121–130 of 412 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's more fundamental than that. Some forms of speech can indirectly or directly limit the speech of others. Free speech absolutism in an unachievable panacea; it is a logical fallacy.
The people who oppose free speech always try to redefine it this way. Freedom of speech is freedom from censorship or moderation. Not freedom from discomfort
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True! How would it detect sarcasm. For eg. I love what he is doing to Twitter
In my experience people most often convey sarcasm on social media with emoji and the emoji is typically the most informative feature. I hate my job :) -> probably loves their job. I love my job :( -> probably hates their job. Without emoji sarcasm is often hard to detect even for a human.
What do I really mean?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
is that all your evidence?
Even if it is, he's right. Although this is anecdotal, I have a friend who works in finance that said the drop in stock was coincidental to the stock price dropping. Apparently pharmaceuticals are a defensive sector in a bear market, and the market popping up last week meant the price of Eli Lilly dropped, as I understand it. In his words that tweet causing the stock to drop was "fake news"
But in a bear market, this bad publicity about the high price of a mandatory medication for a large population is likely going to have an effect.
Or it could have also been a coincidence... there's no way to know.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your argument is, abstractly, "Isn't censorship also speech?" My response is, no, censorship is not covered under free speech. This is a faulty supposition that many people who are generally opposed to free speech hold. Preventing people from hearing someone speak is self-evidently the most anti-free-speech act it is possible for a private individual to do.
> "Isn't censorship also speech?" That isn't my argument at all. My argument is that for you to stop me from shouting over your speech, you would be limiting my speech. I could argue that I am shouting so that everyone can hear me. I could be shouting important things. Limiting my speech is censorship. Free speech absolutism is a paradox. The only way to resolve that paradox is to limit speech that limits the fundame…
You could argue that, yes. What you can argue doesn't matter. I can also, equally, argue that I am free to DDoS someone I don't like, because there is no technical limitation to my doing so, and that anyone attempting to stop that is inhibiting my free speech or free use of whatever hardware I control. Where does anyone argue that? Where has anyone argued this version of free speech that you are presenting the fallacies of? I have never heard even the most die-hard free speech supporter advocate that someone is free to follow you around all day, yelling to drown out your voice. And if this free speech absolutism is a position that no one holds, why are you arguing against it?
>"I order you to kill/hang that vice president" is speech, and the dead don't speak.
This started by you giving the example of an order to kill someone as being free speech that so-called free speech absolutists would logically protect. But the thing that is actually a problem, in that example, is that you are (presumably) using whatever existing power you have to unlawfully kill someone. The fact that someone could literally say those words to cause that effect in no way mandates that free speech advocates defend literal murder.
There's still a question of how "negative/hate" is defined and whether this will be transparent. I'm skeptical, but the general principle of discouraging and not profiting from negativity is, uh, positive.
We have laws that define this. What changed was that a small group of technocrats took it upon themselves that any questioning of their ideology was “hate speech.”
So, what percentage of Musk's tweets would be max deboosted? Examples start about halfway down the list. https://www.insidehook.com/article/tech/elon-musk-worst-twee...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> At this point its best to hope markets dont start reconsidering your other companies as risky business. I think this is inevitable. One, Elon is trying to prop up Twitter by using SpaceX money to buy ads. He's dipping his hand into other companies to keep his new toy afloat for a while longer. I don't know if the word "contamination" is appropriate here, but it's pretty clear that Elon doesn't see any kind of sharp…
> I don't know if the word "contamination" is appropriate here, but it's pretty clear that Elon doesn't see any kind of sharp boundaries between his various enterprises. Even without "contamination", TSLA stock price collapsed by over $100+ because Elon Musk predictably sold $Billions of stock to pay for the TWTR buyout. Its not like $33 Billion came out of nowhere. Elon had to sell TSLA to get that money. If TWTR ke…
I'm certainly not a fan of how Musk has handled the Twitter takeover, but this sentiment, "New Twitter policy is freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach", seems highly reasonable to me, no? That is, what I find so awful about most social media (and places like YouTube) is how they focus on some of the most anger-inducing content for "engagement". That is, I think the problem is much more their algorithms than wha…
People’s problem with Twitter was always that they would arbitrarily decide what is or isn’t acceptable speech, and Elon’s new solution does…exactly the same thing. The only thing that will change now is that liberal politicians and views will start being targeted rather than conservative/alt-right ones. Is anyone here really naïve enough to believe that this whole saga has been about “free speech”? It is simply a sh…
That was perhaps one problem with Twitter, and no, this is not the same thing.
Other, much bigger problems were that they'd arbitrarily block (as in: make invisible) tweets, replace them with "warnings" of dubious provenance, declare "misinformation" (often based on poor/biased understanding of the topics at hand; recall the repeated flagging of the Cochrane Collaboration Twitter account last year [1]), ban accounts entirely after "three strikes" of this sort, and many other egregious acts of censorship that frequently correlated more strongly with political ideology than with fact or actual threat.
Musk's comment doesn't say how they're going to decide what is hate speech, and that's pretty critical context here, so we'll see. There's obviously going to be a narrow class of speech that needs regulation, on any social platform. But if it's possible to say pretty much anything outside of this narrow class of content without getting banned, it would be a significant shift toward freedom of expression.
[1] https://twitter.com/cochranecollab/status/150445846882413363...
(Cochrane is the gold standard for medical evidence review. Flagging them for "misinformation" would be hilariously misinformed, if it weren't so scary.)
There's still a question of how "negative/hate" is defined and whether this will be transparent. I'm skeptical, but the general principle of discouraging and not profiting from negativity is, uh, positive.
"negative/hate" will be defined by the advertisers.