Musk Buying Twitter.... For Real This Time

Page 4 of 6 [ 96 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

KitLily
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jan 2021
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,074
Location: England

05 Nov 2022, 12:33 pm

But what if Conservative sponsors shut down the voices of Liberals in order to keep the money flowing?

Free speech means every single person gets to have free speech. That's the definition of free speech.


_________________
That alien woman. On Earth to observe and wonder about homo sapiens.


League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 27,205
Location: Pacific Northwest

05 Nov 2022, 1:14 pm

KitLily wrote:
But what if Conservative sponsors shut down the voices of Liberals in order to keep the money flowing?

Free speech means every single person gets to have free speech. That's the definition of free speech.



They're hypocrites. They whine about their freedom of speech being taken but they do the same to us and they also want to shut down our voices, something they moan about. I can't take them seriously.


_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed.

Daughter: NT, no diagnoses.


Minder
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

Joined: 29 Feb 2016
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 219

05 Nov 2022, 9:55 pm

KitLily wrote:
But what if Conservative sponsors shut down the voices of Liberals in order to keep the money flowing?

Free speech means every single person gets to have free speech. That's the definition of free speech.


In an American context, I've never bought the argument that a private platform is obliged to respect free speech. The First Amendment specifically prohibits the government from punishing you for voicing your opinions/beliefs. It doesn't say anything about private entities.

Hence, I think platforms like Twitter and Facebook absolutely have the right to censor whatever speech they want. Elon now owns Twitter, so he's not obligated (under the First Amendment) to put up with things he doesn't like (It would make him a hypocrite, yes, but he has the right to do it). Similarly, companies and nonprofits have the right to withdraw from Twitter if they don't like the way he's doing things.

Though I also think Twitter itself is a net negative for society, so I hate the platform regardless of who's running it. I don't like Musk, either, for the record.

It's also why I don't consider "cancel culture" to be a free speech issue in a legal sense. The government has no right to censor you for saying offensive things. But the rest of us have the right to tell you to get lost.



Persephone29
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2019
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,387
Location: Everville

05 Nov 2022, 10:01 pm

Liberals will get to say whatever they want whenever they want to say it. Afterall, what's the point of Conservative free speech without an opposing view? It's the Liberals who shut everyone else down so they don't have any opposition. Why is that any fun? It's not, it's an echo chamber. Already gutless Liberals are walking away from Twitter in droves, simply because they cannot handle anyone who holds a different view and is allowed the freedom to express it. It's pathetic, cowardly and a vacuum to behave that way.


_________________
Disagreeing with you doesn't mean I hate you, it just means we disagree.

Neurocognitive exam in May 2019, diagnosed with ASD, Asperger's type in June 2019.


Persephone29
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2019
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,387
Location: Everville

05 Nov 2022, 10:03 pm

Minder wrote:
KitLily wrote:
But what if Conservative sponsors shut down the voices of Liberals in order to keep the money flowing?

Free speech means every single person gets to have free speech. That's the definition of free speech.


In an American context, I've never bought the argument that a private platform is obliged to respect free speech. The First Amendment specifically prohibits the government from punishing you for voicing your opinions/beliefs. It doesn't say anything about private entities.

Hence, I think platforms like Twitter and Facebook absolutely have the right to censor whatever speech they want. Elon now owns Twitter, so he's not obligated (under the First Amendment) to put up with things he doesn't like (It would make him a hypocrite, yes, but he has the right to do it). Similarly, companies and nonprofits have the right to withdraw from Twitter if they don't like the way he's doing things.

Though I also think Twitter itself is a net negative for society, so I hate the platform regardless of who's running it. I don't like Musk, either, for the record.

It's also why I don't consider "cancel culture" to be a free speech issue in a legal sense. The government has no right to censor you for saying offensive things. But the rest of us have the right to tell you to get lost.


Most people who envy the success of others don't like Elon. I think it's awesome that he's made a fortune off of his immense brain power. Go Elon!


_________________
Disagreeing with you doesn't mean I hate you, it just means we disagree.

Neurocognitive exam in May 2019, diagnosed with ASD, Asperger's type in June 2019.


KitLily
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jan 2021
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,074
Location: England

06 Nov 2022, 7:38 am

League_Girl wrote:
KitLily wrote:
But what if Conservative sponsors shut down the voices of Liberals in order to keep the money flowing?

Free speech means every single person gets to have free speech. That's the definition of free speech.



They're hypocrites. They whine about their freedom of speech being taken but they do the same to us and they also want to shut down our voices, something they moan about. I can't take them seriously.


You're correct. It's an unsolvable problem going round in circles isn't it.


_________________
That alien woman. On Earth to observe and wonder about homo sapiens.


KitLily
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jan 2021
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,074
Location: England

06 Nov 2022, 7:44 am

Minder wrote:
KitLily wrote:
But what if Conservative sponsors shut down the voices of Liberals in order to keep the money flowing?

Free speech means every single person gets to have free speech. That's the definition of free speech.


In an American context, I've never bought the argument that a private platform is obliged to respect free speech...

Hence, I think platforms like Twitter and Facebook absolutely have the right to censor whatever speech they want. Elon now owns Twitter, so he's not obligated (under the First Amendment) to put up with things he doesn't like (It would make him a hypocrite, yes, but he has the right to do it). Similarly, companies and nonprofits have the right to withdraw from Twitter if they don't like the way he's doing things...


But Elon Musk specifically said he wants Twitter to be a platform for free speech for all. He wants Twitter to be 'warm and welcoming for all.'

So he wants free speech but he's going to censor who gets the free speech? That doesn't make sense, he's contradicting himself. He can't say he wants free speech then say he doesn't want free speech at the same time. That's nutty.


_________________
That alien woman. On Earth to observe and wonder about homo sapiens.


KitLily
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jan 2021
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,074
Location: England

06 Nov 2022, 7:52 am

Persephone29 wrote:
Liberals will get to say whatever they want whenever they want to say it. Afterall, what's the point of Conservative free speech without an opposing view? It's the Liberals who shut everyone else down so they don't have any opposition. Why is that any fun? It's not, it's an echo chamber. Already gutless Liberals are walking away from Twitter in droves, simply because they cannot handle anyone who holds a different view and is allowed the freedom to express it. It's pathetic, cowardly and a vacuum to behave that way.


I haven't noticed that. I've noticed that Twitter is mostly made up of accounts with very extreme views- racist, homophobic, misogynist- who then don't like being punished for saying such awful things on a public forum. It's quite hard to find open minded, kind and caring people on Twitter, although I have found some.

If Elon Musk can get rid of all the trolls and bots (I mean the non-real people) from Twitter though, that'll be an achievement.


_________________
That alien woman. On Earth to observe and wonder about homo sapiens.


DuckHairback
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2021
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,969
Location: Dorset

06 Nov 2022, 9:23 am

Persephone29 wrote:
Most people who envy the success of others don't like Elon. I think it's awesome that he's made a fortune off of his immense brain power. Go Elon!


I have absolutely nothing against people using their natural gifts to make money.

I'd question the wisdom of allowing such people who have demonstrated considerable aptitude in a single area of life (the acquisition of personal wealth) to own, control and direct systems that have tangible repercussions for the lives of all people in Western society.

Musk may claim to be a 'free speech absolutist' (his behavior suggests he actually isn't, very few people are) and he may genuinely believe that's a positive thing (personally, I doubt he cares that much about it) but the important thing is that there is, and should necessarily be, a debate about whether absolute free speech is a good thing. Whether it is desirable and what the ramifications of unfettered speech are. And specifically how they differ in an online forum where physical distance and anonymity embolden and amplify extremist opinions, and sometimes demonstrably false information can persist even after disproven.

Reduced social pressure online is just a single example. Many racists will not express racist views in mixed company in real life. Online, they feel they can. It skews reality.

Musk isn't a social scientist, he's not a historian, he's not a philosopher. In many ways he's a man-child with a dangerous amount of agency that has been gifted to him thanks to wealth - he earned the wealth, good for him. We gifted him the agency because we admired the wealth. Ditto Mark Zuckerberg, ditto Rupert Murdoch. Ditto Donald Trump.

Being good with money, being good with tech - these things don't make you good at understanding people.

The amount of influence they have over our lives, simply through wealth, should trouble everybody, no matter how they lean politically.


_________________
Was that really necessary?


KitLily
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jan 2021
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,074
Location: England

06 Nov 2022, 11:21 am

DuckHairback wrote:
I'd question the wisdom of allowing such people who have demonstrated considerable aptitude in a single area of life (the acquisition of personal wealth) to own, control and direct systems that have tangible repercussions for the lives of all people in Western society...

Being good with money, being good with tech - these things don't make you good at understanding people...

The amount of influence they have over our lives, simply through wealth, should trouble everybody, no matter how they lean politically.


I totally agree.

If a person's main aim in life is to accumulate the most money they possibly can, does that make them benevolent and caring towards other people? Very unlikely.

(the same goes for people who have the main aim in life to be extremely famous i.e. celebrities)

If a person's main aim in life is to help other people with say, learning to cook nutritious food, does that make them benevolent and caring towards other people? Very likely indeed.

I don't think total free speech is even possible anyway. If 8 billion people on the Earth all said what they thought, there would be a tsunami of terrifying opinions.

Societies, even online ones, need rules of what is decent, harmless and constructive to say and do. Social media has proved that if you just let everyone say and do what they want, it is chaos.

We need social rules, which societies clearly had up until social media arrived. Societies in real life could not exist without social and other rules. Online societies need the same or they will be a mess and harmful.


_________________
That alien woman. On Earth to observe and wonder about homo sapiens.


Persephone29
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2019
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,387
Location: Everville

07 Nov 2022, 12:02 am

KitLily wrote:
Persephone29 wrote:
Liberals will get to say whatever they want whenever they want to say it. Afterall, what's the point of Conservative free speech without an opposing view? It's the Liberals who shut everyone else down so they don't have any opposition. Why is that any fun? It's not, it's an echo chamber. Already gutless Liberals are walking away from Twitter in droves, simply because they cannot handle anyone who holds a different view and is allowed the freedom to express it. It's pathetic, cowardly and a vacuum to behave that way.


I haven't noticed that. I've noticed that Twitter is mostly made up of accounts with very extreme views- racist, homophobic, misogynist- who then don't like being punished for saying such awful things on a public forum. It's quite hard to find open minded, kind and caring people on Twitter, although I have found some.

If Elon Musk can get rid of all the trolls and bots (I mean the non-real people) from Twitter though, that'll be an achievement.



I have found a host of kind and caring people, even with the censorship of opposing political views. If a source is verifiable as the truth, neither side will be censored. If a post is made with no verifiable true source, either side can be shut down.


_________________
Disagreeing with you doesn't mean I hate you, it just means we disagree.

Neurocognitive exam in May 2019, diagnosed with ASD, Asperger's type in June 2019.


Persephone29
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2019
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,387
Location: Everville

07 Nov 2022, 12:11 am

KitLily wrote:
DuckHairback wrote:
I'd question the wisdom of allowing such people who have demonstrated considerable aptitude in a single area of life (the acquisition of personal wealth) to own, control and direct systems that have tangible repercussions for the lives of all people in Western society...

Being good with money, being good with tech - these things don't make you good at understanding people...

The amount of influence they have over our lives, simply through wealth, should trouble everybody, no matter how they lean politically.


I totally agree.

If a person's main aim in life is to accumulate the most money they possibly can, does that make them benevolent and caring towards other people? Very unlikely.

(the same goes for people who have the main aim in life to be extremely famous i.e. celebrities)

If a person's main aim in life is to help other people with say, learning to cook nutritious food, does that make them benevolent and caring towards other people? Very likely indeed.

I don't think total free speech is even possible anyway. If 8 billion people on the Earth all said what they thought, there would be a tsunami of terrifying opinions.

Societies, even online ones, need rules of what is decent, harmless and constructive to say and do. Social media has proved that if you just let everyone say and do what they want, it is chaos.

We need social rules, which societies clearly had up until social media arrived. Societies in real life could not exist without social and other rules. Online societies need the same or they will be a mess and harmful.


Just because people aren't permitted to say what they want doesn't mean those same terrifying opinions don't exist.

I don't see it as my business to police someone's accumulation of wealth. If they haven't stolen it, if they've earned it through their own innovation, they don't owe anyone an explanation. Just my opinion...

We needs laws. And once we have the laws they need to be enforced. I see no difference in the catch and release of criminals in the large democrat led cities. It's laughable to clamp down on words while actions run riot, with no punishment. When I see that democrats care about the victims of these caught and then released criminals I'll revisit this 'social rule' stuff you speak so reverently of. :roll:


_________________
Disagreeing with you doesn't mean I hate you, it just means we disagree.

Neurocognitive exam in May 2019, diagnosed with ASD, Asperger's type in June 2019.


DeathFlowerKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Sep 2022
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,228
Location: City of Roses

07 Nov 2022, 12:17 am

I'm so glad I never used Twitter.



KitLily
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jan 2021
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,074
Location: England

07 Nov 2022, 5:57 am

Persephone29 wrote:
I have found a host of kind and caring people, even with the censorship of opposing political views. If a source is verifiable as the truth, neither side will be censored. If a post is made with no verifiable true source, either side can be shut down.


That's the problem: lots of things can't be verified now as the truth because there are so many different sides to everything, and everyone has a different opinion and their own truth. It's unsolvable.


_________________
That alien woman. On Earth to observe and wonder about homo sapiens.


KitLily
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jan 2021
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,074
Location: England

07 Nov 2022, 6:07 am

Persephone29 wrote:
Just because people aren't permitted to say what they want doesn't mean those same terrifying opinions don't exist.

I don't see it as my business to police someone's accumulation of wealth. If they haven't stolen it, if they've earned it through their own innovation, they don't owe anyone an explanation. Just my opinion...

We needs laws. And once we have the laws they need to be enforced. I see no difference in the catch and release of criminals in the large democrat led cities. It's laughable to clamp down on words while actions run riot, with no punishment. When I see that democrats care about the victims of these caught and then released criminals I'll revisit this 'social rule' stuff you speak so reverently of. :roll:


But once terrifying opinions are out there in public, large gangs of people with the same opinions gather and form groups, and are more likely to act upon them. In the past, people were isolated with such opinions and didn't have the power of a group behind them.

I can't work out why you thought I meant we had to police someone's accumulation of wealth. I was talking about what their aims in life were.

Why would people clamp down on words while actions run riot? They should do both. Laws are formed from social rules, that's why we need social rules to start with, then they often become laws.


_________________
That alien woman. On Earth to observe and wonder about homo sapiens.


KitLily
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jan 2021
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,074
Location: England

07 Nov 2022, 6:08 am

DeathFlowerKing wrote:
I'm so glad I never used Twitter.


It's good if you find a nice group of people on there, and I keep my account locked to keep the abusive ones out. It's much better like that.


_________________
That alien woman. On Earth to observe and wonder about homo sapiens.