a reader an option.
Nobody is being silenced. You can always go elsewhere. But the censorship is real.
Just because republicans want to force speech hosting over censorship doesn’t mean we should ignore it.
I do
It is. But it’s localised and legal.
As for
They regularly are.
Game news constantly talks about censorship. Be it in foreigners games or between platforms.
Film media constantly talks about censorship. How company a cuts this or edits that.
Taking wrestling as television, there is constant discussion on peacock censoring WWE and more so ECW materials that are uncensored on WWE Network in most other countries.
How is a bar or a social platform different from say, a game system or a video distributor.
Re:
It is. But it’s localised and legal.
That is exactly what I was talking about above. Your definition of censorship is so wide it’s meaningless, encompassing so much that saying someone has been censored by your definition provides no more information than saying that the speaker breathes air.
How is a bar or a social platform different from say, a game system or a video distributor.
Agreeing for the sake of argument that those other actions are ‘censorship’ the difference is that a movie/game studio is taking what someone else may have done and presenting it as their product, the social media platform/bar isn’t.
‘Someone else may have coded/filmed this but I am the one giving it my stamp of approval and publishing it under my name.’ Contrast that with a bar or social media platform where there is no such vetting and instead it is an open platform/area where you’re allowed to be there so long as you follow the rules and/or don’t make yourself too toxic to be welcome.
If ‘suffering penalties for breaking the rules/being an asshole’ counts as censorship then that definition is not only useless it is actively counterproductive to your position, since most non-assholes are probably going to be happy to see someone like that shown the door and by your claiming ‘censorship’ for that act you’re just conditioning people to respond with ‘So what, they probably deserved it’ when you do.
Re: Re:
One of the reasons I wrote those two columns I wrote for this site was to narrow down my personal definition of censorship. If I thought like Censor Boy up there thinks, I wouldn’t have needed to write those two columns—I would need only to agree with his definition and think no deeper on it.
My current copypasta on the matter is informed not only by my own prior thinking on free speech (which itself was informed by lots of other writings and such), but by the criticisms and questions given to me on the first article I wrote. I refined my copypasta to better reflect my current thinking, and if that thinking changes, I’ll refine the copypasta again. But for now, this is the current version:
(To both provide an example and tie this into a different discussion: The “DirecTV dropping OANN” situation is closer to editorial discretion than it will ever be to censorship.)
Re: Re: Re: I understand
I do understand your view. And unlike both sides of the speech debat I don’t conflate censorship with external ability.
There’s more to this than just politics though.
If Sony were to pull a game from their platform due to content they have censored. If they remove contents from a game it’s censored.
What about people who switched to DTV for oan? Are they going to be allowed to cancel their contracts without penalty now that something offered is no longer there?
Can a Sony game system be returned 2 years later because they changed to a policy of censorship?
Can I return a movie for the money I paid because content is missing?
That’s yet another aspect ignored here.
And nobody has yet explained how my examples in games and films where content is removed and the consumer is not made aware of the removal at time of payment. Such as games and films. How that is anything but censorship. And how removing content on a forum or board or feed is any different than removing it from a game or film.
Re: Re: Re:
Remember that Lostinlodos will always value Republicans and authoritarians above anyone else. He’ll demand that incels must be allowed to bully enbys and parents of bullied victims can’t be allowed to contest police reports by the parents of bullies because it would disrupt their life choices otherwise.
Re: Re: Re:2 Interesting…
…given how very very little I align with even the most liberal of RINO Republican.
Update: Musk has decided not to join Twitter’s board, so free speech remains that much safer.
https://twitter.com/paraga/status/1513354622466867201?s=20&t=T-kq-Rwx95uQtlWkw8JAHw
Re:
How would his joining the board make any difference towards free speech. Be clear now.
Re: Re:
If only someone had written an article or something about it…
Re: Musk on Board
Your celebration is somewhat premature.
If Musk joined the board, he would be capped at owning 14.9% of the company shares. If he stays off the board and doubles his current shares, then he’ll have enough votes to add board members and drive the direction of Twitter. Or maybe he’s just planning on buying Twitter outright.
Re: Re:
He could’ve done that already if he really wanted to. The reasoning for him balking at being on the board might be financial, but I suspect it also has to do with his ego—specifically, that his being a member of the board would mean he’d have to avoid doing the kind of bullshit he does on Twitter (and at Tesla, or so I’ve heard) in response to criticism.
Re: Re: Re: Musk on Board
https://apnews.com/article/elon-musk-twitter-offer-92fe6980cbcfdedea43637ac336c367a
Re: Re: Re:2
Blue-check celebrities are now threatening to “leave Twitter” if Musk buys the company. (Kinda like how all those Hollywood knobheads threatened to move to Canada if Trump was elected, then not a single one of them did it.)
And the sensitive daffodils who work there are having to take days off to deal with the stress of Musk’s involvement with the company.
Looks like the cockroaches hiding in the dark are fretting. Who says 2022 hasn’t brought us any good news?
Re: Re: Re:3
My take? Oh well.
If you don’t like the company leave. Or put up with it.
If blue checkers want to run off to some new site so be it.
This is a private company.
Re: Re: Re:3
That sounds like people who have never experienced an actual rough week.
Re: Re: Re:3
I agree that people threatening to leave are being hyperbolic and silly. If something better comes along they’ll leave, but if not, seems excessive.
But regarding the employees, I think people underestimate or don’t understand the culture within Twitter, and how many of Elon’s statements just fundamentally go against that culture — a culture that many employees really like. Maybe you don’t like your job or the people you spend time with. But if you did, you too might be upset when a giant clueless jerk announces he plans to destroy that culture.
Re: Re: Re:4
It’s just a fact of life. Companies change ownership. Change plans, policies.
I speak from experience as someone who wen through the relatively independent 90s CIS to the big corporate policies that stomped on everything CompuServe once was.
Until there were literally few employees and fewer users. A sad and painful death to a late 70s pioneer.
I’m quite sure twitter itself will survive. At least at first.
Pretty sure you have a childlike understanding of free speech as well. This is hilarious haha.