Improving human interaction isn't anyone's goal. Imagining there is a "right person" is fake.
Why are people imagining the network which invented contextless hot takes is somehow now the most important public square which must be protected from what? Twitter will be destroyed and we won't have what?
But sometimes, there is something happening that is just random... stuff.
If you don't find it valuable, why are you in this thread arguing about it? For the past year the baseline opinion on HN about twitter was that it should be considered the public square and trump should not be banned (no one would say this specifically but if you poke people this is what they actually care about).
I guess I thought someone might come along with some technical, economic reasons why his individual behavior and choices might not factor in as much as I imagine. Although I guess the way I began the discussion probably invited misinterpretations.
Einstein (and Ghandi, and MLK) cheated on their wives. Harvey Weinstien is a predator who produced Pulp Fiction. Ben Franklin (and Henry Ford) were virulent anti-semites. Von Neumann wanted to preemptively nuke Russia. Lincoln freed the slaves but was overtly racist.
So go ahead and cut Musk out of your life for his behavior. But don't forget to cut out everyone else who's done what he's done, and worse. And cut out all those who don't agree with you, and certainly do not dirty yourself by the use of their discoveries. Do not watch, listen, or use what they've made, for these are the products of bad men, and by using their work you become bad, too.
Although I should say that my list of idols is short for this very reason. I don't think I ever imagine that the real people behind historical figures were as perfect as we imagine.
I think there's also an argument that we live in a time where a single person's failings have an outsized impact on the broader world because of how quickly their words travel. But the real impact of this is debatable. It's probably been said in every era that "this time is different."
> on a few occasions he did use offensive language about Jews in his private correspondence, though this language does not come close to the antisemitic vitriol he ostensibly publicly uttered in the “Prophecy.” Franklin, who also owned slaves and featured slaves for sale in his newspaper prior to becoming an abolitionist, was not at all times free of prejudice.
So if you have doubt about his antisemitism, have no doubt about his slave-holding. The next line in the article is quite good, too:
>In much of today’s popular culture, there often seems to be room only for saints or villains. Franklin was neither.
BTW I'm glad there's doubt about Franklin's anti-semitism. That one in particular always made me particularly sad, for some reason.
We've seen the social media companies work in unison to censor important information that later was proven to be true. Examples are abound and I'm not going to debate them here.
I'm hopeful that will come to an end. This kind of censorship only works if "everyone" is doing it. With the reduced censorship, there will be lots of nonsense I'm uninterested in. I will not follow nonsense accounts and will simply block them if necessary.
Yeah, I think HNers supporting this should reflect on the fact that comments like this would get you moderated and rate-limited here on HN, and that's generally considered a good thing.
I definitely don't embrace Elon Musk's politics as he is vehemently anti-union, but I don't know how much he'd force Twitter to become an echo chamber for himself.