The Elon Speedrun Continues; Apparently Comedy Is Not Quite Legal On The New Twitter

from the careening-along-the-curve-of-hypocrisy dept

Last week, we posted a cheat sheet on how to speedrun the content moderation learning curve. It went a bit viral, but I don’t think Elon got to check it out. In the meantime, he seems to be doing his actual speedrunning in public.

Anyhoo… let’s just say that the next few paragraphs are known as foreshadowing

Back in May at a conference, Elon Musk said that he was against the idea of “perma” bans.

“I do think it was not correct to ban Donald Trump, I think that was a mistake,” Musk said. “I would reverse the perma-ban. … But my opinion, and Jack Dorsey, I want to be clear, shares this opinion, is that we should not have perma-bans.”

A few weeks before that, he said that he hoped that “even my worst critics remain on Twitter, because that is what free speech means.”

He also said that when he talked about bringing free speech back to Twitter, he meant “that which matches the law” saying that he was “against censorship that goes far beyond the law.”

And, just as a side note (by which I mean, more foreshadowing) parody has been found to be protected by the 1st Amendment, making it very much “matching the law.” And, in one important case, the wonderful judge, Pierre Leval, pointed out that parody is still protected by the 1st Amendment even if some are fooled by it. In that case, one of the claims was that a parody done by New York Magazine was not labeled as parody. But Judge Leval points out that this does not matter:

Although New York’s position would probably be stronger if its joke had been clearer, the obscurity of its joke does not deprive it of First Amendment support. First Amendment protections do not apply only to those who speak clearly, whose jokes are funny, and whose parodies succeed.

Oh, and one more: after he took over Twitter, Musk declared “Comedy is now legal on Twitter.”

Alrighty. Enough of the foreshadowing. On Sunday evening, Musk decreed that impersonation will immediately result in a permaban.

That says:

Going forward, any Twitter handles engaging in impersonation without clearly specifying “parody” will be permanently suspended

Of course, as basically everyone noticed, the “impersonation” accounts that were getting suspended seemed to most be people making fun of Elon Musk. Most notably, comedian Kathy Griffin changed her name to Elon Musk and had mocked him. Some others had done something similar.

Thus, only a week into ownership, Musk has gone back on “all legal free speech,” no permabans, and hoping that his critics would remain on Twitter all in one shot. It’s almost impressive.

And, yes, you can (and I’m sure some very eager people will in our comments) make the argument that impersonating users is potentially problematic. Musk tried to clarify that he was talking about accounts with checkmarks (what used to be verified accounts, but under Musk’s leadership now mean “willing to pay $8/month”). And, yes, back when the checkmarks were about verified identity, I could see how problematic it would be for someone to impersonate someone else. That’s less so under the “pay for checkmark with no verification” setup though.

But, the key point is that this is exactly what many of us have been trying to tell Musk since way back in March. That moderation issues are not about “free speech.” It’s something else entirely.

I don’t begrudge Musk trying to deal with real potential issues that might come with impersonation. But… if he had even an ounce of self-reflection he might realize that all of these hypocritical moves he is making suggests that maybe, just maybe, Twitter and all the employees he fired, actually did have a decent (or, let’s say, very, very firm) grasp on what free speech actually means and how to manage a platform like Twitter.

And while I really had hoped that maybe he secretly did understand all this and was just hamming it up for his fans, it really appears that Musk is rushing headlong through the content moderation learning curve and making all the same moves as everyone else before him. It’s easy to declare “free speech for all” until suddenly all hell breaks loose and people are mocking you left and right.

Anyway, comedy remains legal, and in some ways, this is all very, very funny.

Filed Under: , , , , , ,
Companies: twitter

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “The Elon Speedrun Continues; Apparently Comedy Is Not Quite Legal On The New Twitter”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
102 Comments
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
kallethen says:

I’ll say that at the beginning of this whole saga I was of the belief that it was likely that Twitter would implode under Musk’s ownership.

But I never expected him to torch the place as quickly as he appears to be.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Koby (profile) says:

Re: Re:

The Verge is reporting that mDAU “has accelerated to more than 20 percent” in the first week of Musk’s takeover, user numbers have increased, and that there is apparently no mass exodus. All of this, without Musk changing content moderation rules yes, only applying them equally to all sides. Maybe instead of “torch” the platform, you meant “skyrocket” ?

Samuel Abram (profile) says:

Re: Re:

there is apparently no mass exodus

I’m a statistic saying you’re fucking wrong, bub!!! I deleted my twitter account and set one up on a mastodon instance, and rather than the 8th-layer-of-hell twitter seemed like, the mastodon experience is heavenly and fun.

Maybe instead of “torch” the platform, you meant “skyrocket”

If I didn’t think you were a troll, I’d think you were being sarcastic, but you’re just dumber than Forrest Gump.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

That is not a measure of new users, and activity like tweeting a persons mastadon address would show up in that figure. That is a surge in mDAU is not incomparable with users leaving the platform, as it could be a spike in telling followers which service they will be found on in the future..

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Koby, you fucking NeoNazi.

People are already either leaving or are starting to consider leaving,or are taking measures to path around Elon’s Pay2Win bullshit.

Those “users” flocking back are the scammers, hackers and people like you.

Ehud Gavron (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: "Fucking NeoNazis"

The “Fucking NeoNazis” are surprisingly enough not Germans nor “people leaving Twitter”, which is not a thing. Nobody leaves Twitter, they just don’t go back there again. Like FB. Like IG “Social Media” is so great, Tom from MySpace wants you back.

Would you like to know who the neonazis are? Kanye, Kyrie. Other wonderful examples of those who want to kill an entire race while complaining that fat white republicans want to kill them. Hypocrisy much?

You’re more likely to find neonazis in the southern part of the US and in Hollywood than you’ll find on Twitter.

Twitter’s joined Geocities and Myspace. It’s done. The rest is jsut a question of how long it swirls the drain.

We remain. We have choices of where we spend our online time. Some choose techdirt. Some choose other sites. It’s up to us to disallow the neonazis and their maga friends to raise up arms (real and firing ones) against anyone.

I’ll take a break to focus on the important things today. WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. Let’s do that.

“One man can make a difference, Michael.” — Wilton Knight.

E

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Mr. Gavron.

I’m saying people like Koby, who are very likely to be NeoNazis, are returning to Twitter.

With Koby, he’s been extremely quiet when pressed on which opinions are being censored, and while it’d be awesome if he actually came right out and said it, we’re all forced to infer from what he has and has not said.

While we agree on Elon and the Twitter issues in general (barring some minor semantic issues and personal opinions as to his substance abuse), I am a lot less sanguine as to making a difference while these NeoNazis are around and backed by the rich conservative assholes.

Ehud Gavron (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Heard

AC and Christenson and others… I have heard you. As I said, I’ll be taking a break to “enjoy” today’s voting and media followup experience.

I’ll think on what you’ve said. My hopes are that social media will heal itself (except for Twitter which is DOA). We shall see 🙂

Respectfully, I have four hours to get some sleep, then vote, then eyes glued to media sources, then consulting, then more of the media stuff… So best to git r’ done.

E

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Rickers says:

Re: Torch the place?

My dear sweet non binary. Torch the place? I do feel you want that in whatever capacity you can get it while not caring about it before when micro-Dorsey and his cast of Socialist Communists were selling checkmark for 25k privately. Your very misguided and short sighted views capitulated on this site, make the point that the future of Twitter shall bring you eternal unhappiness which, makes the rest of us very, very happy. Salude!

tg says:

And it’s generous to accept the argument that (formerly) verified accounts with loads of followers changing their twitter name (not handle) to mock another accounts that have loads of followers, yes albeit by tweeting as if they were the other account, is a cut-and-dry case of impersonation, requiring serious action from twitter.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Rico R. (profile) says:

Elon, Meet the First Amendment.

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

One small problem with that, Elon. If people need to pass a law making certain speech illegal for Twitter to take action, such a law would in and of itself violate the first amendment. That means that Twitter will allow anything the first amendment will allow (i.e., everything). Such a catch-22 would make Twitter’s moderation turn into a hellscape overnight. And this is before we even get into Elon’s backpedaling when it comes to parody accounts!

Bergman (profile) says:

Re:

Nope, it wouldn’t violate the first amendment, because the first amendment itself already does exactly that – and always has.

Freedom to speak also includes the freedom to not speak. Freedom to assemble includes the freedom to not assemble.

Rico R. (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Freedom to speak also includes the freedom to not speak. Freedom to assemble includes the freedom to not assemble.

I agree that the first amendment gives Twitter the ability to choose what/who to allow on their platform and what/who not to. My point could have been made a bit clearer.

What I was getting at was this: Say Elon isn’t inclined to moderate or take down something protected by the first amendment. For example, let’s say vaccine misinformation. Elon says he would start taking action on it if Congress passed a law making vaccine misinformation illegal. The problem with such a law is that vaccine misinformation, as dangerous and harmful as it is, is protected by the first amendment. Almost any court would strike down such a law as unconstitutional on first amendment grounds. And once the law is struck down, vaccine misinformation is declared legal, and Elon won’t be taking it down.

Therefore, Elon’s stance that only illegal content should be banned, and that if you want Twitter to take action, have Congress pass a law to make something illegal, is untenable. Of course, there’s nothing stopping Twitter from taking down and/or putting up disclaimers on content (such as vaccine misinformation), and such activities would be protected by the first amendment. But requiring the government to make certain kinds of speech illegal just so Twitter will ban it violates the first amendment. That is what I was getting at. Hopefully, that clears up any misunderstanding.

Ehud Gavron (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: First amendment has nothing to do with private companies

I agree that the first amendment gives Twitter the ability to choose what/who to allow on their platform and what/who not to.

First five words of the first amendment to the constitution of the United States:
“Congress shall make no law…”

There’s nothing in there about Twitter or what you agree or disagree with. This is a common misunderstanding.

NOTHING Mr Musk or Twitter does has anything to do with the first amendment.

Therefore, Elon’s stance that only illegal content should be banned, and that if you want Twitter to take action, have Congress pass a law to make something illegal, is untenable. Of course, there’s nothing stopping Twitter from taking down and/or putting up disclaimers on content (such as vaccine misinformation), and such activities would be protected by the first amendment. But requiring the government to make certain kinds of speech illegal just so Twitter will ban it violates the first amendment. That is what I was getting at. Hopefully, that clears up any misunderstanding.

Nothing in that paragraph makes any sense.
1. Congress can pass laws.
2. Nothing “on Twitter” is “protected by the first amendment” because Twitter is not a government actor and is not at all subject to the restrictions or rights under that amendment.
3. Nothing “requires” government to make speech unlawful, but insofar as they may choose to do so it still doesn’t affect Twitter.

Look, you missed the point. Private entities are not subject to the rights, privileges, and limitations of the first amendment. PERIOD. If the government chooses to make some speech unlawful IT (the government) is in violation of the first amendment and that gets handled in court but STILL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TWITTER or private organizations, companies, corporations, LLCs, partnerships, sole proprietorships, individuals, etc.

So yeah, thanks for explaining. No, you’re still missing the boat. The First Amendment doesn’t apply to Twitter and –absent a constitutional amendment requiring a 2/3 states’ votes AND a convention– will never happen.

Ever. So pretty much the next time you want to preach about 1AM, try reading it first. The first five words (well three actually, but five for context) make it very very very clear.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Christenson says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Dang Ehud!

Rico R isn’t trying to preach and he’s not wrong. He’s just working through the implications:
– 1A says twitter moderates, or not however it likes
– Elon says: I’ll only moderate it if it’s illegal (though this has been walked back, see Kathy Griffin and other Elon parodies)
– So that implies if we don’t want vaccine misinfo on twitter, congress would need to make that illegal, but that breaks 1A, so something should give.

Ehud Gavron (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Something must give

Hi Christenson,

1A says nothing about Twitter.
Elon says if it’s legal he’s staying out of it.
Vaccine manifestor (your example, but it’s a good one so going with it here) is not unlawful for a private company to post or allow UGC to post.

Por ejemplo should I make a conscious CHOICE to write to the editor the New York Times a “Letter to the Editor” in which I espouse my views that vaccines cause Deadly Virus Disease, that’s my right to write that (no pun intended). Should the editors of the NYT choose to publish that, that is their right. The published Letters to the Editor that then contain this falsehood are not in any way subject to 1AM concerns because the government doesn’t regulate them.

But wait, there’s more. Let’s say the government HAD passed laws preventing said publication. Then I have standing to sue, and based on 1AM and an unbiased SCOTUS the government will be adjudged to have violated my rights; my rights will be affirmed; I get to submit that letter again; taxpayers pay.

There’s no “something must give” because there is no conflict. There COULD BE a conflict, and at that point nothing will “give” but a court will adjudge the matter.

Christenson says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Ehud!

You need some help there, brother

Christenson:
– 1A says twitter moderates, or not, however it likes

Pretty much says: Twitter alone decides what shows up on Twitter, gubmn’t can’t tell them what to say. That’s just a little elaboration on

Ehud:
1A says nothing about Twitter.

As it turns out, Elon is backing off on the “All legal speech” part right now; he’s busy suspending lots of parody accounts mocking his silly, naive, and childish self right now.

Ehud Gavron (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Christenson, I was thinking we agreed on that point… and I still think so 🙂

Elon is about to learn a brutal lesson in capitalism, ego, and stupidity.

Best wishes,

E

Samuel Abram (profile) says:

Re:

Well, Musk running Twitter made me leave that hellsite and enter the Fediverse, and I haven’t looked back.

Thanks Musk! You really know how to make a social network grow (specifically Mastodon)!

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

he was “against censorship that goes far beyond the law.”

The nicest thing I’ll say about this is Elon is probably more than happy to go beyond what Google did, ie, create a version of Twitter that would cater to the “legal censorship needs” of authoritarian and totalitarian states, right down to opening Twitter’s private databases so that the relevant thin-skinned dictators, authoritarians and highly-placed politicians get to start suing for “slander”.

Wonder how the Senate is gonna react to that…

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
migi (profile) says:

The idea that “Elon Musk @kathygrithin” is impersonating “Elon Musk @elonmusk” is ludicrous. Anyone with 0.5 seconds to spare can look at the permanent, unchangeable account name. This is just a thinly veiled justification for Musk to clamp down on mockery and criticism of himself. I expect more to follow.

Fortunately the excellent @DPRK_News has not been affected yet, but I doubt that will last.

Samuel Abram (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

I feel your pain. You may be an immortal sociopath, but I think even you feel bad when someone like him leaves this mortal coil (that you never will). @DPRK_News was seriously one of the best accounts on twitter before the Muskplosion.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Nick Foster says:

Re: It's Not Hypocritical to Ban Impersonation

Kathy is free to make jokes at Elon’s expense and even flat out insult him. Elon has made that clear with many celebrities who have done this recently and are still on the platform. Impersonation undermines trust in legit publishers leads to mass belief in miss-information. It’s a smart play to allow for free speech while protecting legitimacy. You guys are smart enough to know this but are so far left you are intentionally spreading miss-leading info. Funny how before the Twitter buyout you guys were OK with this. Shoes on the other foot now.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

people already agree with this. in fact, this is what the blue check mark was for before elon came along and made it just a paid for status symbol, a mark to help deter impersonation. impersonation has and continues to be against twitter tos.

all people are doing is calling out the hypocrisy of elon claiming that he will only moderate speech that is illegal. parody is not illegal. impersonating someone on social media is not illegal. is it against tos? sure it is. but isnt this exactly the kind of moderation elon said he wouldn’t do?

not sure why all of this is so hard to understand for elon fanatics, mike has written article after article on this.

Christenson says:

Re:

They could have simply tacked a fact check on the comedians tweets…you know “This is parody!”

Expect the thoughtless asshattery to continue to alternate with occasional moments of charm, (good Elon versus bad Elon, classic abuser behavior) just as it has since the early SpaceX days. Meanwhile, mDAU is irrelevant if he’s burned his bridges with the advertisers, not to mention most of the twitter workforce.

The real question is in what order bankruptcy, twitter becoming really useless because of terrible moderation, and a major technical failure happen.

Anonymous Coward says:

“Anyhoo…” “Alrighty.” I saw what you did there.

If the good people of Texas were talking to their corporate friend, they’d say it this way:

Podner, yuh dun stepped in a cow pie! Good thang yuh got your boots on. Umm… ‘ceptin those boots aren’t much for cow sh…

Erzatz Elon Musk says:

Hey, in my defense, I was worried that going thermonuclear name-and-shaming on parody accounts would result in uninhabitable social media spaces due to fallout.

Doesn’t mean I won’t go thermonuclear on advertisers, though. Mutual Assured Destruction! Those B*****ds deserve it!

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Koby (profile) says:

F-ed Around, Found Out

Although she did send out some insults on the account of a deceased relative to send messages after the ban, the original offense was not insults. Former comedian Kathy Griffin got caught impersonating. She abused her blue check to spread fake news, right before the election. It wasn’t parody, there was no humor involved, and this is why other platforms have been cracking down on supposed parody accounts.

Now that leftists are subject to TOS bans, suddenly techdirt wants to discuss the topic rather than sweeping it under the rug. At least we can discuss the violation, instead of major platforms censoring without cause.

That One Guy (profile) says:

'No, I am Elon Musk!'

‘If it’s legal under the law it’s legal to say on my platform! Unless it’s making fun of me because I’ll be damned if I have to deal with my own standard!’

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

ZB says:

Re: Impersonation Not Free Speech

Does no one here understand the difference between free speech and impersonating another person? Say whatever you’d like but don’t pretend to be someone else to try to fool people.

I haven’t read this site before but seems like an echo chamber.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Funny how none of them knew that...

Someone better get a lot of comedians and satirists on the line if ‘pretending’ to be someone in order to mock them is out of bounds and against the first amendment.

Christenson says:

Re: Re: Babylon Bee and the Onion

BOTH the Babylon Bee and the Onion have briefs in front of the US supreme court right now in which they impersonate serious newspapers and otherwise indulge in parody. You should read those briefs; they are quite a bit of fun.

Nobody with a brain thinks the Musk Parodies are serious, and they aren’t trying to defraud anyone of anything, so no illegality. Just because a few RWNJs have NO sense of humor or miss all the cues…

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Does no one here understand the difference between free speech and impersonating another person?

Isn’t it funny that the people asking that question are the same people who exhibit the same cognitive dissonance when they’re asked what specific ‘views’ they’re being ‘censored’ for?

Anonymous Coward says:

Where in the 1st amendment...

does it indicate that parody must be clearly specified?

I guess Elon doesn’t realize that when you have to declare something is comedy, it often loses its comedic nature.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Koby (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I guess Elon doesn’t realize that when you have to declare something is comedy, it often loses its comedic nature.

I can go to a comedy club and still have a laugh. I know the Babylon Bee is satire, and I still chuckle. It wasn’t parody, and it wasn’t humor, because noone has laughed with former comedian Kathy Griffin in years and years. It was an impersonation violation under the old TOS. She got caught attempting a fake political endorsement with less than 48 hours before election day.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Whether something is parody doesn’t depend on whether people actually find the thing funny. But the article already said that, and you won’t care even if someone tells you the same thing again.

Ehud Gavron (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: A million times nothing is .. still.. nothing.

you won’t care even if someone tells you the same thing again

Two times nothing is nothing. Three times nothing is nothing.

I can’t educate you for the same reason you keep repeating nothing. Best wishes and all that.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

You chuckle at the Babylon Bee, Koby, because you find abuse, slander, and harassing minorities funny.

And you probably don’t care about ID Theft anyway. Or that there’s a definite cause of those accounts being hacked by crypto hackers.

This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
David says:

Re: Now you are being unfair

I guess Elon doesn’t realize that when you have to declare something is comedy, it often loses its comedic nature.

I didn’t see sarcasm tags on “I am a Free Speech absolutist”, so clearly Musk must be on board with undeclared comedy.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Ehud Gavron (profile) says:

Mr Musk

I don’t know him closely enough to call him by his first name, but applaud those of you who do. The gentleman is a legend. He is the richest acknowledged person on Earth. He’s elevated reusable spacecraft from a hitherto-unknown cruft into reality. He’s sold more EVs than your god of choice.

What he’s less good at is the socializing with humanity. I could speculate, but hey, I’m no doctor and Goldwater Rule. He is what he is.

It’s pretty clear to this outsider that his purchase of Twitter was a mistake, likely the result of a boast while abusing some substance, likely continued because of ego, and no finalized in owning the worst business he’s ever involved himself with.

Did you read this far? Congratulations! I wrote this far hoping you would.

I believe that Mr Musk has bit off more than he can chew, and this 44-45 B $USD will be his legacy of failure, remembered far more than his successes (listed above).

If he was as smart as he claims he is, he’d hire experts and correct the issues. I’m one, but I wouldn’t work for him, and that is the nature of the problem. He’s surrounded himself with yes-men. Groupthink of yes-men is worthless.

Could this be fixed? Yes. Will the egos involved allow it to be fixed? No.

This will be the biggest public corporate failure in history. You can quote me. I said this on November 7th, 2022 at 2115UTC (1415MST).

I own no stock in any of Mr Musk’s companies, nor do I hold any positions on shorts, longs, derivatives, etc. If he called me right now and offered me a job I’d politely decline. I’ll fly him around if he likes, but there’s a level of ego and stupid up with which I will not put.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Ehud Gavron (profile) says:

Re: Re: Grammar and laws of the land

The 1st Amendment permits you to end a sentence with a preposition.

Cute, but no. Grammar is a societal construct. We speak a similar language to effect communication. The 1AM has to do with government limiting choice of expression, which is not a factor here.

Sorry to upset you greatly. Have a warm glass of milk and don’t forget to kiss mommy on the cheek when you go to sleep … just about… now.

Christenson says:

Re: Re: Re:

hey Ehud:
Did you know that when

“That is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put”

was first said, it was Churchill mocking the rule about not ending sentences with prepositions!

Your smile detector seems to be broken. The super-stilted grammer in your own writing isn’t something you should put up with!

P.S. Agree twitter is being destroyed for the reasons stated, the only question is timing.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
David says:

Well, let's see whether he catches up with his success recipes

He is used to looking like a complete idiot until he leaves the job of hiring the right people in competent hands.

He started his tenure at Twitter by firing the right people, so there is plenty of work to do until he gets back to net zero, and if he does, the impetus may help to get further.

Every engineer knows that the best way to improve a legacy project is to make it work somehow and then scrap it and start from scratch once you have a good grasp of all the problems you need to get under control.

Of course, firing everyone with a clue first is hubris since then it is pure luck whether the second pitch will get you further than the first. Assuming the same amount of effort already put in. Which is a lot.

Expensive learning curve, this. But then he can afford looking like a fool right now. It would not have been the best look when Tesla was in rather dire straits.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
David says:

Re: Re:

Darn it, my phrasing. “Firing the right people” was supposed to mean “firing those people who would have been the right ones to continue doing their job”.

Try reading my original article with that meaning in mind. It makes more sense that way. Too bad I botched bringing my meaning across.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Elon's Twitter is backward

Impersonation for parody is potentially problematic enough to permaban people from “no permaban Twitter”. But the opposite applies to people who deliberately spread lies about elections, incite insurrections, or encourage voter intimidation (i.e. terrorism) at voting booths.

Anonymous Coward says:

Free speech for all does not work
since platforms have to moderate content. remove trolls people who post hate speech racist content misinformation fake news or spam. Its hard enough to run a online web service thats global and a major source of information news and political commentary without firing half your workforce
Advertisers will abandon any platform if they see a service thats overrun with racist negative content posted by trolls
I cant see charging people for verification or allowing more video content making much money considering it cost 44billion to buy twitter

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

“Free speech for all does not work since platforms have to moderate content, remove trolls people who post hate speech racist content misinformation fake news or spam.”

Jesus H. Christ, you don’t know when to quit, do you.

Those first two words…. you’re implicating the First Amendment, aren’t you. Well, just for drill, let’s revisit the exact wording of 1A, shall we:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

See that part I bolded for you? Yeah, the part that says Congress shall make no law… abridging free speech, that’s where you need to pay attention a little more closely. Oh Hell, you need to pay a LOT more attention to this. Let me break it down for you in words of one or fewer syllables: There is no clause, modifier, nor footnote explaining that private citizens can’t take some sort of action, either singly or in concert with others, that works to impede the speech of one or more other citizens.

IOW, the government can’t force you, as either a private citizen or as a business, to engage in behavior that would prohibit anyone’s personal speech, your’s included. Neither can it force anyone to engage in some specific speech of any kind, that much should be obvious (though I’m scribbling this because you apparently have yet to grasp this factoid).

None of the above is to say that speech of any kind can’t have consequences. Because Congress is prohibited from taking action, that previously mentioned societal construct is now in full play. That is what allows E.M. to define rules of what he considers acceptable speech, and what is not acceptable, i.e.that which will suffer consequences of the negative kind. And for all of my years, I’ve never been made aware of 1A making any speech of any kind free of consequences vis-a-vis non-governmental entities (like private citizens and/or businesses).

It’s not 1A you’re having a problem with, it’s society in general. And if you don’t like that theorem, then it’s money (the concentration thereof in just a few hands) that’s pissing you off. I suggest that you either learn to live with the reality the rest of us willingly share, or get the fuck outta Dodge!

sumgai

Christenson says:

Re: Re: Picayune much?

Sumgai:
In context, the post you are responding to probably isn’t thinking about free speech in general, but completely free, unmoderated speech on any specific platform.

Free speech for all does not work
since platforms…

Now, that AC is omitting some important qualifiers..since you can say basically anything on 4chan/8chan/8kun, but they have small audiences. But his predictions, as applied to twitter or techdirt, seem sound.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Free speech for all does not work

It does work, so long as you allow that it will be spread across multiple forums. What does not work is putting everybody in the same room, which at times can be problematic for a family gathering, never mind the whole of humanity.

Mike Holloway says:

Musk now threatening to sue boycott promoters

Add to the above that the emperor is now going to remove the free speech of people calling for an advertiser boycott of Twitter. He’s felt the drop in revenues for this thing he bought only so he could champion free speech, and he is not amused.

Ehud Gavron (profile) says:

Re: Emperor Musk

Add to the above that the emperor is now going to remove the free speech of people calling for an advertiser boycott of Twitter. He’s felt the drop in revenues for this thing he bought only so he could champion free speech, and he is not amused.

I don’t think he bought it for amusement. I think he said stupid things while high and then his ego wouldn’t allow him out of it (seriously who waives due diligence???)

This one will be the failure he’s known for. I’m calling it. If I’m wrong, it will be a huge boost to his ego and something for kids in fincial programs learning about for ages. I’m betting on me, but you never know, someone around here could jump out and say “Ehud’s predictions are all wrong, and Elon will make this a success.” No 10Ks and no 10Qs and no other SEC filings will make it difficult to judge.

I guess we’ll see. No I don’t think he bought this to champion free speech. I don’t think he’s amused. I think he’s psychotic and messed up. That’s just my opinion.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Nicolas Foster says:

It's Not Hypocritical to Ban Impersonation

Kathy is free to make jokes at Elon’s expense and even flat out insult him. Elon has made that clear with many celebrities who have done this recently and are still on the platform. Impersonation undermines trust in legit publishers and leads to mass belief in miss-information. It’s a smart play to allow for free speech while protecting legitimacy. You guys are smart enough to know this but are so far left you are intentionally spreading miss-leading info. Funny how before the Twitter buyout you guys were OK with this. Shoes on the other foot now.

Donald Stephens says:

I just got permanently suspended

I just got permanently suspended and wasn’t told what caused that. I’m sarcastic, but never abusive to fellow twitter users, nor do I use foul language. I did Tweet Elon Musk that I would be willing to offer $7.50 for Twitter. Next day I was suspended permanently. I can’t even quit right now and remove my account. I’m in Twitter limbo. I’m in Twimbo.

MuTru says:

Man child

“I’m a free speech absolutist.”

Unless it involves profit, or his personal feelings. Then he’s just some guy who puts no real thought into what he says.

David says:

Re:

“Absolutely not” is also absolutist.

But either way:

From WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006) [wn]:

absolutist
adj 1: pertaining to the principle of totalitarianism [syn:
{absolutist}, {absolutistic}]
n 1: one who advocates absolutism

From WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006) [wn]:

absolutism
n 1: dominance through threat of punishment and violence [syn:
{absolutism}, {tyranny}, {despotism}]
2: a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute
dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or
opposition etc.) [syn: {dictatorship}, {absolutism},
{authoritarianism}, {Caesarism}, {despotism}, {monocracy},
{one-man rule}, {shogunate}, {Stalinism}, {totalitarianism},
{tyranny}]
3: the principle of complete and unrestricted power in
government [syn: {absolutism}, {totalitarianism}, {totalism}]
4: the doctrine of an absolute being

Any questions?

Ehud Gavron (profile) says:

Impersonation

Does no one here understand the difference between free speech and impersonating another person?

If you are free to speak as you want to speak, you are free to say “My name is Ronald Reagan and…” or “My name is Elon Musk and…” Requiring you to not be able to say that violates your freedom of speech. Requiring you to AFFIRM YOUR REAL IDENTITY obligates you to behavior SCOTUS has already ruled lawful – anonymous comments.

I don’t think you’re really asking “Does no one here understand…” I think you’d like there to be a mechanism which allows EITHER impersonation OR anonymous (od nom de plum) comments and you really really wish it was in the first amendment.

It’s not like that. You can be yourself; you can be anonymous; you can be random letters; the CHOICE is YOURS and that allow impersonation.

I’d sign off with someone else’s name but having already chatted with the FBI about that one time I signed a techdirt comment differently, I’ll stick with my chilled speech real name.

Ehud Gavron
Tucson, Arizona, US

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

“I’d sign off with someone else’s name…”

A wise man once said “Always be yourself. Everybody else is already taken!”

That was back before the internet was born. If he said that today, I’m pretty sure he’d be roasted to a fare-thee-well by scads of impersonators.

Ehud Gavron (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Whodun saidwut?

A wise man once said “Always be yourself. Everybody else is already taken!”

And that man’s name? Albert Einstein.

Oscar Wilde said that

The rest is long and TD doesn’t have a “spoiler” part to their markdown… so you can just stop here if you like.

But hey, do you have a minute? I’ve had several encounters with LEOs and one of them was a result of a TechDirt post where (for the only time in almost four decades I did not sign my name as me.)

I’ll make it TL;DR short. It was a discussion on Shiva creating email. I jokingly posted a comment saying effectively “Well people call me E” (they do) “and I’m a male” (that’s what the ID people at the hospital said) “so I’m E-MALE.”

That led to two FBI agents “inviting” me to coffee at a nearby bagel shop.

There’s you’re TL;DR version. You can quit reading as you like… the rest is just filler.

E (EHUD, not E-MALE)

I made some mistakes here, and one was talking to LEOs. Andrew Flusche on YouTube really hammers that a lot. In hindsight he’s right.

I knew one of the SAIC and we’d worked well together. I ran an ISP/WISP/VoIP company and would always say “Hey before you go to the trouble of an NSL just let me know the IP[v4 address] and I’ll let you know if you want that NSL to reflect me or someone else. We only had business customers, so this made sense. I won’t name him because he did nothing wrong.

The other agent had a famous name that is less distinguished. His namesake had cheated on his cancer-ridden wife while campaigning for president. I won’t name him because he did nothing wrong.

The gentlemen (I use the term loosely because I’m fond of saying “guys” and I am led to understand in 202X that’s sexist. Ok) were polite and professional and respectful.

They invited me to sit. There were no handcuffs present nor did anyone appear to be carrying. I did not wear my 5.11’s nor did they.

My expectations based on past interactions with SAIC#1 is that they’d ask about some IP and some child porn. That is the number one thing, and there’s more about this below you will not like.

No such luck, and once I’d said “well what IP are we talking about” [paraphrased from memory] and they asked me about posting on public forums using pseudonames… [that ellipses is me going “WTF?”] and then saying “Are you guys asking me about stuff I posted?”

They had 1/2 inch (roughly 1.25cm) of printout (yeah, laser printed toner on (8.5″x11″ paper](https://www.agooddaytoprint.com/page/paper-size-chart-faq)
which contained a lot of my postings on TechDirt, ArsTechnica, SlashDot, etc.

They pointed to a section where I had posted (about Shiva) and said “Did you sign this as ‘E-Male’?” followed by “Where else do you sign things other than as your name?”

You people don’t know me. You read my words as I read yours. Some like to call me a troll. I’m not. I say it as I see it, and if that’s in contrast to public opinion it’s still how I see it. I don’t post in order to cause a schism. Paul T… he rides me pretty hard on this one, and… I respect his rights to do so. Similarly I respect everyone’s rights to post publicly. I thought even I could post publicly… but turns out signing my name “E-MALE” brought me a visit from the FBI and … may Alan Rickman rest in piece and his name be inscribed in the book of life.

If you’re reading my words — down to this point — and you think this can’t happen to you… they can. At least in this man’s “home of the free.”

Ehud Gavron (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Child Porn

TL;DR – some followup stuff about CSAM and the FBI. If you don’t care, read no further.

Ehud

I’ve debated adding this as promised so I’m going to limit it. CSAM is a real thing. There are A LOT of people who access it, use it, and provide it.

In the US the FBI investigates it. Of 6-10 or so cases in a few years the companies I ran provided the FBI “the next step” to get to the perpetrator of any involved crimes. The FBI never contacted these people. I know that because a) I was not subject to an NDA except for one NSL, b)I let the FBI know I’d be contacting the parties after one year, and if they didn’t like it we could discuss in front of a judge, and c)I DID contact those companies.

ALL of them (yeah, 100%) said they had never been contacted, were under no restrictions to speak to the topic, had no idea their users had CSAM, etc.

It’s a problem. The people we empower to stop this problem aren’t doing it. Programmative (app or AI or whatever) can’t find it. Encryption is not a black hole and I’m not touching that here. The real problem is our LEOs are useless. Think of the children. No go fire the LEOs and hire ones that are useful.

Ehud
Tucson
Arizona
United States
(Thank you for having my back, agent C. I really hope you retired and this doesn’t hit your desk again.)

Anon says:

On Twitter...

I read a thread that suggested the previous management had during talks aimed at securing advertising commitments for 2023, made presentations suggesting they had no idea what twitter would be like when Elon bought it out. This resulted in significantly less committed ad revenue, suggesting the old management actively sabotaged Twitter’s future (then bailed with massive golden parachutes). Also, being privy to Twitter’s finances, they likely knew it was challenged with or without that revenue, so knew they were the wildlife actively abandoning the sinking ship. They just added a few extra holes on the way out.

Now Musk is clued out – people using Twitter for free are not like customers for $50,000 cars. they have no commitment; and his “throw everything at the wall” approach and frequent 180° turns may work for making cars or rockets, but not for an active software full of cranky anonymous people. His problems now are human, not engineering, and Musk doesn’t do human well. His best bet is to find someone competenet who likes a good challenge and better understands people, put them in charge, keep his hands (and mouth) away, pay the bills and hope it still floats in 6 months to a year.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Christenson says:

Re: Twitter and Elon

Gotta disagree with you there — Twitter’s 2021 financial numbers were PUBLIC ($10B revenue from advertising, lost like $500M on that, with $800M due to a lawsuit settlement over share price volatility). Especially with the user growth, they stood to probably make about $250M in 2022.

As to the advertising conference, well, the lack of answers on moderation last summer has turned into chaos after the deal closed — and that’s on Musk, he said very publicly he wanted to change how twitter was moderated, but gave twitter no details when queried. Advertisers last week asked Musk how he reconciled “no changes to moderation” with the huge staff cuts in the face of brand safety, and Musk proceeds to block the leader of the advertising conference who asked.

Twitter management did what it was supposed to do … sold the company for $44B, about twice a reasonable price. Inability to predict Musk really wasn’t part of their job; this constant 180 turning from Musk is very much the pattern of a narcissist and an abuser, maybe even a psychopath.

Anyway, since they now have to pay an extra billion or two of debt service, and they’ve kneecapped their ad revenue with no way to recover without firing the chief twit, bankruptcy is on its way. This even if they find the greatest moderation algorithm ever and roll it out tomorrow, perfectly.

Tanner Andrews (profile) says:

Re:

securing advertising commitments for 2023, made presentations suggesting they had no idea what twitter would be like when Elon bought it out

That might seem bad at first, but it has the advantage of honesty.

The ad reps could have represented that they anticipated stability into 2023. However, they knew that a musky deal was likely in the near future, so that stability and predictability for 2023 was at best a mirage. Therefore, representing that stability was anticipated would have been a deceptive sales tactic.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

J Cline says:

Impersonation

Considering that fake and inauthentic accounts are a major problem for Twitter (and have been forever) AND that Musk already said he was going to kick bots and impersonators… does anyone really not get it?

The outrage seems falsely performative, also typical for Twitter.

And aren’t The Outraged moving off Twitter anyway? Just do it already; no one outside Outraged Thought-Bubbledom really cares.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

EolonMusket (profile) says:

StupidRich

I saw an opportunity to charge for free speech and I took it.
I saw a state that had good tax incentives for my electric cars, and I milked it.
I saw a great pot of gov grant money and low-ball loans to finance a rocket plan. I milked it.
Ladies like my money so I made lots of babies, some of them still want to talk to me.
I tried to make boring things better, and now my cars drive in tubes. Stupid cities refused to allow me to tunnel under them for lots of money.
I like smoking weed and milking things … are you still listening?
I’ve got more great ideas will you just pay me now for them – I’ll tell you all about them later.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Pseudonymous Coward says:

At this point, I think we can safely inculcate a new rule: anyone who talks about “free speech” in the context of social networks and moderation really means “the freedom for me to say whatever the hell I like without consequences, but not for you“.

Musk is certainly another data point that confirms that…

Ehud Gavron (profile) says:

Re: Twitter turning into Truth? Whut?

RandomTroll wrote:

Sooo… follow-up: How long before Twitter turns into Gab/Truth/Parler/etc.?
ALL of those claim to be for free speech…

So my follow-up to his/her followup is “What makes anyone think Twitter IS NOT ALREADY the same as Gab/Truth/Parler/etc.?”

Specifically
– all are free to join
– all claim freedom of speech but limit that as convenient
– all are no longer the choice of expression media for the masses
– there is no differentiation. They could all be different Mastodon configs with the same data only a different theme.

Twitter is history. And yet, like Gab/Truth/Parler, it’s still around. What gives?

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re:

They could all be different Mastodon configs with the same data only a different theme.

That’s actually true of Gab and Truth Social: Both of them use Mastodon as their foundation. (Gab switched to using Masto, whereas Truth Social was built on Masto from the get-go.) That said: Truth Social doesn’t federate with any other service (so far as I know), and Gab was largely shut out of the broader Fediverse by everyone who didn’t want to deal with Gab’s bullshit.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get all our posts in your inbox with the Techdirt Daily Newsletter!

We don’t spam. Read our privacy policy for more info.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...