Hacker News Reader

Comment by WORMS_EAT_WORMS | Hacker News Reader

That's pretty hilarious, but I think saying offensive things (and offending people at their expense) to own Elon really is some derangement. I am assuming this is a joke.

I don't get why people are so worked up about this. If you see Twitter, as Elon and millions of other people do, as the "public digital town hall", it is not unreasonable to verify people's identities and let them comment whatever they want so long it is legal.

It does not mean that you or anyone have to subscribe or listen to their crap.

If you don't see it that way, do people really not understand how others see that as gatekeeping, controlling, or dangerous? What is the purpose of Twitter than to you - basically television? To tune in and tune out?

Then, open source the algorithms. Do the same people really not want to know why Twitter chose to show you X information? Wild.

View on HN

isn't using social media anonymously a valid use case? (i.e. would you tell me your full name?)

as for open sourcing the algorithms, I consider myself extremely pro-open source (though ofc you're free to draw your own conclusions), but isn't it clear that that might simply allow spammers to game them as efficiently as possible (and to that end, isn't spam also free speech)? one idea that seems reasonable that I've heard proposed is an open marketplace of algorithms that one can choose from (open source and otherwise)

It's not derangement, it's a logical method of protesting if you think that it's valid to ban tweets on subjects like qanon, flat out (dangerous) lies, and stirring up violence on Congress on private platforms

Eh -- it's totally derangement.

Protesting a cause at an innocent persons expense is immature.

It also can escalate into real violence.

Thank you for reading my mind and calling me totally deranged. Very rational and not deranged of you.

Here are some sample tweets I might want to post.

"I'm not saying Elon has killed anyone, but he owns a lot of property where bodies could be buried. Why aren't the authorities looking into this?"

"Fact: Tesla cars are killing more people than any other cause." Yes, it it is patently false, and that is the point.

"People are saying that Elon is forcing his numerous lovers to get abortions. Does anyone know if this is true?" Hey, I'm just asking questions.

I believe twitter accounts allow posting a very short description. I'd probably put something like "Testing the limits of twitter's free speech."

Look how fast you escalated this:

> People are saying that Elon is forcing his numerous lovers to get abortions.

Yes, this is harmful to Elon’s “lovers” and at their expense (not yours, not his).

Yes, this is deranged.

Yes, people can support your right to say this while thinking you are really immature, thoughtless, and not even remotely creative.

I disagree on multiple grounds. Forcing someone to have an abortion is a terrible thing to do and should never be allowed. Having an abortion is not shameful, and so my slander was aimed at Must, not his putative lovers. Second, I didn't say all of them had an abortion, so any individual lover isn't being accused of anything.

I understand you disagree with me. Call me deranged is over the top. Calling me immature and thoughtless and not even remotely creative is also a broadside that you can't possibly know. How about we talk about ideas rather than you psychoanalyzing me?

You have taken great offense that I hypothetically might say something untrue on twitter. Have you spent this much energy combating the actual harmful BS that is actually on twitter? Have you written more about my comment or about Elon Musk calling that scuba diver who helped rescue those kids a pedophile?

Calls of violence, deformation and whatnot are already illegal and partially enforced towards one side of the ideological spectrum.

Although groups like qanon tend to sway naive users to extremism, it would be unfair to silence different thoughts just because it "may" lead to that.

Fight bad ideas with better ones.

It's a test of the word and motivation of not just a billionaire, but one of the world's wealthiest individuals - one who has publicly insulted and offended many people already.

I think it's more deranged to see such a test as abnormal.

(Also grotesque does not necessarily mean offensive, and you can limit the scope of the content's exposure)

Your comment:

> (Also grotesque does not necessarily mean offensive, and you can limit the scope of the content's exposure)

OP comment:

> start posting the most grotesque and offensive things

Right, it's not limited to being offensive, and even if it were, you can limit exposure.

Also, testing if a billionaire (who has offended many people on Twitter) is lying is not deranged behavior, which is the point you keep avoiding.

> start posting the most grotesque AND offensive things

Yes, even offensive things. If you are a free speech absolutist, there are no boundaries.

So far you are railing on imagining the worst possible implementation of my idea. I won't speculate why you are that way.

I also think (a) nobody would notice my twitter account, (b) they'd probably block me, which would make my point, and (c) the people who did read my stream while it was active would clearly understand the context of my statements.

Think of it like The Satanic Temple. It exists not to glorify Satan but to test whether laws really are favoring some religions over others, in contradiction to the constitution.

Dude, the GP said they'd post "the most grotesque and offensive things." Please note the "AND offensive". And yet, you keep trying to deny that the GP's intent is to post offensive things?

> Right, it's not limited to being offensive, and even if it were, you can limit exposure.

What do you mean by limit exposure? How would the GP limit exposure of their grotesque and offensive tweets? And even if they did, wouldn't that defeat the purpose of their test? They are trying to increase exposure and see if Musk will limit exposure.

The GP is stating they will purposely offend people to test their suspicions of someone. They are willing to hurt (with words) innocent people to do this. You're calling this normal behavior. So if Musk takes over, it's okay to start calling black people the n word on Twitter to test Musk? I think that qualifies as "most offensive." And to call this testing behavior abnormal is deranged itself according to your words?

And some of your justifications are it's okay to do because Musk is the world's wealthiest individual and he's already offended others?

> It's a test of the word and motivation of not just a billionaire, but one of the world's wealthiest individuals - one who has publicly insulted and offended many people already.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com