[flagged]
Why do you assume everyone who takes that stance is on one side or the other instead of actually holding the position that they state? Do you think all people’s values are so weakly swayed by who they are applied to?
All not. Most yes. This summarizes almost the entirety of modern social media and traditional media discussion.
Sure it is a private company but artificially stacking the deck against competition, either business or speech, violates the core promise of a free market democracy: that the best wins. Competition makes the best products for the lowest prices, free discourse allows the most sound ideas to rise to the top.
Secretly screwing with what should be a level playing-field is dishonest and demonstrates a weakness in your products and/or ideas.
Dishonesty has no place in business or public discourse. And in this case is anticompetitive which makes it illegal.
Now that it has come to light you’ll see him scrambling to undo it because it doesn’t stand up to public scrutiny.
But Twitter isn’t a free market nor a democracy. It’s a private media company. Private media companies stack the deck every day, it is THEIR deck.
Don’t want a stacked deck? Don’t play their game.
The only place you are (supposed to be) guaranteed a free market and democracy is from the government and with public goods.
I’ve had this argument before here on HN. My end stance is that connections to the internet need to have connectivity guarantees for legal services (and they’re regulated and heavily publicly funded, so I think this is reasonable) so that people can create competitive services.
However cloud providers, private platforms, etc. don’t owe you anything beyond their own T&Cs, which they can obviously change.
Also, open invite to email me at the address in my profile. I have a virtual Sunday morning coffee group that loves to argue over stuff like this and you’re welcome to join and we can talk it out.
And I don't assume everyone is on a side, but I'm going to assume you are. Why? Because the irrational partisans I've seen on the internet tend to impute the basest and most repugnant motives possible into the actions of those they hate I think we've all seen quite a lot of it, be it "They like firearms because they have small reproductive organs." or "They support immigration because they hate the local working class." All borne out from a childish desire to live in a world of shining heroes and cackling villains.
Now, maybe your toddler comment is borne out of a careful analysis of Musk's psychological state, and if that's so you have my apologies.
Probably when he got so angry at a competitor for launching a rival app that he publicly challenged him to a fight, then backed out when the competitor agreed to do it, then said he was going to go over to his house and kick his ass when he got called out for backing out?
Or maybe it was taking a play from the Trump playbook with the dumb nicknames for people.
Or maybe it was the way he tried to treat Halli.
Or maybe it was the jet tracker thing.
Maybe it was pedo guy years ago.
At the end of the day, I’m not sure which “Elon moment” put him in that category for me. As someone who would have previously considered themselves a fan I’m not mad, just disappointed.
> And I don't assume everyone is on a side, but I'm going to assume you are. Why?
My side is “Twitter is a private company and can do what they like and I can criticize them for their behavior and motives on any platform that will have me.”
The projection involved in NPD...along with the wealth...casually tossing that accusation. It makes me sick.
Note: I realize NPD is tossed about too frequently but anyone that has had the misfortune of ending up in a long term relationship with a narcassist can spot them.
It just so happens that Musk performs a lot of these questionable actions, so people consequently complain and criticize proportionally.
If he wants to run an unmoderated, right-wing tech site he's more than free to do so.
What he is not free of are his obligations to crack down on calls for violence, trademark and copyright infringement, and to provide fair access to relevant services on the basis of race and sex.
The reason why I don't care is because he's already made it into such a shitshow that everyone I care to listen to has left.
X (FORMERLY Twitter) can do what it wants. If Musk wants to bankroll another conservative echo chamber, it's his right.
He should really find something else to work on.
The New York Times isn’t really a competitor, so the government shouldn’t step in to stop that. Nevertheless, it’s still dumb as shit
But, like I said, it's dumb. It's no different from doing a global server-side search-and-replace from "New York Times" to "New Poop Times". It's both transparent and childish.