781–790 of 1001 posts
From observing various internet forums, including this one, I noticed that people from the "first world" countries don't know the value of free speech and often take it for granted. Sometimes even coming to such views as "free speech is dangerous" and that "we should limit free speech" (by blocking the views I don't like). Understand this: limits on free speech are far more dangerous to society than allowing fringe e…
I bet some of those who advocated "it's a private company, it can deplatform whoever it wants" are probably re-thinking their stance on deplatforming from a major social media.
> advocated "it's a private company, it can deplatform whoever it wants"
To me, this compresses several conversations into one:
- In the US, the first amendment applies to the government, not to private actors, so companies do not need to allow any particular person on their site (with the provision that it's illegal to ban people because they are part of a protected class).
- The idea of a "public square" is in flux and we are in the midst of trying to figure out what areas of our interactions we would like to consider public and what the advantages and disadvantages each approach are.
- The tactic of urging private companies to ban certain people for certain reasons as practiced by many groups (often with different justifications).
Different groups have different interests at each level and have different preferences as to how policy should change. In some sense, your statement of: "I bet some of those who..." will always be correct because of course *some of them* will! I have a guess about how you feel about the above issues (and other involved issues that I didn't break out), but I'd be interested to have you expand what you actually mean.
> "if my offer is rejected i will reconsider my ownership in twitter." Thats an immense amount of selling pressure on the stock... This is a threat. He's negotiating with a gun to their head.
To me, the main message is that he wasn't really serious about Mars at all, or even about SpaceX, or Tesla -- never mind global climate catastrophe . Were I a Twitter stockholder I might perceive a different emphasis.
A major Twitter shareholder and Saudi prince Alwaleed rejects Elon's offer to takeover Twitter. https://www.reuters.com/technology/saudi-prince-alwaleed-bin...
I am a Musk fanboy. But I don't think he should be a gatekeeper for free speech evangelism. No matter how fair Elon thinks he is, a completely private entity or person cannot guarantee unbiased free speech. There has to be regulation and oversight. So if Musk wants to take over Twitter, sure, no one's going to stop him. But let's not expect it means that free speech principles will be upheld. It's probable that under…
The gov has shown to be unwilling to hold free speech laws to social media companies, and Twitter has been so aggressive in censoring dissident political opinion.. what else are you proposing we do?
What he did today is thousand times better than shelling money behind the charity that many billionaires doing. Under Elon twitter can enable true "freedom of expression." Parag's one sided stand to enable woke culture, and board's support to that clearly showing how extreme right mindset they have when running this company. Today we can't hear the voice of other side on this platform, they are either shutdown or sus…
> "if my offer is rejected i will reconsider my ownership in twitter." Thats an immense amount of selling pressure on the stock... This is a threat. He's negotiating with a gun to their head.
I hope the short sellers who have a long standing hatred of Musk short the hell out of Twitter and make a ton when this offer is rejected.
Can anybody make a good argument as to why Twitter (in its current form) isn’t a major detriment to society? If Twitter poofed out of existence today, it would be a major win for this planet. People talk about a frightening future with a human hostile AI that wants to destroy humanity. That exists, it’s twitter. Elon buying it, even if he runs it into the ground is a good thing. Getting rid of some of the hostile AI…
You can argue that people are stupid and these platforms are detrimental to society. This is entirely subjective. I would argue that attempting to kill such platforms would be more detrimental, as it will push people to decentralized platforms that are even worse echo chambers. So this is a story of lesser of two evils.
I am a Musk fanboy. But I don't think he should be a gatekeeper for free speech evangelism. No matter how fair Elon thinks he is, a completely private entity or person cannot guarantee unbiased free speech. There has to be regulation and oversight. So if Musk wants to take over Twitter, sure, no one's going to stop him. But let's not expect it means that free speech principles will be upheld. It's probable that under…