801–810 of 1001 posts
The thing he actually doesn't want everyone to realise is that he is a dumbass billionaire who goes on costly trips all the time. As soon as the world sees him as the kiddo who happens to have whims and does whatever he want with the mass of money he has (he bought twitter just for fun?), his aura will be over.
He's going back and forth between various headquarters of companies he owns and manages.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not about providing info that he flies a lot, but about sharing his live location without consent. Imagine someone kept posting a tweet about your every trip - when you left, when and where you will arrive. Twitter TOS are one thing, but I'm quite sure such things break EU's GDPR laws as well.
Instead they merely sell it to advertising companies.
If the private jet of a Shell manager is seen to fly to a Phillipine island a few times in a month, and the private jet of a manager of a Phillipine drilling company then flies to Amsterdam, it's likely that Shell is going to buy, build or anything over there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My preferred operationalization of free speech is "minimum intimidation". Slurs don't qualify for protection under this operationalization, because they intimidate the listener without providing any information content. Same goes for protesting a talk so loudly that the speaker is drowned out, or doxxing. If your speech serves only to intimidate others into silence, I don't think it should be protected. Curious to he…
Same goes for protesting a talk so loudly that the speaker is drowned out By this standard the speech of people booing Musk in a stadium the other day was not protected and they could be subject to legal sanction. I doubt this was what you had in mind.
The question I'm trying to answer: Suppose a large group of hecklers attend a public lecture. They disrupt the lecture and prevent the audience from hearing the speaker's message. Is there a sense that they are interrupting the lecturer's exercise of free speech? Or alternatively, is it the case that anyone who scolds them is interfering with the hecklers' right of free speech? (Does the scold also have a right to free speech? How deep does this rabbit hole go?) I think it's possible to thread this needle by defining the thing we want as "transmission of information", and the thing we don't want as "intimidation".
You could argue that boos are also transmission of information. I saw a short clip of the boo thing and it didn't seem like they were loud or numerous enough to overwhelm what was spoken into the microphone. So based on my current operationalization, those boos basically qualify as protected speech.
If audience members preplanned a large disruption which made it impossible to hear anything Elon said, that would be anti-free-speech according to my current operationalization. It intimidates and prevents information transmission.
I still have to think about the case where they spontaneously disrupt the event, unintentionally making it impossible for him to speak. It seems analogous to the case where people are killed because they're in a big crowd where everyone is squeezed into a tiny space.
Elon posted some info[0] that gives it some context: "Last night, car carrying lil X in LA was followed by crazy stalker (thinking it was me), who later blocked car from moving & climbed onto hood. Legal action is being taken against Sweeney & organizations who supported harm to my family." Make that what you will. [0]: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1603190155107794944
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't care about costly trips. I mean, he has billions and works a lot. Spending a million here and million there is pretty frugal compared to some other people who need to prove their worth by upping each other on who has the largest yacht in the world. What I do care about, though, is hypocrisy.
You should care about his costly trips. As an individual, he is wrecking the environment at a rate a thousandfold of the average person.
The thing he actually doesn't want everyone to realise is that he is a dumbass billionaire who goes on costly trips all the time. As soon as the world sees him as the kiddo who happens to have whims and does whatever he want with the mass of money he has (he bought twitter just for fun?), his aura will be over.
Why has even HN comment field lowered to nothing but blind hate? Say what you want but the man has reformed rocket technology and jumpstarted the world's shift to electrical vehicles, both against all odds. Hate-takes like this are silly.
And now he is helping to spread racism and anti-semititsm:
* https://thehill.com/policy/technology/3709609-racist-antisem...
It's possible to think he has done good things in the past, but is doing bad things in the present. And to believe/worry that his present (and future) actions may cause his 'net effect' on the world to become negative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why has even HN comment field lowered to nothing but blind hate? Say what you want but the man has reformed rocket technology and jumpstarted the world's shift to electrical vehicles, both against all odds. Hate-takes like this are silly.
I do give him credit for those things, but the guy is one of the most powerful people in the world and uses that power to bully. He keeps using his position of power to punch down at people who usually don’t deserve it. It’s petty and pathetic. For example, twitter’s former head of trust and safety had to leave his home recently because Musk told his fawning followers that he was a pedophile. It’s not even the first…
Uh no. He simply posted a screenshot from the guy’s thesis.