Earlier quoted context omitted.
>He filed forms that he was going to be a passive investor No he didn't.
If you’re going to write a terse, incorrect response, at least include a misleading source.
No. You're wrong.
Elon Musk to join Twitter’s board of directors
981–990 of 1001 posts
Re: Elon Musk to join Twitter’s board of directors
#982Re: Elon Musk to join Twitter’s board of directors
#983Earlier quoted context omitted.
>He filed forms that he was going to be a passive investor No he didn't.
He filed 13g instead of 13d. Any activist investors who want to influence the course of the company get involved in proxy fights , change the board should not file 13g that is only for passive investment. There was discussion yesterday whether him polling his followers last week about twitter and social media was activism. Joining the board certainly is.
Have you actually read 13G? I suggest you do.
Re: Elon Musk to join Twitter’s board of directors
#984Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honest question, and not snark: We have 4chan and 8chan. Those are absolute free speech. Don't we already know how "absolute free speech" works out on digital platforms? Why do we need another one? Or am I missing something major here?
Those are free speech but also anonymous. In real free speech you still have to put your name to what you're saying. If you suddenly stuck everyone's real name on every single comment they wrote then it'd suddenly become a lot more civilized. Conversely, because there are no identities, there's no way to follow specific people you agree with.
Ok, but Twitter has no such real name policy, correct? It is just a convention used by public and semi-public figures isn't it?
Re: Elon Musk to join Twitter’s board of directors
#985Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you’re going to write a terse, incorrect response, at least include a misleading source.
No. You're wrong.
Can you explain yourself? 13G is the form that passive investors fill out. 13D is a more detailed form intended for activist investors. What is your special knowledge that everyone is getting wrong that you’re alluding to?
Re: Elon Musk to join Twitter’s board of directors
#986Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Face it: if you interfere between Sally who writes something she wants Bob to read, and Bob who wants to read what Sally wrote, that's censorship. What about national security, NDAs, illegal content, etc.? Two consenting parties doesn’t mean the speech is legal or good for society. > And no, I'm not interested in exploring extreme exceptions to the general principle. The Supreme Court is (to the count of hundreds o…
Thanks for providing a textbook example of “Whataboutism”. I used to not understand the term well.
Maybe you still don’t?
Whataboutism tries to argue two unrelated things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
> Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in "what about…?") is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy, which attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving the argument.
“Tommy stole my lunch money.” “What about that time you stole Sally’s pencil?”
That would be whataboutism. It avoids debating the act of stealing someone's lunch money, by instead charging hypocrisy.
Just using the words “what about” doesn’t make it whataboutism.
I used the words “what about” to ask about a subsection of speech: NDAs, National security, illegal content, etc., that is covered by OC's definition of what it means to censor speech. I'm not charging hypocrisy or avoiding disproving the argument, I'm examining OC's claim. In this case "What about" is used to examine pertinent edge cases, and isn't whataboutism.
For example, in a scenario where Bob (US government) has nuclear launch codes he wants to talk about and Sally (domestic terrorist) wants to hear what he has to say, should someone intervene and restrict Bob's speech? By OC's definition, if they do, that is censorship. OC's only conditions are two consenting parties.
> Face it: if you interfere between Sally who writes something she wants Bob to read, and Bob who wants to read what Sally wrote, that's censorship.
Others, like the Supreme Court prefer to say that free speech has limitations that are not covered by the 1st amendment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite...
> The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized several categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment and has recognized that governments may enact reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions on speech
> Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment include obscenity (as determined by the Miller test), fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising
So, in the case of two consenting parties discussing nuclear launch codes, OC calls that "censorship", but the Supreme Court says that the speech wasn't protected in the first place.
Re: Elon Musk to join Twitter’s board of directors
#987Earlier quoted context omitted.
> especially because the edit feature would mostly be used maliciously to cancel retweeters. This could turn out to be a good thing in the long run: force the public to confront the fact that the commentary they are seeing may have, in fact, originally been on something entirely different than the context it is currently presented in.
> force the public to confront the fact that the commentary they are seeing may have, in fact, originally been on something entirely different than the context it is currently presented in. How is this a good thing? I’d have 0 confidence that a reply was in fact to the tweet I’m currently seeing. Then how can I accurately reply to that initial reply? And what’s to stop someone from selling the ‘edit’ on their viral t…
> I’d have 0 confidence that a reply was in fact to the tweet I’m currently seeing.
As you should already be doing every time you see screenshots.
Re: Elon Musk to join Twitter’s board of directors
#988Earlier quoted context omitted.
Counterpoint: Twitter is the only social network I use where I get an unfiltered balance of ideas big and small - CEOs and random Joes. It's where memes are born and proliferate everywhere else (other than TikTok). Twitter WORKS. If it's profitable, it doesn't need more growth. Facebook got ruined because it thought everyone's parents and grandparents should be on it, and now that's the only people on it. My parents…
Username is deanCommie... I'm going to go out on a limb here and say he enjoys reading Pravda, er, Twitter.
Only on "hackernews" do people expect a username to have any alignments with people's political beliefs. This seems to come up regularly here, and never on any other forum or irc channel I've used this ID.
If I was a communist, why would I self identify as a "commie"??
And not even consistently: Are you a lawn mower? A landscaper even?
Re: Elon Musk to join Twitter’s board of directors
#989I think people are really over-analyzing this move. I think it's motivated by prestige, not money, nor is free speech the heart of the matter. Twitter is a stagnant company. They have thousands of engineers that in the span of a decade don't seem to produce much at all, nothing visible or memorable anyway. Long-lasting Twitter problems (culture, spam, algorithm issues) never seem addressed. User growth is stagnating…
Just stopping by to say i love this discussion. Very HN.
Re: Elon Musk to join Twitter’s board of directors
#990Earlier quoted context omitted.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. That’s why free speech policies shouldn’t be dictated by partisan concerns. You never know who will be in control of your social media platform in the future.
Suppose the president got up every day and issued a presidential address in which he said "we should kill all mintorities". Would you be opposed to this? Thats an extreme example, but the point im illustrating is that in reality, as a society, we do not approve or endorse all speech, and it is obviously true that censorship is useful. You can see quite clearly that were the president to do this, it would have consequ…
If we elect a president who does this we already lost as a country.