It’s Not The Decision, But The Process: Musk & The Trump Decision

from the stop-the-nonsense dept

Going to put this up front, because I expect a bunch of people to not read and assume something very incorrect: I think there are valid arguments (even pretty strong ones) for why it makes sense for social media platforms to allow Donald Trump on them (there are also valid arguments against it). But, conducting a poll is the stupidest possible way to make that decision. It’s Musk’s platform, and he’s free to run it however he wants, even making the stupidest possible decisions. But it should raise questions among its users whether or not they wish to embrace such a platform, and just how much damage Musk will do in pursuit of stunts.

Making serious decisions, which can have massive impact on people’s lives, through stunts is not just reckless, but it foreshadows much more dangerous decision-making to come.

Now, to the details: as you’re probably aware, over the weekend Elon Musk ran a poll on Twitter asking people whether or not Donald Trump’s Twitter account should be reinstated:

This is despite his earlier claim that no decisions would be made on changes to trust & safety policies or the reinstatement of accounts until a “content moderation council” could be convened:

While the poll started out with Trump heavily, heavily favored (which perhaps says something about Musk’s staunchest supporters), over the course of 24 hours, it moved more and more towards even, but ended (as you can see above) barely in the “yes” column. Musk then immediately announced that the public had spoken and he was reinstating the account, repeating the very, very stupid Latin phrase “vox populi, vox dei” (some recently departed Twitter employees informed me that he’s been saying this all the fucking time in meetings, and people are mocking him for it behind his back, but he seems to think it makes him sound cool).

A few minutes after that tweet went up, Trump’s account came back. As of me writing this, Trump has not tweeted again from the account. When asked, he has insisted that he’s staying on his own flailing platform Truth Social. According to SEC filings, part of Trump’s deal with Truth Social is that he signed a contract obligating him to use the site rather than other social media. There’s a literal clause in the agreement that his social media activity must appear exclusively on Truth Social for at least six hours. It’s in the section on “license agreement” and notes:

From December 22, 2021, until the expiration of 18 months thereafter, (the “TMTG Social Media Exclusivity Term”), President Trump has agreed to first channel any and all social media communications and posts coming from his personal profile to the Truth Social platform before posting that same social media communication and/or post to any other social media platform that is not Truth Social (collectively, “Non-TMTG Social Media”) until the expiration of “DJT/TMTG Social Media 6-Hour Exclusive” which means the period commencing when DJT posts any social media communication onto the Truth Social Platform and ending six (6) hours thereafter; provided that he may post social media communications from his personal profile that specifically relates to political messaging, political fundraising or get-out-the vote efforts at any time on any Non-TMTG social media platforms. Unless notice is given, the TMTG Social Media Exclusivity Term extends in perpetuity for additional 180-day terms.

Of course, Trump’s signature on a licensing agreement is about as trustworthy as Elon’s promise of no reinstatements until his content moderation council met.

For what it’s worth, in addition to reinstating Trump, Musk reinstated various other awful people, mocked the head of the ADL, Jonathan Greenblatt, (who I have policy differences with, but Musk’s doing so immediately resulted in a bunch of Twitter users gleefully sharing anti-Semitic comments, claiming Musk was signaling to them directly) and made it clear he is in favor of chaos for the sake of chaos with no concern over what harm it might do.

Well, there was one exception to that. Musk has said a few times now that he won’t reinstate Alex Jones, and when pressed on it, claimed that it was because “My firstborn child died in my arms. I felt his last heartbeat. I have no mercy for anyone who would use the deaths of children for gain, politics or fame.”

And, of course, this partly demonstrates the problem. Musk recognizes the potential harms in one area of trauma that he has personally experienced, but seems to not care one bit about harms others have experienced.

In some ways, it’s the worst of what people assume about content moderation on most websites: that it’s driven entirely by the whims of an out of touch billionaire CEO. In most cases, that’s not true. Here, Elon is making it clear that’s how it will work on his Twitter.

Perhaps equally problematic was that, this weekend, after Jordan Peterson played the “white man’s gambit” of arguing for less anonymity, and Jack Dorsey piped in to suggest that would be a bad idea, Musk popped in to note that “Verification through the payment system plus phones, but allowing pseudonyms is the least bad solution I can think of.”

Again, this is telling. Musk is focused on “the least bad solution” that he can think of, rather than, perhaps, talking to any of the many, many people who have actually studied this issue and found that forced verification is extremely dangerous for free speech, especially for those with legitimate reasons to fear for their safety. People speaking out against authoritarian rulers. People blowing the whistle on malfeasance. Victims of domestic violence or sexual assault calling it out.

But, again, Musk hasn’t experienced any of that personally, so why should it matter?

Bringing this back around to the point: it’s impossible to do content moderation well at scale. Everyone makes tons of mistakes. But there are real lessons out there on things that work well and things that are stupid and dangerous. And Musk is making it clear that he wants to ignore all of those lessons, and redo all the mistakes, perhaps making them worse in the process. It’s possible that he’ll run the learning curve and eventually land back where things kinda were before, but with less clarity and understanding, but we sorta predicted that back in April.

I’m not necessarily upset that Trump’s account is back (whether he tweets or not). I do think, however, the process by which Musk got there demonstrates a near total lack of concern for how any of this can and should work, and especially no concern for the harm he can do to others in the process.

Back when Twitter initially decided to issue a permanent ban on Trump, I wrote a long post detailing how such a decision could not be an easy one, and there were plenty of arguments against it. But, in the end, the various platforms had to weigh a variety of factors, including how responsible they wished to feel concerning the attempted overturning of an election. Similarly, when the Oversight Board was reviewing Facebook’s decision to ban Trump, we filed a comment that did not take a stand on either side of the central question, but did advocate for a much better process in how Facebook makes such a decision. We concluded that comment by noting:

 There may not be any one right answer, or even any truly right answer. In fact, in the end the best decision may have little to do with the actual choice that results but rather the process used to get there.

And that takes us back to Musk’s decision making here. If you’re going to do content moderation and trust & safety, having some sort of underlying process and principles is important. That’s not to say they can’t change over time, or that they won’t face challenges as every possible edge case shows up, such that you realize that nearly every case feels like an “edge case” that doesn’t neatly play into the rules. But you need to have some sort of basic concepts behind what you’re doing.

Throwing it entirely open to a vote is, to put it mildly, crazy. I mean, for all of Musk’s silly pretentious “vox populai, vox dei” stuff, plenty of people have pointed out that the phrase originates from Alcuin of York in a letter to Charlemagne in 800, in which he warns that believing such a thing is dangerous:

“And those people should not be listened to who keep saying the voice of the people is the voice of God, since the riotousness of the crowd is always close to insanity.”

Of course, like so many things, there are situations where a “democratic” vote makes sense, and many where it does not. A purely democratic vote can be used to oppress a minority, for example. Also, a simple poll on Twitter… is not a representative sample. There are all sorts of problems with it. First of all, Musk set up a simple yes/no option, when it could be a lot more nuanced that. But by framing it the way he did, those are the only choices. Then there are the questions of who actually saw it and who voted. That’s not public at all.

Finally, for months (literally until a month ago), Musk insisted that Twitter was full of bots, not people. And, even here, he admitted partway through the vote that “bots” were voting. Though, of course, he insisted that it was only the people voting “no” who must be bots and “troll armies.” Again, that certainly does not suggest that anything about this poll is “the voice of the people.” Not only is he admitting that much of it is not, in his belief, he is publicly stating his own bias regarding what the correct answer should be.

Through all of this, Musk has made clear that the content moderation practices for Twitter are now whatever he thinks of, on a whim, that will be most entertaining for himself. He has no real process. He has no real principles. He does not care one bit about past lessons. He does not care about what damage or danger his whims may cause. None of that matters to him.

And voting is not how content moderation decisions should be made, at least not without significant effort and education going into the process. Merely asking people “yes or no” without detailing the tradeoffs, or the nuances, or the specific reasons why suggests a lack of concern not just for how all of this plays out, but for having an informed public weighing in at all.

He is, of course, free to do all of that (within certain limits). But it does not mean that people will enjoy being on is site, or that advertisers will feel comfortable putting their brands on the site. It has convinced me to spend less time there, as it does not feel safe at all, and I no longer have any confidence that there are people in a decision-making role at the company who can be trusted to want to do the right thing, even when the right thing may be impossible to do.

Musk does not care about doing the right thing. He cares about attention. It’s a choice he is free to make. But it’s not one that I need to support.

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 “It’s Not The Decision, But The Process: Musk & The Trump Decision”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
65 Comments
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PeterScott (profile) says:

Polling is just an excuse for his decisions.

Musk knows his audience, so did a poll with known outcome.

Musk behaves much like teenage edgelord with twitter, surrounding himself with rightwing yes men cronies, as you can see in tweets where he interacts.

It’s hard to imagine how this doesn’t essentially end up with the same tone as “Truth” Social and Parler.

brewsterkahle (profile) says:

"Vox populi vox Dei" means the opposite...

“Vox populi vox Dei” is from a quotation saying the opposite of voice of people is voice of God:

“…riotiousness of the crowd is always very close to madness” –Alcuin 8th C AD.

Here is the book I am quoting (The Little Oxford dictionary of quotations):

https://archive.org/details/littleoxforddict0000unse_b9y8/page/242/mode/1up?q=%22Nec+audiendi+qui+solent+dicere%2C+vox+populi%2C+vox+dei%2C+quum+tumultuositas+vulgi+semper+insaniae+proxima+sit%22

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

Of course, if youd read the article, youd have found this:

“And those people should not be listened to who keep saying the voice of the people is the voice of God, since the riotousness of the crowd is always close to insanity.”

as in, the full quote. and how was that quote introduced?:

Throwing it entirely open to a vote is, to put it mildly, crazy. I mean, for all of Musk’s silly pretentious “vox populai, vox dei” stuff, plenty of people have pointed out that the phrase originates from Alcuin of York in a letter to Charlemagne in 800, in which he warns that believing such a thing is dangerous:

Indeed, looking at your link, I find it also sources to a letter from Alcuin, letter 164.

Your comment fails to recite the part of the quote that is being refrenced, and confuses the question of attribution. “heres a link to book of quotes that includes this specific quote” would not have sounded like a correction, while actually serving the seeming purpose of your comment, which was to share the link. The rest of your comment strips context the article included while sounding like a correction.

Christenson says:

Re: vox populi, vox dei

Akshually, if you look it up, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vox_Populi,_Vox_Dei, you would find that usage of vox populi, vox dei acquired much more favorable connotations in about 1327, by the Archbishop of Canterbury, who was charging King Richard II in a sermon, and continued that way as the name of a 1709 whig tract that argued for a choice of government based on what the people liked best, god and (Christian) scripture having said nothing on the subject.

For Koby, there’s lots of reasons to think the poll results are unrepresentative, with the Trumpian frothers and Elon Fanboi cults all closely watching Elon and voting quickly, while the more reasoned majority catches up a little more slowly and Elon simply didn’t allow the majority to catch up — if they cared for Elon’s poll at all.

Finally, what happens if a bot account called “RealDonaldTrumpShadow” proceeds to retweet everything Trump says from Truth Social?? You have to wonder if Trump’s 8 hour delay is worth the paper it’s printed on.
That’s effectively what’s happening with Twitter except the process is currently manual and it’s a bunch of journalists, not one account.

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

This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Koby (profile) says:

And Charlemagne Was A Fabulous Ruler

But, conducting a poll is the stupidest possible way to make that decision. It’s Musk’s platform, and he’s free to run it however he wants, even making the stupidest possible decisions. But it should raise questions among its users whether or not they wish to embrace such a platform, and just how much damage Musk will do in pursuit of stunts.

Musk’s decision to conduct a poll is genius on multiple levels.

1.) We were told that the vast majority wanted Trump gone. Trump was an extremist. The poll dispelled the myth, and demonstrates that, despite years of demonization, he’s still in the majority.

2.) The censors informed us that private platforms are free to moderate however they desire. But if a platform doesn’t arrive at the foregone conclusion of the censors, then the censors have a meltdown.

3.) Trump was never going to use Twitter ever again, so unbanning the account doesn’t actually result in anything practical. So the mere unbanning of the account exposes the censors as they howl about the “damage” of free speech, even when no such speech is occurring.

4.) Despite Musk not bending the knee yet, we’re seeing people and organizations virtue signal and leave the platform, only to demonstrate how reliant they are on the platform and shortly return. This weekend CBS news tried to quit, only to relinquish after 40 hours. But at least it was 40 hours that the platform was protected from disinformation.

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

Re: No, jackass.

What is this flowery, rosy-ass bullshit? This isn’t a “Return of the king” cliche, this is the “cultist bringing back an eldritch horror” cliche. Bringing back Trump is genuinely the worst decision that Musk could’ve made. Putting aside how Trump practically used his account to stir the events leading up to the riot of 1/6, this all but ensures the end of Twitter and the mass exodus from it. He all but alienated those who despise Trump (a lot of people) and those who are still connected to reality (also a huge chunk of people). This is the last thing you should do as the CEO of Fucking Twitter. It’s a “Hail, Mary” for someone who puts charm and politics over knowing how to run a social media website.

I’m not even going to justify the reasons why doing this through a poll is a bad idea, because it’s ultimately pointless. It wouldn’t have mattered if Musk conducted a poll, because in the end he would’ve done it anyways without the peoples’ consent. It’s giving the illusion of choice, a real authoritarian tactic.

Cat_Daddy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Musk a visionary? How? He is literally trying to turn the verification system (you know, that system that defines a genuine account from a parody account) into a paid subscription scheme. That’s not a rookie mistake, that is incompetence on full display. Musk is not a visionary. He’s a businessman with a napoleonic complex that likes to talk big, be all flash and no substance. All he survived on was just talk and luck.

He’s not warming up, he’s burning Twitter down to the ground.

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

Re:

We were told that the vast majority wanted Trump gone. Trump was an extremist. The poll dispelled the myth, and demonstrates that, despite years of demonization, he’s still in the majority.

No, you weren’t told that the vast majority wanted Trump gone, you were told that many wanted Trump gone and he was banned because he repeatedly broke the TOS and then he instigated an insurrection. Once again you are doing your history revisionism, I guess someone rooting for a liar see no problem in promulgating lies themselves.

But at least it was 40 hours that the platform was protected from disinformation.

Give us examples of disinformation that CBS has published. Go ahead, make our day. My guess is that you wont since you are a cowardly liar that’ll refuse to answer as usual.

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

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

Koby (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

The difference — the original CBS fake news story was based on zero investigation. It was pure slander and bias, designed to steer viewers toward their preferred political candidate. These are the hallmarks of fake news.

The new CBS reporting is based on an actual investigation. They actually asked the shop owner for a copy, received it promptly, and then had an expert analyze it. This is something they could have done two years ago.

In other words: fake news is a story that turns out to be false, and would have been obviously realized to be untrue by using basic journalistic techniques.

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

Re: Re: Re:3

The difference — the original CBS fake news story was based on zero investigation. It was pure slander and bias, designed to steer viewers toward their preferred political candidate. These are the hallmarks of fake news.

You are fucking stupid. Point to ANY news agency at the time that had access to an untampered copy of the drive, JUST ONE. Even NYPost didn’t have one and they didn’t dare say what they had was authentic you moron.

The new CBS reporting is based on an actual investigation. They actually asked the shop owner for a copy, received it promptly, and then had an expert analyze it. This is something they could have done two years ago.

I want to point out that Mac Isaac didn’t part with a copy of the original drive until very recently which nicely segues into the release of his new book tomorrow, you know, rile up drooling idiots like you to increase the sales.

And seriously, are you really going to talk about “steering viewers towards their preferred political candidate”? Shit man, you are even more stupid than I believed possible. Point to ANY news agency that doesn’t have a political bias. Even NYPost is biased and will steer their readers to their preferred political candidate and I don’t see you complaining about them one bit after they published the Biden laptop story without doing a proper forensic analysis, aka not adhering to basic journalistic integrity. Guess what that makes you aside from being monumentally stupid? A fucking hypocrite.

In other words: fake news is a story that turns out to be false, and would have been obviously realized to be untrue by using basic journalistic techniques.

In other words, you are a fucking moron that are too stupid to look up facts, or even understand them, instead you write and make up shit that anyone with half a brain realizes can only be done after the fact.

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

Koby (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Point to ANY news agency at the time that had access to an untampered copy of the drive, JUST ONE.

Rudy Giuliani did begin handing out copies in late Oct 2020. The Daily Caller was able to promptly verify the emails’ authenticity independently from the laptop. No amount of tampering with the laptop could have falsified the digital signatures from the emails to match up with the private key stored on Google’s servers; only hacking google could have accomplished the signature match.

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:5

It’s like your brain turns to jello every time this type of topic comes up. Nobody has disputed that parts of the information was authentic, what has been said is that no one could guarantee the authenticity of all the information because the copies Rudy handed out had been severely mishandled from a forensic standpoint and the copies that then circulated was tampered with in different ways. This is something even Mac Isaac pointed out:

I do know that there have been multiple attempts over the past year-and-a-half to insert questionable material into the laptop as in, not physically, but passing off this misinformation or disinformation as coming from the laptop, and that is a major concern of mine because I have fought tooth and nail to protect the integrity of this drive and to jeopardize that is going to mean that everything that I sacrificed will be for nothing.

No amount of tampering with the laptop could have falsified the digital signatures from the emails to match up with the private key stored on Google’s servers; only hacking google could have accomplished the signature match.

Which doesn’t matter one bit, because the authenticity of some of the stuff at the time wasn’t in question after the initial forensic analysis was done – but that did in no way prove that the copy as a whole was authentic in any way. The copy Rudy passed around was and still is a fucking mess where a multitude of people have rooted through it like hungry dogs pawing through a garbage bin.

And your are fucking naïve in how someone can created compromising emails, you don’t need to “hack Google”: The New York Times reported in January 2020 that Russian military intelligence had hacked Burisma beginning in November 2019; a co-founder of the firm that discovered the hacking said Russians were stealing email credentials.

Oh, look! You can use stolen credentials to impersonate someone. Imagine that! And all those fake emails now have “unfalsifiable” digital signatures from Google! Yay!

Someone saying something is impossible when it comes to breaching computer security is a fucking fool or has disconnected the computer and then shredded it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

designed to steer viewers toward their preferred political candidate

Yeah, that’s what did it. The laptop.

Never mind 400k Americans died because he decided to wing it with Covid.
Or never getting that fucking wall you tards wanted built.
Or not getting Mexico to foot the bill.
Or not doing anything while that gimp vet and Bannon scammed the idiots who thought they’d pay for the wall themselves.
Or not locking Hillary up.
Or his tariffs doing anything other than raising prices because everyone but you simps knew that China wasn’t paying them.
Or 4 years of ‘infrastructure week’ with something always happening in 2 weeks.
Or failing to deliver his sooper dooper Trumpcare.
Or not repealing the ACA.
Or not making trickle down economics work this time.
Or not eliminating the federal deficit. (but increasing it 60% counts for something, I guess)
Or not helping out the coal industry. (that people believed that still makes me laugh)
Or not negotiating a better nuclear deal with Iran.
Or not bringing the troops back from Afghanistan.

None of those things contributed to him getting his ass handed to him along with a big middle finger cake from the American people – it was the laptop story.

The laptop that all of you people seemed to know about, and were talking about extensively, despite it being the most obvious hidden story scrubbed from all corners of the Internet in modern history.

That’s what you people have your collective diapers in a knot over.

This is why we laugh at you and people like you. You’re fucking one IQ point away from moderately delayed, and actively celebrate your ignorance.

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

Re: Re: Re: Old Media

Koby:
CBS is reporting

1) That there’s a real possibility Hunter Biden’s so called laptop was planted by the Russians. (True — Russians would have had lots of access to e-mails from Ukraine, and Hunter Biden, as son of Joe Biden, powerful congresscritter would be a good investment for them)

2) This week, it turns out some of the messages on that laptop were cryptographically signed by the Ukrainians. However, the republicans handling the laptop/drive have mis-handled the laptop and over-written parts of the hard drive, so it is impossible to eliminate the possibility that the laptop was a plant.

Not that CBS isn’t being lazy and chasing clicks — it’s pretty clear from Hunter’s biography on Wikipedia that Joe Biden specifically insulated himself from his son’s political influence, being aware of Hunter’s less-than-highly successful career and Hunter’s serious drug and alcohol problems.

Compare that to the Trump guy that got convicted this week of funnelling Russian cash to the Trump campaign, and Trump children actually working in the whitehouse.

BernardoVerda (profile) says:

Re:

It weird how every forum that I spend any time on, turns out to have at least one persistent internet “genius” devoted to enlightening the sadly ignorant internet populace — who specializes in being quite wrong, and furthermore in being wrong as stupidly as possible.

I think this phenomenon deserves to be codified as a “Law”, similar to Poe’s Law, Godwin’s Law, etc…

I can only assume that such a Law has already become part of Internet lore. Would someone kindly point me in its direction?

John85851 (profile) says:

Let Trump come back

I agree with people who say Trump should be let back into Twitter, for the sole reason that he’ll say something (else) incriminating.
The guy likes to brag, so it’s only a matter of time until he says something stupid again, such as how the FBI totally made a mess of his office by taking the top secret documents out of the desk and putting them all over the floor. So, yes, he admits to having top secret documents.

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

Heads Musk Wins, Tails We Lose

Does anyone actually think that if the voting had been against letting Trump back on Twitter that Musk would have kept the block in place?

He just uses obvious polls as air cover for his horrible decisions and if the polls ever don’t back him, he’ll claim to be a “contrarian” and ignore the results.

Anathema Device (profile) says:

Trump and Dumb

  1. Yeah, the thing about his first born child sob sob is bullshit. Musk just doesn’t want to be part of the enlarging black hole that is Alex Jones’s legal situation and finances. Also, there is probably a one to one relationship between Musk’s fans, Jones’s fans, and Trump fans. He’s probably already done enough to keep them on his side, so too bad so sad for Jones.
  2. Trump being on Twitter again is a travesty, and an outright accelerator in the coarsening of public discourse, but the harm he can do is only to the GOP at this point. Every time he opens his yap, the Democratic will to resist and remove him goes up, as does voting intention. He will continue to remind every non-Maga sane person (who make up the majority of voters, don’t forget) what the price of letting him back in the White House is, and take attention away from those trying to edge out from under his shadow. And those who sought to imitate him for gain, will continue to yoke themselves to his reputation and fall.

In other words – Lord, make him a convicted felon, but not yet 🙂

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

Benjamin Jay Barber says:

Every Mike Masnick bootlicking Spectacular

Every articles is about how there will be a parade of horrables, if we allow everyone to have their voice, and he proposes that we give people the power deafen them.

Yet, every conversation going back the Gutenberg has shown that this claim of danger is hyperbolic and self serving, as the priesthood gets its power from declaring truth.

nasch (profile) says:

Re:

Democracy means everyone gets to participate. Ochlocracy means the majority gets to trample the minority.

“ochlocracy is characterised by the absence or impairment of a procedurally civil and democratic process.”

So if there’s well regulated civil democratic process by which the majority oppresses the minority, that’s still democracy.

LostInLoDOS (profile) says:

Wow

1)
as private owner; Musk can make and change any rules he wants. He can make those changes based on any method he wants.

2)

“but seems to not care one bit about harms others have experienced.”

No US citizen has been hurt directly by a Trump text. And what ever you want to believe about imagined “dog whistles” doesn’t change that fact. Every person is responsible for their own personal decisions. Acting on some pretend imaginary idea that isn’t stated is on the actor alone.

3)

“forced verification is extremely dangerous for free speech”

No, it is not. In the last 30 years or so a bunch of spineless crybaby’s decided that they should be protected from their own actions. All throughout history people have stood up to “authoritarian rulers” and injustice publicly. And suffered for change. There is no rule in reality that says you should be protected from breaking the law: regardless of the reason. If you break the law
You are a criminal.
It’s that simple.

4)

“so why should it matter?”

The only two things that matter are the law and what the owner thinks.

5)

“and especially no concern for the harm he can do to others in the process.”

Yet not once has anyone shown his decisions to place people in harm. Unless you consider a generation of people who go catatonic at a bad name a good thing.

6)

“Throwing it entirely open to a vote is, to put it mildly, crazy”

Interesting. Isn’t that democracy? Putting it to a vote?

7)

“But by framing it the way he did, those are the only choices”

Sounds like every ballot measure ever in US elections.
What Musk posted was a clear choice. He didn’t hide it in doublespeak like state measures do. Should not et al.

8)

“whatever he thinks of, on a whim, that will be most entertaining for himself”

The benefit of being the owner.

He does not care about what damage or danger his whims may cause.

It’s his web service. You don’t have a right to be on it. If you don’t like the decisions, go make your own. That’s what was said when Republicans complained about the President of the United States being blocked from the platform.
If you don’t like the rules, go away.
It’s really easy.

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

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...