Hacker News Reader

Comment by LatteLazy | Hacker News Reader

It's very very unclear to me why he bought it.

He said it was about free speech but Twitter is already about as free as it's possible to be without permitting a whole bunch of content that is NOT protected under the first amendment (CP, calls to violence etc).

And if it is about free speech then it cannot be an automated moderation play, because there is nothing to moderate if you're a pure free speech platform.

The best I can guess, is it's a political play? Turn down politicians who he dislikes? Or he just had a drunk/high/bipolar period and did it without a plan.

View on HN

> Or he just had a drunk/high/bipolar period and did it without a plan.

I'm still convinced this is how he makes more than half of all of his decisions (see for example, him 'building a submarine' or 'boring/loop'). His success seems to be because he sometimes takes already-known-obvious-good bets that no other person could take first because they aren't billionaires.

> The best I can guess, is it's a political play?

I don't think it's a political play, so much as he got angry and impulsive and jumped in without thinking, couldn't back out, and desperately needs to ret-con this into making any sense, so is pivoting in into a political play.

I've just assumed this is the new version of buying media outlets. Bezos bought the Washington Post, Musk decided to buy Twitter. I'm sure it won't be long before Musk hating gets you kicked off the platform.

Washington Post not the NYT no?

Thanks yes, you're right the Washing Post. Edited my comment.

bezos bought the post, not hte times.

< He said it was about free speech but Twitter is already about as free as it's possible to be without permitting a whole bunch of content that is NOT protected under the first amendment (CP, calls to violence etc).

There are plenty of things that are nothing of the sort, merely “sins against wokeism” that will get you instantly banned until you repent. Look, I would prefer conservative people treat feminists and trans people with more sensitivity, but examples that come up over and over are people getting banned for making jokes about there actually being innate differences between men and women, or the ways that slogans like “trans women ARE women” might be a bit too strongly worded.

It was a joke. He didn't want to buy it.

Politics. He gets to use it as a giant media machine to support himself, his businesses and political goals.

Twitter censors legal mainstream political opinions. Society can't discuss or resolve issues because half of every argument gets blocked.

I'm convinced half the polarization in America comes from neither side understanding the other side's basic arguments.

People claim this but apart from banning trump and the "no-deadnaming" thing no one can give me an example...

A lot of people hvae been banned for violating Twitter's COVID disinformation rules, perhaps most prominently Alex Berenson.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/covid-truther-alex-berenson-fi...

It will be particularly telling to see how Elon handles this category of moderation.

Fair enough, I didn't know that. Thanks!

it would help a lot if either side actually articulated any arguments

Who do you believe legally won the 2020 presidential election? And do you think that that is a subject that has fruitful ground for discussion and compromise?

> Twitter is already about as free as it's possible to be without permitting a whole bunch of content that is NOT protected under the first amendment

This is just wildly untrue. There is a huge range of gender-critical views, vaccine skepticism, any combination of race/gender/genetics/IQ discourse, and a ton of other topics that will get you banned, that come nowhere near first amendment protections.

You might think that's a good thing, that's a valid argument, but it's simply untrue to imply that the limit is similar to 1A protections.

You are suggesting the only people banned from twitter are those posting "CP, calls to violence etc" - not true. Also, other than bans there are suspensions such as the New York Post for a story on Hunter Biden.

Plus there are plenty posting call to violence who are not banned, but are suspiciously on the "right" side of politics.

>Twitter is already about as free as it's possible

E.g. in Trump's case they could have deleted the few tweets which they considered calls to violence instead of handing out a permanent ban.

(I'm not saying they should have done that.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com