‘Free Speech Absolutist’ Elon Musk Suspends Critics On ExTwitter, Asks People To Be Nicer
from the free-speech-relativist dept
The inevitable has happened and Elon has started banning and suppressing the speech of folks who were “on his team,” leading to many suddenly realizing that maybe he wasn’t such a free speech supporter after all.
Look, we’ve spent the better part of the last three years pointing out that Elon Musk does not understand free speech and has often worked directly against basic principles of free speech. He has filed numerous lawsuits that seek to suppress speech. And even if you want to claim he somehow took a more “free speech” approach to running ExTwitter than his predecessors, you’d still be wrong.
He has regularly banned journalists who anger him or shut down reporting that challenges his political allies. He has repeatedly throttled links to sites he views as competitive and recently admitted to suppressing posts with links to news sources.
And, of course, when it matters most for free speech, in pushing back against government attempts at suppression, Musk has shown that he’s a pushover for authoritarian demands, so long as he is supportive of the government in question. While he has occasionally stood up to when he ideologically disagrees with the government, these seem to be the exceptions that prove the rule.
Even Elon’s own ExTwitter transparency report admits that under his watch, account suspensions have tripled compared to what they were pre-Musk.
There is no measure under which you can say that Elon is a bigger supporter of free speech than the previous management of Twitter, except in the very, very narrow category of “allowing bigoted Elon Musk fans to be loudly disruptive on the platform.”
And now, even that is coming back to bite him a bit.
In the last week, a bunch of MAGA folks called out Elon for his support for H1B visas and other attempts to bring in high-skilled tech workers to the US. Given that many of the MAGA supporters have spent much of the last two years falsely claiming that Elon was “bringing free speech back,” it was almost amusing to watch them slowly realize that he’s willing to suspend them or to take away their premium features on the site when he gets angry with them.
The most prominent account was Laura Loomer, whose biggest claim to fame seems to be her ability to get banned from platforms.

Musk then used the favorite trick to justify account suppression not being an attack on free speech by redefining spam to mean something… totally unrelated to spam.

Musk’s explanation raises more questions than it answers. This is Elon retconning a justification for the suppression of certain accounts. First, he claims that the algorithm is set to “maximize unregretted user-seconds,” a made-up, impossible-to-calculate stat that he’s talked about for a while now. He then claims that the way the algorithm does this is by rating certain accounts based on how frequently other paying accounts mute or block them. But then he adds a caveat: if he discovers a brigading campaign by accounts to mute/block other accounts in an attempt to suppress their reach, ExTwitter can magically parse out the real mutes/blocks from the fake brigaded ones, and declare some accounts to be “spam.”
This is all a lot of nonsense for Elon to be able to suppress any speech he wants and try to justify it as spam (just like he’s done in the past by redefining “doxxing.”) Of course, as with Elon’s ever-changing definition of doxxing to justify his own actions, I imagine that his legion of fans will continue to buy into his nonsense definition of spam.
Well, except for those MAGA faithful who are now furious that their faces are being eaten by the Leopards Eating Faces Party they supported.
In other words, Musk reserves the right to unilaterally decide which blocks and mutes are “legitimate” and which are not, based on criteria known only to him. This arbitrary and opaque process is a far cry from a principled commitment to free speech.
(Also, I won’t even get into how his tweet misunderstands the whole “live by the sword/die by the sword” line, but will leave that as an exercise for readers).
The end result of this, though, came down to Musk pleading with people to stop being such assholes on his site he took over specifically to unban people for being assholes.

I mean, it’s not like we didn’t warn Elon exactly how this would go. And, it’s not like we haven’t written about how content moderation teams aren’t about ideology. They just wish everyone would stop being jerks, which is the key to any site that allows user-generated content.
I know that I’m banging the drum over this over and over again, but it’s because there are still a ton of people insisting, falsely, that Elon Musk has some sort of principled take on free speech, when it’s been made clear over and over and over and over again that his take is based entirely on his own whims of what he wants, and not any actual understandable conception of free speech.
No matter how many times Musk is caught red-handed suppressing speech he doesn’t like, a vocal contingent will likely continue to buy into the myth of him as a “free speech absolutist.” But for anyone willing to look objectively at his actions rather than his words, the reality is undeniable. Elon Musk’s “free speech” posture is nothing more than a flimsy rhetorical cover for his own desire to control the discourse.
Yes, he has every right to do this on his own platform, but so too did the operators of Twitter before him. Musk may draw the lines of content moderation slightly differently than the previous team, but he certainly seems to draw them much more arbitrarily according to his personal whims.
Filed Under: content moderation, doxxing, elon musk, free speech, h1-b visas, immigration, laura loomer, maga, spam
Companies: twitter, x




Comments on “‘Free Speech Absolutist’ Elon Musk Suspends Critics On ExTwitter, Asks People To Be Nicer”
America finally does something better than Japan
It took years for Shinzo Abe and his sycophants to turn against electric car maker CEO Carlos Ghosn. For Donald Trump and Elon Musk, it only took a couple of months!
Re:
“Please be nice,” begs the nazi who welcomed in other nazis.
Re: Re:
Conservatives love to ask “why can’t we be friends” about liberals and such. They never ask themselves if they’re even trying to be friendly in the first place. They want “the other side” to reach out and “understand” conservative concerns, but they never want to do that themselves. Conservatives who truly want to “build bridges” can start by giving up the foundation of hate upon which they want those bridges built; if they can’t do that, well, sucks to be them.
Re: Re: Re: 'Yes I called you a threat to the country yesterday, why aren't you working with me today?!'
You can set your watch by the consistent reliability of conservatives going from vilifying and accusing the Others of the most heinous crimes and motivations imaginable while calling any attempts to work together treason and anti-american to calling for ‘co-operation’ and ‘forgiveness’ the second they achieve any sort of power and need the other side to either work with or at least not against them.
Re: Re: Re:
Well yeah, other humans with traits like critical thinking, understanding nuance, and empathy will, of course, have to do all the heavy lifting.
At least he forced the Elon’s Jet account to Bluesky.
I am shocked, shocked I say
MAGAts on Twitter: But I’m a member in good standing of the Leopards Eating Peoples Faces party, why is my face on the menu?!
Re:
Someone needs to Get Laura a LEPFP Hoodie.
Re:
I really think the line should be the Leopards Eating Faces Party, dropping the ‘peoples’, because then it can be oh no, i didn’t think they were going to eat peoples faces to really drive home the dehumanization of how they see other people.
Raging asshole who repeats hatespeech, insults people, suddenly wants people to be nicer.
The dude is and has always been a thin skinned bully who is only fine kicking people when it isn’t him.
I wish I could celebrate what may be the implosion of the GOP and MAGAts but there is plenty of time for them to destroy the world that we currently live in.
Re:
People have been predicting the collapse of the GOP since 2008. It’s proven remarkably resilient.
Yes, the racists who want to keep POC out are fighting with the racists who want to exploit them for cheap labor again. But come election time, they usually manage to set their differences aside and celebrate the racism they have in common.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Jesus wept you understand nothing.
Musk understands free speech a lot better than you, you tool.
Besides that, this entire post is based on conjecture and hearsay. Lara Loomer is a vile weirdo (I say that as a conservative and she keeps on pretending to be on my side) and who knows why she lost her checkmark. She probably doesn’t know and if she did you could trust her to tell it accurately. It almost certainly has nothing to do with Musk personally and if if it did he would say so.
This spun up out of nothing and sad even for you. Sadder than buying fake backers, even.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
I agree with Matthew M Bennett, and would like to add that Elon is a good father.
Re: Re:
Elon Musk is such a good father than right after the murder of that CEO, Elon started hanging out with one of his youngest children in public. It was totally him being a good father and 100% absolutely not a ploy to both engender sympathy for himself and have a bullet-stopping human shield on hand.
Re: Re: Re:
Stephen, look at the name of the commenter you’re responding to. They are making a joke.
Re: Re: Re:2
So was I.
Re: Re: Re:3
FYI, claiming to have been making a joke after very obviously taking something literally is not a good look.
Re: Re: Re:4
You didn’t get the joke. That’s OK to admit.
Re: Re: Re:5
Wow! Unable to follow a thread much?
Re:
You may be right, but I didn’t understood a single word of what you’ve just wrote.
But we shouldn’t judge someone by how many times he’s failed, but only how many times he’s succeed.
And you’ve got in common with Musk to be in the None camp.
Re: Re:
It’s very simple. Loomer probably doesn’t know why she was banned, but if she did she probably wouldn’t tell you anyway. Probably. And if Elon were responsible for it he DEFINITELY would say why. Like, totally, no fooling.
Re:
Wow. The level of twisting reality. The amount of facts you chose to either believe or not believe to make things match what you want is truly sad.
You are the definition of delusional.
Re:
This very well could be ‘content moderation at scale is impossible’. Its unlikely however that a dozen verified high-profile politicians were all suddenly flagged as spam right after disagreeing with the site owner, but The removal of trust and safety teams and replacing them with AI has been expected to cause this kind of moderation disaster.
Of course, as techdirt has noted many, many times, the ‘twitter files’ was also based on conjecture and heresay on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Musk did not give the grace of innocent explination to Dorsey, there is no reason we should give musk the curtosey of innocent explination. We should instead use his own standard of evidence.
Re:
“Sadder than buying fake backers, even.”
The bitterness of your grapes has been duly noted.
You have anything else to whine about bro?
Re: Re:
It’s hilarious how much mileage he thinks he’s going to get out of reminding us that he’s upset that Techdirt had a successful kickstarter that he predicted would fail utterly.
Re: Re: Re:
I love the fact that he is now at the point that even he, is calling out his own L’s.
It’s like an ouroboros of failure.
Re:
I doubt that, considering how he treated the Elon’s Jet account and how he retweets accounts that spew fascist propaganda.
She’s not pretending. She is on your side. That she’s stupid enough to be an ineffective grifter in a time where conservative grifters can make shitloads of money doesn’t make her any less of a conservative.
Please show me credible evidence that Mike Masnick produced fake backers for his Kickstarter campaign. After all, the burden to prove that claim lies with you. And before you think to do it: Showing us random (and possibly doctored) screenshots that you call “evidence” won’t work; neither will raging in all caps about Mike, his Kickstarter, and your lack of credibility.
Re:
It’s not just Loomer. A ton of other MAGA-connected accounts have said the same thing happened to their accounts too after they criticized Musk.
Re: You aren't even the biggest loser on this thread
Oh hey Bratty Matty. Look at total.
Now that’s how you throw a hissy fit!
Re: Re:
You’re saying that like Batty Matty doesn’t spam his pathological lies as an AC or random other usernames.
Re:
Wrong yet again, Matty. You have the incredible talent of writing walls of text that demonstrate how little understanding you have of literally any topic.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Uh, wait, Elon Musk owns Twitter. He doesn’t have to have speech on it that he doesn’t like, just like former twitter didn’t have to host Nazis, an argument I’m pretty darn sure you were in favor of back when that argument was being made.
Re:
That supersonic boom you just heard was the point hitting Mach one somewhere over your airspace.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Love the free speech analysts named Anonymous Coward. Accurate.
Re: Re: Re:
We don’t need to be free speech analysts (whatever the hell that is) to address a Pseudonymous Coward regarding their inability to fucking read and their insistence on commenting idiotically anyway.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Yes, you do, Coward
Re: Re: Re:3
Or what? You gonna shit up the thread some more?
Re: Re: Re:
To make your name accurate you forgot to add to suffix doucebag
Re: Re: Re:
Anonymous speech is a pretty big part of free speech.
Re: Re: Re:2
Damn near 67% in fact!
Re: Re: Re:
Tell me it’s your first (and last) time here without telling me it’s your first time here bro.
Re:
You should try reading the article. The last 3 paragraphs explicitly cover that.
Re:
Yes, which is addressed in the article you obviously didn’t read.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Dude, you literally conceded my point in the last paragraph after thousands of words yelping the opposite.
I’ll take the win, thanks.
Re: Re: Re:
Your “point” isn’t really much of one. Everyone here will tell you that Musk has every right to host/promote/embrace whatever speech he wants on Twitter. If you think that’s some sort of “gotcha” here, I assure you that it isn’t.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
“Isn’t much of one”. Oh, dude, did you want to try harder?
Re: Re: Re:3
Not really. You acted like you had a point to make that was some sort of “gotcha”, but the point was in the article itself, and no one is rebutting that point here. You’re the one who’s trying hard to see this as some sort of game-winning goal or some shit.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Excellent. I’ll note your failure.
Re: Re: Re:5
Maybe peek at whose comment got flagged before you go around saying others are “failures”. 🤔
Re: Re: Re:5
Just declaring you “won” when you didn’t actually make a point is peak pigeon chess.
Re: Re: Re:5
Just saying you won over and over again when no one else was competing isn’t really making a point either.
Re: Re: Re:5
The rest of us will note your Bennett-tier total lack of comprehension.
Re: Re: Re:
Your point was moot the entire time. You don’t get to replace the author’s points with your own and declare victory over… whatever.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
When the author literally concedes my point and negates his own in a wimpy wimpy last paragraph? Yes, I do.
Re: Re: Re:3
Whatever you say there Baghdad Bob.
Re: Re: Re:
I’m not your dude, bro.
Re: Re: Re:
The “win” being repeating a point I had already made while claiming I had changed my position?
No, dude. You clearly didn’t read the post. Made a stupid fucking assumption, got called on it, and are now throwing a temper tantrum in my comments because you look like a fool.
Notice that everyone here seems to have understood the point except for you? Just take the L, dude.
Re: Re: Re:
Nowhere in the article does it say the opposite. “Musk has the right do something”, “This is inconsistent with the image Musk has put forward”, and “this is a morally good thing” are three different things, and none of them are mutually exclusive. The opposite of “Musk has the right do something” would be “Musk does not have the right to do this”.
Re: Re: Re:
You would have had to make a point for anyone to have proved it. You’re yammering and claiming victory in a conflict that involved only you, but you’ve said nothing of any substance yet.
Re:
Yes, Elon Musk has the right to allow Nazis onto Twitter. And we have every right to mock and belittle him for that decision. That’s because having the right to do a thing doesn’t make it the right thing to do—and embracing Nazis and their ideology is the furthest thing from “the right thing to do” as that concept gets.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Yeah, that’s not the argument Masnick was making (whispers: until the very last paragraph) so I call foul.
Re: Re: Re:
It literally is the argument I was making. I’m sorry you’re too dumb to understand it, but everyone else figured it out.
I was pointing out the hypocrisy of Musk claiming (1) the old guard was anti-free speech when (2) he’s even more aggressive in suppressing speech on every fundamental measure.
I’ve always argued that private platform owners have the right to moderate as they see fit, even Musk. But I can still call out when his actions fundamentally betray his earlier statements.
I’m trying to figure out why you’re the only person here stupid enough not to understand this fairly straightforward argument.
Seems like the same kind of thinking where you make a ton of comments in a row, find many of them downvoted, and then feel shocked that the spam engine wonders if you might be a spammer. Real genius level work you’ve got going on in your brain jackass.
Re: Re: Re:
Your utter lack of reading comprehension is not evidence of a failure on anyone else’s part.
Re: It's really quite simple:
Just because you have a right to do something doesn’t mean it includes a right to not be criticized for doing it.
Thanks to owning the platform Elon has a right to be a hypocritical, censorious(by the standards he applied to twitter before he bought it) ‘free speech-defender’, and everyone else has the right to call him out and mock him for it.
Re:
Loomer please!
Re:
The argument isn’t that Elon isn’t entitled to do what he wants on his platform.
The argument is that what Elon is doing there is far less compatible with with being a supporter of Free Speech than with what the previous owners owners were doing, despite claims to the contrary.
Elon is a coward -- to the bone
It’s actually rather difficult to name someone more thin-skinned, more pathetic, more submissive, and more fundamentally weak that this pathetic loser. (And I say that with a modest awareness of the competition.)
Elon is the prototypical spineless bully: always ready to start a fight with his legion of idiots at his back, but completely afraid to finish one by himself. I’ll bet even money that he wets the bed.
Re:
I can do it in one go: Donald Trump.
Re: Re: They are one tag team in that respect
Well, that’s actually pretty much the same as people voting for Trump’s “politics”. As if he had any apart from stuffing his pockets and running. “Getting elected” is no longer on his list of transitory constraints.
Re: Re:
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan aka Gollum.
Re: Re:
Trump is truly a worthy nominee for this…honor. The only reason I’d suggest that Musk is better choice is that we all know Musk kneels before Trump and begs to be his leashed pet.
Re: Re: Re:
I would suspect that in Elon’s case he’s thinking that he has enough money to play kingmaker and control over Trump’s cult’s echo chamber that he think he can control Trump to some degree
Re: Re: Re:2
He isn’t wrong, you know. He’ll probably get out a multiple of his investment in going all-in on Trump, including the cost of acquiring Twitter for that purpose. Though Twitter was still hedging his bets and could have been used for other purposes.
Kind of sobering how this mimicks Charles Foster Kane’s lossy acquisition and running of the “New York Daily Enquirer” as a tool for employing media as a power tool for gaining political influence via populism. “Citizen Kane” was a 1941 movie.
Re: Re: Re:3
No he’s not entirely wrong.
The problem is that the plan has a flaw on the scale of the thermal exhaust port on the Death Star.
Trump can’t stand anyone else horning in on his con..
Re: Re:
What about Xi Jinping aka Winnie the Pooh?
Re:
I’m somewhat torn on this question. Who is worse: Elon, who sucks off Trump because he whole-heartedly supports racist, authoritative ideology?
Or Zuck/Cook/Nadella/Pichai, who suck off Trump and support racist ideology because they want to make a buck?
Is there really any difference?
Re: Re:
They support what they support; the reasons for that support are no longer relevant.
The recent Elon and H1B thing sounds an awful lot like The Great Replacement Theory. Elon deports Americans whilst importing foreigners. I thought it was those dastardly clever liberals that were doing all that replacement sort of thing – that’s what MAGA was sayin’.
Re:
The problem with the theory is that its proponents missed the Great Replacement, which had already occurred when their brains were replaced with ground-up clam shells and sand.
Re:
The Great Replacement actually happened. In North America it ran from the 16th century to the early 20th century. And there’s one still going on in Palestine. But for the far right those don’t count, it seems.
Re: Re:
Interesting, it seems that The Great replacement Theory is simply a fancy name for genocide.
So, MAGA accuses liberals of conspiring to enact this replacement theory thing all the while forcing the replacement themselves.
Fascists seem to do this a lot.
Re: Re: Re:
We’ve seen this absurdity before. Early white protestant Americans who were descended from or even recent immigrants themselves didn’t want “un-American” Irish Catholics to immigrate. The US massacred the Native Americans with violence, biological warfare, and cultural suppression, but they had manifest destiny and god’s will behind them, so it was A-OK. Now the descendants of those same immigrants cry “Go back to where you came from” at Native Americans with no hint of irony.
Elon, you keep using that word… I don’t think it means what you think it means.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
We now know the reason for the un-check: She doxxed some guy by posting an image of an FEC report, which contained all of his personal information on it. Losing the blue check (perhaps only temporarily!) seems like a small price to pay for an established rule violation.
Re:
That reminds me: Didn’t Elon Musk have a hand in unbanning a user who posted CSAM on his public timeline? Because I seem to recall Elon Musk having a hand in unbanning a user who posted CSAM on his public timeline.
Re: Re:
A contrast which reveals a staggering and frankly horrifying set of priorities for Elon and how he runs the platform.
Post his personal data? Banned!
Post CSAM but happen to be someone Elon likes? Unbanned!
Re:
It’s slightly amazing you took your tongue out of Trumps asshole to bury it in Elmos.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Hahahahahahah. I want this as a separate comment, as Masnick literally contradicted the entirety of his post in the last paragraph. JUST COULD’T KEEP THE HYPOCRSIY GOING.
Re:
I was debating on calling you total loser, or total shitshow but I think totally totaled is gonna be have to be your new name bro.
Re:
You’re spending a lot of time crowing about an agreed upon fact, that’s irrelevant to the discussion at hand. And lots of people have tried to explain it to you, and you keep responding like this.
Do you have a learning disability, or are you just this dumb?
Re:
“Here are reasons X, Y and Z for why this is stupid and hypocritical, but the person doing it has the right to do it” is not a contradictory or hypocritical argument.
You have no idea what article structure is.
Re:
Holy fuck, you’re stupid. Read the room, drama queen. No one is impressed with your flailing. You’re wrong and that has evidence to back it. Your bullshit claims? Not so much.
Dear Muskovites: You can either have your cake or eat it--not both.
I would like to make something clear: As the owner of Х, Mr. Musk is within his rights to restrict users’ expression however he wants. To my knowledge, no one is disputing that.
The problem is that Mr. Musk has also claimed to be a free speech absolutist, which conflicts with his shadowbanning of users and language that he objects to.
If Mr. Musk is a free speech absolutist, then his moderation decisions conflict with his ideals. If Mr. Musk’s moderation decisions do not conflict with his ideals, then he is not a free speech absolutist.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
“ he wasn’t such a free speech supporter after all.”
So,Masnick’s position is that Musk has to let anyone post whatever they want on a property that Musk owns? Can we come over to Mike’s house and spew Nazi propaganda in his living room? Why not? Isn’t Mike a free speech supporter?
Re:
Just a tip for the future: if you start a sentence with “So, this persons’s position is…”, it’s completely evident that you’re about to create a strawman.
Re:
No, that’s not Masnick’s position at all. Those of us with the ability to read are able to understand that. Reading is apparently not a skill you’ve been burdened with.
Re:
no, you absolute toilet biscuit, that was Musks claim what Twitter should do before and after he purchased it. Mike has been pointing out that Musk, in fact, does not do that at all.
I mean….it’s not that difficult of a concept and easily understandable from the article.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
So my independent comments have stopped showing up in this thread. Are we living up to our free speech commitment or are we not?
Re:
If Elon Musk has the right to decide what speech will and won’t be visible on Twitter, Mike Masnick has the same right here on Techdirt.
Checkmate, atheists!
Re:
That’s very brace of you to admit you lost to a spam filter bro.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Sure. Interesting what’s getting lost.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
The comment I’ve been trying to post is — let’s see what happens without keywords:
“M** keeps arguing that it’s not okay for Mk to delete people if he’s a free speech advocate — except apparently in his last paragraph of the post. So why the criticism? Mk owns Twitter. He can decide what works and what doesn’t, just like M** can decide what people say in his living room.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Hahahahahahahahah. So what was getting nuked was M‘s last name and E‘s.
That’s definitely something a spam filter picks up.
Or maybe not. Free speech advocates for the win.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
Next step will be to release all my comments and claim (oh, so, sincerely) that it was just a moderation issue and that how can you be so paranoid. Uh, huh.
Re: Re: Re:4
Or else what? 🙃
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
I mean, nothing. We’ll just know what M*** truly is.
Re: Re: Re:6
We know who he is. He’s someone who has the same exact right to decide what speech will and won’t be visible on his website as Elon Musk.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
Yes! Good, you’re getting there — you might want to mention it to the first 95% of M***’s post.
Re: Re: Re:8
Why would I? Musk has the right to make a dumbass decision in re: content moderation. We have the right to mock and belittle him for it. Neither statement cancels out the other.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:9
Wow. Didn’t really read the post, did you?
Re: Re: Re:10
Even if I didn’t, you seem to be under the delusion that Musk having the right to moderate speech on Twitter is (A) a new bit of information for us here on Techdirt and (B) some sort of argument-ending “gotcha” that nullifies any and all criticism of his decisions. Your schtick isn’t new here, dude. Take the fucking L and move on.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:11
“Even if I didn’t’
Well, that’s a confession.
Re: Re: Re:12
And if it is, so what? I’ve seen plenty of these “Musk is a hypocrite about free speech” articles before on Techdirt; I don’t need to read the details of every last one to get the point every time it’s being made. This shit might be new to you, but I can assure you that longtime Techdirt readers know it well enough that the details sometimes matter less than the broad strokes.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:11
Such a confession about not actually reading the post. Thanks! I know how seriously to take you now.
Re: Re: Re:12
I take you about as seriously as a fart in a sauna bro.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
And here we go — they’re starting to appear because M** realized that it wasn’t a good approach. I’m sure he’ll write a disclaimer that this was all a rogue spam filter knocking out his last name (but only for my posts) and E**’s last name (but only for my posts) — and y’all will believe it.
Re: Re: Re:5
He won’t. Why would he? A couple of my comments were caught in the spamfilter, too. It’s not a new thing that people have comments caught in the filter. Hell, given the number of assholes who routinely have their posts flagged and also happen to write Mike’s name somewhere in their posts, the fact that the spamfilter might hold back comments that mention Mike’s name isn’t exactly Breaking News™, either.
And now that you’re getting mass flagged, you might want to expect more of your comments being filtered out in the future. Don’t like it? Go to Twitter and whine about taking that L.
Re: Re: Re:4
One can almost smell the desperation coming off that post.
Re: Re: Re:3
The spam filter in question here isn’t the automated keyword based one..
It’s the biologic one installed between keyboard and chair.
The community is arguably correctly flagging your repetitive reiterative and redundant recitation of your rant, as being functionally equivalent to spam.
Re: Re: Re:2
There’s two different classes of “things that are okay to do” here, that you’re wrongly conflating.
The first is things that are acceptable a “Free Speech Absolutist” to do.
The second is things that are acceptable for platform owner ido.
Those are not the same things.
Finishing up by pointing out out that someone’s actions are within the second, does not invalidate the argument that their actions are well outside the first.
As for free speech here, it seems that it’s not Mike silencing you, but the community
.
Probably because when people pointed out the flaws in your argument, you decided to repeatedly reiterate it, because you thought they didn’t understand how beautiful and elegant and perfect it was the first time.
And to abuse Arthur C Clarke… “Any sufficiently repetitive argument is indistinguishable from spam”
Also, your flagged comments (and all the replies) can be unhidden in a flash, by just clicking the “unhide” option.
Laura “Leopard Face Eaten” Loomer’s bluecheck, subscibers, and thus income stream?
Not so much.
Re: Re: Re:
Nothing of value was lost.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Free speech for everyone, except the stuff I don’t like, huh? You’re impressive.
Re: Re: Re:3
Fuck your feelings amirite!
Re: Re: Re:3
That’s some great projection you’ve got there.
You’re free to host your own website and post what you want and moderate what others post as you like. Mike has the right to moderate his site as he sees fit and that is him exercising his right to free speech. You’re opposing the free speech of others by insisting that you should be able to say what you want on someone else’s platform.
Re: Re: Re:
As your hero would say
“Live by the spam, die by the spam.”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Wow, really, so using M*‘s last name and MK’s last name is a sure sign of spam? Uh huh.
Re: Re: Re:3
Mike and Elon you mean?
No, but squirting out a ton of comments in a short time frame may, perhaps, trip a filter.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Yes, Masnick and Musk. Which was not getting through, as I noted.
Re: Re: Re:5 Inquiring minds want to know!
OH shit where did you go bro? Did you finally lose to the spam filter?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Hahaha. I literally just posted something with their two last names spelled out fully and it didn’t go through. Whereas if I put in M** and M**k, it does (or I bet it does — we’ll see).
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
And, oh yes, it did. So you tell me: why would spelling out the web site’s full name and the E**’s full name cause it to be hit by the spam filter?
Re: Re: Re:6 Gonna need more popcorn
Keep the live update of your epic struggle with the automated spam filter going bro!
Re: Re: Re:3
No, not in the slightest.
Mike and Elon. Mike and Elon. See?
If my comment is flagged in any way, it’s strictly because it’s responding to the spam you’re flooding the comments with. It had nothing to do with names.
It’s almost impressive how confidently you don’t understand literally anything you’re talk about.
Re: Re: Re:
Nothing of value…
Re: Re: Re:
Not really, no. You’ve yet to say anything even remotely interesting.
Re:
There’s no free speech commitment at Techdirt. Why would you think there is one?
Apologies, but I simply do not understand this statement.
I do not use Twitter/X, Mastodon, Bluesky, Facebook, etcetera, so perhaps it is a technical or socially-developed terminology problem.
What it sounds like to me is: a bunch of people, perhaps coordinating with each other, perhaps not, all decide that they don’t want (some account) to appear in their feeds.
… their feeds. Not other people’s feeds. Though they may even go so far as to say they have done this thing.
In what way would the muted account have any say over this? Why should the managers of the service have any fuss over this? The “muted” account still has the ability to reach anyone who did not “just say no”.
Is there some Musk-written rule that says “thou shalt not block my friends, or I will smite thy account”? And if he does smite said accounts, how does the muted account benefit?
What part of this makes any sense whatsoever?
Re:
The part you’re missing is that recently(ish) Elon has tweeted about how he is using muting data in algorithmic feeds, specifically by lowering the exposure of accounts which are muted a lot.
(Whether this is actually “new” or “different” or just an existing practice he decided to tweet about is unclear.)
That is the background here: it would in theory be possible to manipulate that kind of algorithm by getting a large group of accounts to individually mute an account in their own feeds, which would result in the algorithm reducing the appearance of that account in everyone’s feed.
Elon is then saying: if you mute my friends, I’m going to treat your account as “spam”, so that the algorithm does not count your mutes when determining whether to include my friends in someone else’s feed.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
Laura has created multiple accounts. Her friends did too. Then, she used her account and alternate accounts to report people she want censored on the platform. Her friends did the same : they report. Then they log-off and switch to alternate accounts, and do it again. And because Laura is not very clever nor her friends, they all did those actions from their IP addresses each time, so we know at X moderation which accounts are tied to Laura, and her friends, while they play their little censorship attempt against other X members.
Laura has been warned, several times, not to do this. That she was abusing the in-platform reporting system to try to censor people. After several warnings, when she and her friends kept doing this, she got her mark removed. And she, and every single one of her friends, have received specific admin messages warning them the next step is the deletion of their accounts. The “fake accounts” created by Laura and her friends are under surveillance for this reason too.
I read the comments here, and I’m laughing so much. Laura and her friends are people that TRY to censor other members of the platform. They get caught doing it, from their accounts and alternate fake accounts they created to specifically inflate their reporting numbers… And when she and her friends are caught red-handed, does she recognize publically she got caught ?
Laura, why are you not publishing the admin messages you received after getting caught abusing the reporting system ? Afraid that everyone will realize you have a public face, and a very hidden naughty one where you do exactly what you accuse people of doing to you ?
I am slowly drinking your tears and laughting, at you, and everyone here crying like little babies.
Laura abuses the rules. Tried to cheat the report/moderation system. Created fake accounts to inflate the number of “reports” against people she wants to censor their accounts, and their messages.
Poor little liar cry-baby has lost her mark. Does not tell publically what the X admins told her in private. She knows EXACTLY why she lost her checkmark. And of course, the little liar she is, she is not explaining publically what happened.
We could have that message be leaked Laura. But we do respect our rules of privacy. Rules you do not follow, and you think rules do not apply to you.
Welcome to the world of the real, Laura. You try to cheat and abuse the rules, you get caught, and punished. Everyone at X moderation knows who you really are : we say your messages between you and your little scheming friends. We watched you for weeks create fake accounts, and from the same IP use your account, and those accounts, to abuse the report/moderation system.
That article is a nice load of little lies. Only leftists believe their own lies and fart and think no one knows who you really are, what you are really doing.
Every message, every action you do can be easily checked here and we know your true faces.
Liars. Hypocrits. Little fascists that call the world world full of fascists, yet all your actions in private and between you is aimed at censorhip and fascist crap online.
We are watching you. We will punish you every single time you break the rules. This is no longer your little leftist sucking platform where you were protected by the blue/pink/green colored hair trannies that handled moderation when X was called Twitter.
Let me sip more of your tears. They are so sweet. Cry more, Laura the liar.
Re: Re:
You know, increasing the amount of shit you say doesn’t make it more believable.
Re: Re: Re:
Oh I wouldn’t say that, that’s pretty much exactly the sort of mindset and behavior I’d expect from anyone still working at that toxic waste dump who has managed to avoid being fired by the tempter-tantrum throwing toddler running it.
Re: Re: Re:2
That’s rather unfair, isn’t it? My toddler’s already growing out of such behavior.
Laura Loomer has been Fucking Around for a long time, now she’s Finding Out:
Probably the first time in her life that she’s said something truthful, but I’ll still give her credit for doing so.
Anyone want to guess who’s gonna be the next winner of the FAFO award?
Re:
Non-Zero possibility the next really big FAFO winner is Elon himself.
Re: Re:
Especially if Trump gets tired of all the “President Elon” stuff.
An absolutist, just not of free speech.
Musk has already shown us time and again he’s willing to make exceptions to his own rules when the results displease him. If his majesy is not amused, he’s glad to exile the culprits from his domain.
Musk likes being king, and expects everyone else to submit because they don’t have a choice.
Anyone who is still on Twitter is choosing to be there under Lord Musk’s rule
s. In the meantime, their are safer and saner places to spend one’s time.I may laugh myself into a heart attack the day Trump DEPORTS Ego Putz.
Including, y’know, Laura Loomer.
It’s like the frog and the scorpion, except it’s all scorpions.
poor Elon
Poor Elon, he’s just so misunderstood. When he said he was a “free speech absolutist”, he didn’t mean your free speech. Just his. You can say anything you want… as long as you agree with him.
Elon may or may not be a “free speech absolutist” – but he is absolutely a hypocrite.
Re:
So it’s absolutism, but with exceptions?