By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Elon Musk acquires a 9 percent stake in Twitter

 

Is free speech suppressed on the internet's main public squares

Yes 32 52.46%
 
No 27 44.26%
 
Undecided 2 3.28%
 
Total:61
Shadow1980 said:
EnricoPallazzo said:

He understands of course twitter is a private company, but he thinks (my opinion) that twitter reached a status where it is more than a company, it became de facto the public square for people public discourse. I would include other places alongside such as reddit and facebook, reddit is the worst. In being a "public square" it has the responsibility to allow free speech, to allow ideas to be discussed and let public decide which ones are good or not, and not a board of people deciding "this can be published, this cannot". 

There are multiple problems with that line of reasoning.

First off, why should a discussion board or website lose their right to free association simply because they got popular enough? The state would be the only entity capable of enforcing that, and why should the state have that power? I totally get giving the state the power to prohibit businesses from pumping toxic waste in the ocean or engaging in wage theft, but telling a website that it can't kick someone off of their property for using racial slurs or spreading dangerous conspiracies is not something I think the state should be doing. While private property rights are not absolute, restrictions on their use should be narrowly-defined and have a very, very good reason for existing (e.g., preventing direct harm to others).

Second, the law by necessity frequently deals in arbitrary limits, and using popularity to determine a line above which a website is stripped of their right free association would be one of those arbitrary things. How will popularity be measured? Total active users? Average daily post counts? Once we've determined what we'll be using as our criteria, what's the threshold? 100,000? A million? Ten million? Why that threshold and not some other threshold? What if it eventually gets lowered to "one" and therefore no website can have a code of conduct governing user behavior?

If a site or board cannot have a code of conduct in their TOS, that would effectively force every board to allow just about anything that wasn't illegal, their moderators largely toothless. Every one of them could have the potential to become like 4-Chan's /pol/ board. Website owners need the ability to have rules dictating what constitutes unacceptable behavior on their site in order to foster a reasonably healthy and productive community, rather than one that's just some anything-goes cesspit that drives away all but the worst sorts of people.

Giving governments the power to limit freedom of association like how some are proposing opens up a huge can of worms and could potentially set a dangerous precedent.

I think part of the problem in this discussion, as it is usual, is liberals not understanding what conservatives want, and conservatives not understanding what liberals want.

Agree 100% a solution based on a proper law will open a can of worms/pandora box and it is the worst solution ever.

I am pretty sure Musk and most of the people that would like to have free speech on twitter and reddit are not against having community rules. People dont want it to become 4chan (although I see some value in 4chan) where people call each other (insert here word that cannot be spoken today) or talk about murdering people to install a comunist state, rage ethnical cleansing to have a white state only, etc. And to have fairness of treatment and not double standards from "fact checkers" or closing of community/members matters.

Anyway, I dont think the government should jump in to regulate it, in general it only causes more trouble than solutions. The solution is much simpler than that, is people that do not agree with the platform to just stop using it and look for solutions elsewhere, is possible. If all famous people that complain about twitter (including Musk) closed their account and opened a new one in another platform it would bring millions of people to other places.

Of course.. if those other options are allowed to exist. Unfortunately, and this is a very direct criticism of the radical left actions, some try to shut down those options. 

"You dont like it here, build your own platform"

"Hey this platform you created do not follow what I believe, shut it down"

"You did not shut it down? Lets presure government and banks to not allow it to exist, lets cut your financials ties so we strangle you financially"

To be honest I think this all sucks because it only creates more division and I would prefer everyone to be able to expose it's ideas everywhere with no fear of retaliation or cancelling. But a divided world is a reality and I think there is no coming back unfortunately.



Around the Network

Today is the day

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-25/twitter-said-on-track-to-reach-deal-with-musk-as-soon-as-monday-l2en88t0



Dulfite said:
farlaff said:

His recent support of the ridiculous action by the truckers in Canada makes feel the same way about him. In the past, I thought he was more in a kind of a middle ground, but not anymore.

5-10 years ago, and certainly in the 90's (as I say Musk is more of a 90's democrat), the main stream democratic party would have never said people should have to wear masks or get vaccines for something that kills less than 1% of the people that have symptoms in the first place, let alone those that don't exibit any symptoms and therefore don't get tested. The right hasn't moved further right, nor has the middle moved further right, but the left has gone waaaay left in America in a ridiculously short time. And not just on Covid. 

Bold, this is fairly high number actually. Current death rate is 1.2%

If you have no measure you will end in a situation where everybody gets the virus and then 1% of global population (over 80 million people) dies. This would be a catastrophe beyond any war in human History. Getting vaccines and wearing masks is a cheap price to prevent such disaster 



EnricoPallazzo said:

I think part of the problem in this discussion, as it is usual, is liberals not understanding what conservatives want, and conservatives not understanding what liberals want.

Agree 100% a solution based on a proper law will open a can of worms/pandora box and it is the worst solution ever.

I am pretty sure Musk and most of the people that would like to have free speech on twitter and reddit are not against having community rules. People dont want it to become 4chan (although I see some value in 4chan) where people call each other (insert here word that cannot be spoken today) or talk about murdering people to install a comunist state, rage ethnical cleansing to have a white state only, etc. And to have fairness of treatment and not double standards from "fact checkers" or closing of community/members matters.

Anyway, I dont think the government should jump in to regulate it, in general it only causes more trouble than solutions. The solution is much simpler than that, is people that do not agree with the platform to just stop using it and look for solutions elsewhere, is possible. If all famous people that complain about twitter (including Musk) closed their account and opened a new one in another platform it would bring millions of people to other places.

Of course.. if those other options are allowed to exist. Unfortunately, and this is a very direct criticism of the radical left actions, some try to shut down those options. 

"You dont like it here, build your own platform"

"Hey this platform you created do not follow what I believe, shut it down"

"You did not shut it down? Lets presure government and banks to not allow it to exist, lets cut your financials ties so we strangle you financially"

To be honest I think this all sucks because it only creates more division and I would prefer everyone to be able to expose it's ideas everywhere with no fear of retaliation or cancelling. But a divided world is a reality and I think there is no coming back unfortunately.

Well, at least you agree that the government shouldn't be telling websites who they can or cannot ban.

@Bold. I don't seem to recall liberals saying the government should ban Parler or Truth Social or Gab or 4-Chan (all of which still exist, BTW). Private individuals using social pressure, OTOH, is something I'm perfectly okay with. Platforming racists, conspiracy nuts, alt-right assholes, neo-Nazis, tankies (yes, I'm including them), and other vile people should not be socially acceptable, even if it's legally acceptable to do so, because the views of such people should not be socially acceptable. We're dealing with issues beyond simple disagreements over taxes or fiscal policy here. We're dealing with people who traffic in bigotry and dangerous conspiracy theories that threaten to undermine everything from public safety to democracy itself.

By pointing out that websites are platforming the worst sorts of people, it puts public pressure on companies to modify their practices. Bad PR like "This website is platforming people that are spreading COVID misinformation" can easily incentivize businesses to not associate with bad actors. Even if their motivations are purely financial rather than ideological (which is probably the case the vast majority of the time), companies are well within their rights to cease associating with whomever they want provided their reason for doing so doesn't run afoul of anti-discrimination laws. Adherence to a particular worldview does not constitute a protected group under civil rights laws and therefore viewpoint discrimination by private entities is allowed under U.S. law, and I'm not going to argue that it shouldn't be.

That being said, a lot more crap gets past the radar on mainstream social media than is ever banned. There's still a lot of really toxic right-wing garbage circulating on Twitter with nary a peep from the moderators. I mean, even Trump was allowed to say nearly everything he wanted for years, and it wasn't until after the January 6 insurrection that they banned him. They still let the worst sorts of humans spread their bile on the platform. They continue to let propagandist Christopher Rufo (think Frank Luntz but ten times worse) post even after he admitted to lying about what critical race theory is and conflating it with any discussion on race that's not copacetic with conservative ideology in order to make liberal views on race toxic in the public's mind. Yeah, he's the guy who helped weaponize "CRT" and made it the right's favorite buzzword to use in discussions on race. He's now moving on to admitting that he's trying to weaponize "groomer" in the same fashion, essentially encouraging right-wingers to insinuate that the opposition are pedophiles (already part of Q-Anon beliefs). That shit is dangerous beyond belief. It could get people killed (see also "stochastic terrorism"). Yet Twitter still lets the guy post like he's just some rando with perfectly harmless and rational opinions, and not someone who is literally lying in order to demonize anyone to the left of Trump.

A handful of high-profile people getting banned for shit that crossed the line because Twitter wanted to avoid a potential PR nightmare is hardly a "free speech" issue. If anything, Twitter is waaaaaay too soft, and their kid gloves will be even softer if Musk ends up owning it. And, need I remind everyone again, free speech provisions are generally understood as preventing the government from arresting you for saying things (though even then there are some necessary exceptions I shouldn't need to enumerate again), not as something preventing private entities from ceasing to associate with you because you said something beyond the pale. Getting banned from a website for breaking their content rules is no more a free speech issue than is a parent disciplining a child for using disrespectful language.

Also, I have absolutely no sympathy towards right-wingers who complain about cancel culture, not after they've tried and even succeeding in cancelling many people over the decades. Their hypocrisy causes their grievances to fall on deaf ears.

Last edited by Shadow1980 - on 25 April 2022

Visit http://shadowofthevoid.wordpress.com

In accordance to the VGC forum rules, §8.5, I hereby exercise my right to demand to be left alone regarding the subject of the effects of the pandemic on video game sales (i.e., "COVID bump").

“Before we introduce the new CEO and owner of Twitter, please remember to avoid direct eye contact, sudden movements, coughing, or negative facial expressions. And now, the richest man in the world, Elon Musk!”



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Around the Network

Musk's idea of free speech will be pretty clearly determined by whether or not he will unban Trump's account on Twitter. That account's posting history is so expansive and comprehensive in terms of what free speech can be interpreted as.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Shipments

Question: is this the biggest midlife crisis purchase in world history?



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Definitely biggest midlife crisis purchase in world history

Social media, and the internet in general, has been among the best/worst inventions in the history of mankind.

I'm constantly amazed how as a civilization we've never been so connected, but as a society we've never been so disconnected. There have always been problems, and always will be, but social media over the years has amplified sooooooo many different issues. Social media started out pretty innocently enough and was meant to be fun with your "just ate a sandwich" type posts to nowadays being political and social issue hellscapes where everyone and anyone has the ability to express their own opinion regardless of how extreme it might be. And that's just one example.

Social media has been a Pandora's box since the beginning and we're really seeing the damaging effects it has caused on humanity as a whole. I'm personally down to Instagram, YouTube, this site, and.....Steam I guess if you consider that social media? And that list will probably get smaller as time goes on. So good riddance to Twitter as there's really no saving it at this point or way to make it better that will make a majority of the userbase happy regardless of who owns it.

Last edited by gtotheunit91 - on 06 May 2022

EnricoPallazzo said:
Shadow1980 said:

There are multiple problems with that line of reasoning.

First off, why should a discussion board or website lose their right to free association simply because they got popular enough? The state would be the only entity capable of enforcing that, and why should the state have that power? I totally get giving the state the power to prohibit businesses from pumping toxic waste in the ocean or engaging in wage theft, but telling a website that it can't kick someone off of their property for using racial slurs or spreading dangerous conspiracies is not something I think the state should be doing. While private property rights are not absolute, restrictions on their use should be narrowly-defined and have a very, very good reason for existing (e.g., preventing direct harm to others).

Second, the law by necessity frequently deals in arbitrary limits, and using popularity to determine a line above which a website is stripped of their right free association would be one of those arbitrary things. How will popularity be measured? Total active users? Average daily post counts? Once we've determined what we'll be using as our criteria, what's the threshold? 100,000? A million? Ten million? Why that threshold and not some other threshold? What if it eventually gets lowered to "one" and therefore no website can have a code of conduct governing user behavior?

If a site or board cannot have a code of conduct in their TOS, that would effectively force every board to allow just about anything that wasn't illegal, their moderators largely toothless. Every one of them could have the potential to become like 4-Chan's /pol/ board. Website owners need the ability to have rules dictating what constitutes unacceptable behavior on their site in order to foster a reasonably healthy and productive community, rather than one that's just some anything-goes cesspit that drives away all but the worst sorts of people.

Giving governments the power to limit freedom of association like how some are proposing opens up a huge can of worms and could potentially set a dangerous precedent.

I think part of the problem in this discussion, as it is usual, is liberals not understanding what conservatives want, and conservatives not understanding what liberals want.

Agree 100% a solution based on a proper law will open a can of worms/pandora box and it is the worst solution ever.

I am pretty sure Musk and most of the people that would like to have free speech on twitter and reddit are not against having community rules. People dont want it to become 4chan (although I see some value in 4chan) where people call each other (insert here word that cannot be spoken today) or talk about murdering people to install a comunist state, rage ethnical cleansing to have a white state only, etc. And to have fairness of treatment and not double standards from "fact checkers" or closing of community/members matters.

Anyway, I dont think the government should jump in to regulate it, in general it only causes more trouble than solutions. The solution is much simpler than that, is people that do not agree with the platform to just stop using it and look for solutions elsewhere, is possible. If all famous people that complain about twitter (including Musk) closed their account and opened a new one in another platform it would bring millions of people to other places.

Of course.. if those other options are allowed to exist. Unfortunately, and this is a very direct criticism of the radical left actions, some try to shut down those options. 

"You dont like it here, build your own platform"

"Hey this platform you created do not follow what I believe, shut it down"

"You did not shut it down? Lets presure government and banks to not allow it to exist, lets cut your financials ties so we strangle you financially"

To be honest I think this all sucks because it only creates more division and I would prefer everyone to be able to expose it's ideas everywhere with no fear of retaliation or cancelling. But a divided world is a reality and I think there is no coming back unfortunately.

People who espouse for "ethnic cleansing" deserve zero platform anywhere. Fuck them and fuck any moron that thinks "that's dur hur just another opinion dude, to counter balance people who want free health care", as if those things are fucking equivalent. 



gtotheunit91 said:

Definitely biggest midlife crisis purchase in world history

Social media, and the internet in general, has been among the best/worst inventions in the history of mankind.

I'm constantly amazed how as a civilization we've never been so connected, but as a society we've never been so disconnected. There have always been problems, and always will be, but social media over the years has amplified sooooooo many different issues. Social media started out pretty innocently enough and was meant to be fun with your "just ate a sandwich" type posts to nowadays being political and social issue hellscapes where everyone and anyone has the ability to express their own opinion regardless of how extreme it might be. And that's just one example.

Social media has been a Pandora's box since the beginning and we're really seeing the damaging effects it has caused on humanity as a whole. I'm personally down to Instagram, YouTube, this site, and.....Steam I guess if you consider that social media? And that list will probably get smaller as time goes on. So good riddance to Twitter as there's really no saving it at this point or way to make it better that will make a majority of the userbase happy regardless of who owns it.

You are as dramatic as people who use Twitter