Ok... so according to this article, Elon can start censoring Democrats and any left wing ideas and that should be ok, right? That wouldn't violate free speech. He can get funding from the RNC, work with Republicans who are not in government, and let them dictate how the platform should be run. Twitter can become a right wing haven, having massive amounts of influence on the public without any challenge from the other side, and that should be perfectly fine, correct?
I see it like this: there are two sides... the side that is ok with double standards, and the side that thinks double standards are unfair. This article is arguing in favor of double standards. It's crazy how people can argue for double standards, and still think you're on the good side.
> Ok... so according to this article, Elon can start censoring Democrats and any left wing ideas and that should be ok, right? That wouldn't violate free speech. He can get funding from the RNC, work with Republicans who are not in government, and let them dictate how the platform should be run. Twitter can become a right wing haven, having massive amounts of influence on the public without any challenge from the other side, and that should be perfectly fine, correct?
Then great, that is consistent. I just doubt that would be the case. I think the actual justification for banning one political side is not "it's a private company", but rather "it allows our side to win".
So if Trump goes back on twitter, and he gains massive popularity winning the 2024 election, there is no problem right? If so, there is no double standard, but I seriously doubt those who celebrated his ban, will now be ok with his return, despite the reasoning being the same.
> So if Trump goes back on twitter, and he gains massive popularity winning the 2024 election, there is no problem right?
There may be a problem, but the problem isn’t a free speech problem.
> If so, there is no double standard, but I seriously doubt those who celebrated his ban, will now be ok with his return, despite the reasoning being the same.
The reasoning behind the ban was inciting violence. If he is returned for the same reason, that’s…problematic from the moral perspective that sees inciting violence as problematic, whereas the ban is not. That’s not a double standard.
I doubt that reasoning. I'm sure there are worse cases that were not banned, but of course one side thought Trump was an existential threat, so there were more underlying reasons. I think Twitter is about to release more email threads on that specific banning next week, so we'll see the real reason they banned him.
You can doubt what you want, but you seem like a lunatic if you accuse people who don’t doubt it of having a double standard based on your fantasies of what the secret reason is and your additional fantasy that they secretly share your view of the secret reason.
I truly don’t understand your point. People can complain about Trump being on there. They can threaten to leave Twitter. Advertisers can pull out of Twitter. Twitter can choose to allow him to stay or ban him.
My interpretation of the article is that they're excusing direct interference by a government entity just because they're not directly in power (but obviously power is their objective). This implies that it would be justified for Trump to influence Twitter and have them ban people who speak against Trump, and this article should defend that as well. I have a feeling people would not see those two cases as equal. If they do, then great, that's consistent, but I'm pretty sure there are going to be massive protests, and that highlights the double standard.
Sure, people can leave, complain, protest etc., my point is, that is a double standard.
> Elon can start censoring Democrats and any left wing ideas and that should be ok, right?
Constitutionally, yes. (And, that’s good for him, since he has done that.)
> He can get funding from the RNC
I mean, he could, but since his resources are vastly greater than the RNCs, that would hardly make any difference one way or the other.
> work with Republicans who are not in government, and let them dictate how the platform should be run.
Coordinating with candidates would likely break federal campaign finance laws, but it wouldn’t violate Constitutional free speech protections.
> Twitter can become a right wing haven, having massive amounts of influence on the public without any challenge from the other side, and that should be perfectly fine, correct?
Well, I mean, it can try. It probably won’t be any more durably successful than all the other attempts to create right-wing social media havens, turning into a circle jerk preaching-to-the-choir zone that is unattractive to advertisers or any other mechanism of monetization, where even the right wingers lose interest because they have no one to influence.
Twitter had a right-wing bias before Musk took over. Trying to push it over into Parler/Gab/Truth Social territory is perfectly legal, but not likely to be particularly sustainable as a business (though Musk is rich enough that as long as he is willing to continue depleting the wealth he has generated from other sources to fund it, he can probably keep it going for quite a while.)
Well, great. That sounds consistent. One minor point thought, political bias doesn't mean the platform leans in that direction, but rather the platform is actively pushing in that direction by censoring opinions on the opposite side. I don't think Twitter was right-leaning this way before, and I would rather it stay truly open for everyone. It's different if the platform is open, everyone has a voice, and the culture still pushes it in one or the other direction.
The error is to assume that Musk actually cares about the First Amendment in the first place. He doesn't.
Musk is an authoritarian at heart. What he cares most about is achieving the maximum authority with the least constraint. He will say and do anything in the pursuit of that.
In this regard, Musk and Trump are very similar people. For both of them, the First Amendment is a stage prop to be used in their pantomimes. It's not something they truly believe in, especially because people might exercise the First Amendment to criticize them.
> Musk is an authoritarian at heart. What he cares most about is achieving the maximum authority with the least constraint
I'm really wanting to understand where this view comes from.
What are the specific pieces of evidence for this? Who does he want authority over? How does that help him achieve his desired outcomes?
From my position, I have no dog in the fight but from a brief assessment of his public words and actions I see someone who is fairly left-wing on economics, drug policy and the environment, and his underlying position on free speech seems congruent with those of George Orwell and John Stuart Mill, both of whom were strongly left-libertarian in their time.
What are the specific pieces of evidence that demonstrate what he really wants, and what will really benefit him personally, is to take away people's freedom and agency?
This is misreporting. The person who said "fuck off" was a former politician who was recalled by the Ukrainian government. People mistake him for being an active politician because he hadn't changed his Twitter bio. And it's important to look at the reasoning for why Elon said what he did. He's certainly misguided, but the reasoning was to reduce human death, not because of authoritarianism.
There's nothing authoritarian about this and this is certainly an argument that can be made. I don't think China rocks, but China's work ethic is definitely better than the US.
Attacking your boss in public with expletives will get you fired from any job I can think of. Nothing authoritarian here unless you want to say all bosses are authoritarians.
> He's certainly misguided, but the reasoning was to reduce human death, not because of authoritarianism.
Russia has invaded Ukraine. It's irrelevant what Musk's reasoning is. He is advocating submission to Russia's war aims.
Authoritarians always trot out platitudes to justify their authoritarianism. Trump, for example, claimed he was going to "make America great again" and save America from the "LameStream Media" which is, of course, the "enemy of the American people" and so on and so forth. Trump's latest idea is to terminate the constitution, so that's nice: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/03/politics/trump-constituti...
Of course he did. What do you think a "special administrative zone" is? It's certainly not Taiwanese independence or Taiwanese sovereignty. How'd Hong Kong's "two systems, one country" work out for it? Not too good. China quickly became bored with the pretense.
> There's nothing authoritarian about this and this is certainly an argument that can be made.
Sure there is. He likes good little workers and no back talk. He likes the authority.
> The important missing context is at the time Tesla was shut down with lower covid rates in the area while other car manufacturers were operating.
Uh huh. So it's all a big conspiracy and Musk is a victim.
Authoritarians do like to portray themselves as victims. They always have to do what they do because they have been victimized and they must right the wrongs in the world. And, what's more, they're doing it for our own good.
> At the time yes. He hasn't said as much recently.
Oh, so he was only a hypocrite in the past? Well that's alright then. Hooray!
> Attacking your boss in public with expletives will get you fired from any job I can think of.
Weak and thin skinned for a self proclaimed free speech absolutist.
It's always fascinating to see people being unable to believe that Musk is what he is.
> Russia has invaded Ukraine. It's irrelevant what Musk's reasoning is. He is advocating submission to Russia's war aims.
It's very important what Musk's reasoning is. Multiple lines of reasoning can lead to similar solutions. There is not a one-to-one mapping from ideas on how to handle something and conclusions.
> Authoritarians always trot out platitudes to justify their authoritarianism. Trump, for example, claimed he was going to "make America great again" and save America from the "LameStream Media" which is, of course, the "enemy of the American people" and so on and so forth. Trump's latest idea is to terminate the constitution, so that's nice: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/03/politics/trump-constituti...
Except "make America great again" is not a "platitude", it's an explicit nationalist goal with authoritarian innuendo. Unless you can somehow make the argument that any type of pacifist or non-violent request is arguing for authoritarianism then I don't know where you can go with this.
> Of course he did. What do you think a "special administrative zone" is? It's certainly not Taiwanese independence or Taiwanese sovereignty. How'd Hong Kong's "two systems, one country" work out for it? Not too good. China quickly became bored with the pretense.
Except he explicitly called out Hong Kong as an example of what not to do in that same message.
> Sure there is. He likes good little workers and no back talk. He likes the authority.
So do most bosses at any company. They're not authoritarian. It's human nature to feel good in commanding positions. It takes a lot of effort to cultivate people who will actually challenge you as you need to go against your natural feelings.
> Uh huh. So it's all a big conspiracy and Musk is a victim.
I never said it was a conspiracy. Tesla (not Elon) _was_ a victim of the situation though.
> Authoritarians do like to portray themselves as victims. They always have to do what they do because they have been victimized and they must right the wrongs in the world. And, what's more, they're doing it for our own good.
Almost all of what Elon has historically done has not been for his own good. He has a proven track record of creating products that better the world, save government money, and push technology in the industry forward. In terms of actual good for the world he's one of the most ethical leaders out there. He specifically rails on shareholders that ruin other companies by only caring about money. He actively praises other companies in the same industry when they achieve similar things.
> Weak and thin skinned for a self proclaimed free speech absolutist.
Last I checked, that person was still on twitter and hasn't had their speech restricted. He could have banned them from Twitter too, he didn't. If you attack your boss you affect the working environment as it makes working uncomfortable. I wouldn't want to work with a co-worker who was attacking my boss in public.
> It's always fascinating to see people being unable to believe that Musk is what he is.
I find it fascinating and depressing to watch the extent that people will go to defame one of the most important people of our era because of what he and his companies have accomplished, either through jealousy or misinformation or fear.
I understand you have a passionately held opinion about these matters, and it's unlikely I or anyone is likely to change your mind about much of it. But, as it's often said, you don't understand your own position thoroughly until you understand the other position thoroughly, so for the sake of you or anyone else who wants to be on solid ground, I'll put some responses.
To declare my hand somewhat, when I said I have no dog in the fight, that refers to Musk; I don't find him a particularly admirable person, or someone likely to lead bringing about the changes I want to see in the world. What I bring to this is at least a couple of decades deeply exploring the question of how every/any person can live with maximum liberty and agency, and achieve an objectively satisfying life, no matter the circumstances of their birth or other issues over which they had no control. Musk doesn't have a huge amount to offer on that topic, so I'm not here to support or adulate him, but I do care about words like "authoritarianism" being used with a reasonable level of accuracy, and I always hate seeing people being portrayed negatively on largely false grounds.
I'll note that your previous response contains a lot of just-so argumentation ("He likes good little workers and no back talk. He likes the authority"), and ad-hominem attacks/character insinuations ("It's always fascinating to see people being unable to believe that Musk is what he is"). You need to cut out these swipes if you want to be seen as an objective, good-faith debater.
To respond to your main arguments in the last comment:
- On Russia/Ukraine and China/Taiwan: He just seems to be focused on ending these conflicts with minimal bloodshed and destruction. He didn't argue for Ukraine to just submit; he said there should be an externally supervised referendum so the people in the contested regions can self-determine which country they're in and that everyone can peacefully accept the outcome. That's as anti-authoritarian as you can get. In both cases of Russia/Ukraine and China/Taiwan, he sees that the worst case scenario is utterly catastrophic (all-out global nuclear exchanges), and wants to find ways to resolve these disputes before it gets anywhere near that. As divorce negotiators will tell you, when everyone is playing an all-or-nothing battle, everyone loses, whereas if you can find a way for everyone to get 75% of what they want, a peaceful result is much more likely. It doesn't follow that his desire for peace is authoritarian; generally it's authoritarians who like endless wars. He's advocating for the most effective way to end/prevent war. You can disagree with his position, but authoritarianism is not the issue here.
- "Sure there is. He likes good little workers and no back talk. He likes the authority": You've presented no evidence for this, it's a just-so story, though a familiar one; plenty of people will similarly assert that he just wants to fill his companies with sycophants. The thing is, sycophants and "good little workers" don't get reusable rockets working reliably, nor newly developed automotive technology. The evidence I can see is that he wants highly skilled people who know their field extremely well and will just get shit done, not waste their colleagues' time and energy with endless petty drama. When people spend a lot of time stirring up drama, it's generally a pretty good sign that they're not so good at their work. So again, it's not about authoritarianism, it's about getting good work done without drama.
- On COVID lockdowns; you can disagree with his position, accuse him of playing the victim, fine, whatever. It just doesn't have much to do with authoritarianism. Clearly, the governments/bodies mandating lockdowns and vaccinations were authoritarian. You can say it was justified authoritarianism, sure. I've been fairly comfortable with the lockdowns and measures imposed where I live in Australia, which many have described as being very authoritarian. But you can't say the people arguing against lockdowns were authoritarian. Any criticism for opposing lockdowns has to use words other than "authoritarian".
That's probably enough of a reply from me; the earlier reply from someone else covered the rest.
As I said I don't expect to persuade you but if you must respond, please try to do so without ad-hom and just-so story.
> Musk doesn't have a huge amount to offer on that topic, so I'm not here to support or adulate him, but I do care about words like "authoritarianism" being used with a reasonable level of accuracy, and I always hate seeing people being portrayed negatively on largely false grounds.
Then you must hate Musk. He is, after all, always willing to portray people negatively on largely false grounds. According to Musk, cave divers are pedophiles, Apple hates free speech, California is fascist, and so on and so forth.
Authoritarians have a loose association with the truth. The truth is just too inconvenient.
> He didn't argue for Ukraine to just submit; he said there should be an externally supervised referendum so the people in the contested regions can self-determine which country they're in.
Of course he did. There can't be an externally supervised referendum. They have been invaded. They are at war. Putin doesn't recognize Ukraine as a country or Ukrainians as a people. Russia doesn't do democracy. It hasn't for a long time.
> In both cases of Russia/Ukraine and China/Taiwan, he sees that the worst case scenario is utterly catastrophic (all-out global nuclear exchanges), and wants to find ways to resolve these disputes before it gets anywhere near that.
The solution in both cases is simple: Russia gets out of Ukraine and China stays out of Taiwan.
Russia and China are authoritarian regimes. They both share the attitude that big countries tell little countries what to do. Musk's advocacy of appeasement and submission to their belligerence is apology bordering on the quisling.
I never did mind. The facts of the matter are the facts of the matter. It's not an "ad hominem attack" or a "just-so story" just because you don't like what's true.
You've presented zero facts that demonstrate Musk's authoritarianism. You've given your opinions on what positions others should have on highly complex, consequential topics like nuclear armed countries in prolonged conflict over deeply-entrenched grievances with long and complex histories. Fine, you're welcome to have opinions about those and any other issues. There's still no evidence there for Musk's authoritarianism, and you don't win arguments by dogmatically redefining words and insisting your opinions are facts. That would be, dare I say, authoritarian?
In true authoritarian fashion, Musk doesn't let facts get in the way. Here is a sycophantic interview in which Musk pathetically attempts to redefine the word "founder": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHmSrK238vI&t=2358s
So, by your own standard, we've found yet another example of Musk's authoritarianism.
By legal settlement he is the founder of Tesla, a term that is not as fixed as people believe. Early employees often haggle for founder status in startups. He joined the company as chairman from the instant of formation and contributed heavily to operations of the company, for example acting as designer of the Roadster. Read up on the early history of Tesla. He didn't just "buy the company" as I have heard claimed numerous times on the internet.
There's no value in defending authoritarians. They simply cannot control their nature and they will make a fool of you, as Musk is making a fool of you now.
I estimate it will take you a further 10 years to understand this. By then enough time will have passed for you to be able to reminisce about Musk's "good old days". But what you won't have understood is that there were no good old days. He was always like that.
But hallmarks of authoritarianism are censorship, centralized power, collusion of private and public sectors.
If by authoritarian you mean he is mean to crybabies in his own company, you might read up on how actual authoritarians have gained power throughout history (hint: they get the crybabies on their side)
Clearly, Musk got into the Twitter business to reduce authoritarian tendencies exhibited by former staff.
The 14th Amendment may be more applicable. Despite what 1A states, censorship is unconstitutional, and nobody believes this baloney that the accused is innocent as long as they aren't "in the government"
No, its not. Because Twitter also isn’t a state government, and the only thing the 14th Amendment has to do with free speech is that it is held to incorporate the same protections that the 1A provides against the federal government against the state governments.
> Despite what 1A states, censorship is unconstitutional
Private censorship is not only constitutional, it is constitutionally protected against federal and state action by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
In fact, the whole point of Constitutional freedom of expression is to protect private parties right to decide for themselves on what expression to make or relay.
(2) it used to be a “public comoany” in the sense of “has shares traded on open stock markets rather than exclusively in individual off-market trades”, but that sense of “public” is still not a government actor covered by tbe restriction on the federal government in 1A or that on state governments in 14A. That is simply a different sense of the words “public” and “private” then is relevant here.
> I do believe public vs. private is relevant in terms of legal responsibility
The kind of “public vs. private” by which Twitter was once public is relevant in terms of whether or not they are subject to, say, certain SEC regulations, which are a form of “legal responsibility”, but it is not relevant to whether or not they are legally considered to be federal or state government entities under the 1st and 14th Amendments, such that they would be restricted from the kind of content-based restrictions the government is prohibited from imposing.
Citizen’s United is irrelevant. This isn't an issue of whether or not Twitter is a person protected by the 14th Amendment, but whether it is the federal or state government, and thuse restricted by the 1st and/or 14th amendments. And–as I would think would be obvious–Twitter is neither the federal government nor a state government. (And, if you wanted to make the argument that it was an agency of state government because corporations are created by states through law, that would be more interesting, but then the "private company" vs. "public company" issue would still be moot, because that would apply to all corporations regardless of whether their stock was publicly traded.)
> I can’t wrap my head around this notion that an agent of $40B public company constitutes “private censorship” do some research.
I have an undergraduate degree and some professional study (abandoned midway for an IT career) in this field. What you are doing is called “equivocation”; making an argument that attaches the import of one meaning of a word to a circumstance in which a different meaning applies. A “public company” in the sense that Twitter used to be one is a short way of saying “A private corporation with stock traded on a public stock exchange”.
It is not the same thing as a government entity subject to the 1st (federal) or 14th (state, and consequently subdivisions thereof) amendments to the US Constitution.
I see it like this: there are two sides... the side that is ok with double standards, and the side that thinks double standards are unfair. This article is arguing in favor of double standards. It's crazy how people can argue for double standards, and still think you're on the good side.