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
ConservagameR said:
RolStoppable said:

If you didn't make such an effort to twist my words, you would most likely not confuse yourself so much.

Do you think Elon is confused?

The question wasn't for me, but no I dont think he is confused, he know exactly what he is doing. He is not the typical billionaire and I wish more billionaires could be like him instead of Jeff Besos for example, or bankers (fuck bankers).

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".

As he have seen recently, a combined effort by just a few of those companies is enough to bury a story, a person, a subject to be discussed.

But I think his strategy is not the best. I think the impact of him and a few other people by leaving twitter and opening an account in another lookalike company would have a much bigger impact in the discussion. Or open himself a new company, or buy a smaller one and throw money in it.

 



Around the Network
ironmanDX said:
RolStoppable said:

If you didn't make such an effort to twist my words, you would most likely not confuse yourself so much.

First board member if Elon bothers with one.



Hmm, you didn't really seem to be a Peterson fan considering the length of mental gymnastics required in your posts, twisting the posts and asking a questions nothing to do with the post much like that reporter who interviewed him.

Strange. Reading those posts made me wonder if you where Cathy Newman who had decided to join vgchartz.



EnricoPallazzo said:
ConservagameR said:

Do you think Elon is confused?

The question wasn't for me, but no I dont think he is confused, he know exactly what he is doing. He is not the typical billionaire and I wish more billionaires could be like him instead of Jeff Besos for example, or bankers (fuck bankers).

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".

As he have seen recently, a combined effort by just a few of those companies is enough to bury a story, a person, a subject to be discussed.

But I think his strategy is not the best. I think the impact of him and a few other people by leaving twitter and opening an account in another lookalike company would have a much bigger impact in the discussion. Or open himself a new company, or buy a smaller one and throw money in it.

If he took a non Twitter route, it would take a lot more time and wouldn't really solve the problem unless the new platform was far far better or offered something else extremely valuable that somehow couldn't easily be duplicated by Twitter. Odds are for quite some time, even if Twitter started to falter somewhat, they would remain the go to source for most media until they had no choice.

Now if he took over Twitter and made the changes he says he might, the media has little choice but to keep focusing on Twitter because those users really have no where else to go where things aren't far more open than on old Twitter. Might as well just stay put. Then it would be up to another existing platform to change course and take old Twitters place, or for a new Twitter to emerge. Which could happen, but again, would take time, and may also come under hostile money exchanges from more billionaires.



ironmanDX said:

Hmm, you didn't really seem to be a Peterson fan considering the length of mental gymnastics required in your posts, twisting the posts and asking a questions nothing to do with the post much like that reporter who interviewed him.

Strange. Reading those posts made me wonder if you where Cathy Newman who had decided to join vgchartz.

Do you think Elon is strange?



Around the Network

Strange how "freedom of speech" suddenly depends on these new platforms. 20 years ago they didn't even exist, yet I don't remember people claiming we didn't have freedom of speech then.

Either way, I don't think these platforms (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube etc) should be allowed to exist, at least not in their current form. Things seemed to work better before they were allowed to drive public decay.

Is Elon Musk the solution? Very doubtful. He is not very specific on what he wants to do "better".
Free speech absolutist? Does that mean he will allow Islamic State and Russia to freely spread their propaganda on Twitter? I am sure that will be interesting...



Elon could add Netflix for a Dollar or so right now, down from nearly $700 to $200 stock price. I hope you didn't put your life savings into US media companies.



Vinther1991 said:

Strange how "freedom of speech" suddenly depends on these new platforms. 20 years ago they didn't even exist, yet I don't remember people claiming we didn't have freedom of speech then.

Either way, I don't think these platforms (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube etc) should be allowed to exist, at least not in their current form. Things seemed to work better before they were allowed to drive public decay.

Is Elon Musk the solution? Very doubtful. He is not very specific on what he wants to do "better".
Free speech absolutist? Does that mean he will allow Islamic State and Russia to freely spread their propaganda on Twitter? I am sure that will be interesting...

Add on top of that there are people claiming “Twitter is the public square,” and often in the same paragraph “therefore one man should own it,” oblivious to the contradiction.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Lol at Twitter is public square. I mean seriously what the fuck. You Twitter heads need to grasp reality and realize your platform is shit and not everyone wants to deal with it. Hopefully it will turn in yahoo messenger chat channels and be overwhelmed by bots till it dies a slow painful death. Fuck twitter



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.



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").