Hacker News Reader

Comment by coolbreezetft22 | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

It's very strange. "If you don't like it, leave." people leave "You don't matter, go!"

If you tell people to vote with their feet and attention, and they do, don't be mad at the outcome. I totally support Elon running Twitter however he wants, it's his to do as he pleases, but he is unable to hold participants hostage on the platform (which both he [1] [2] and some cohort of people who support him in some measure find unpleasant).

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38470762

[2] https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/29/23981928/elon-musk-ad-bo...

Never understood this take. Telling companies to stop pressuring them with ad dollars is ideologically consistent. He's saying if you can't handle freedom of expression on the platform then don't use the platform. He's not forcing them to do anything, it's the other way around.

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you meant by "hostage". Not sure who is being held hostage.

Being pro-mega corporations moderating what conversations on the internet is allowable is a weird thing to be in vogue. Telling companies that don't want to be associated with the content to just walk away is the right choice, even if it hurts the business. I'd also rather see Twitter die than Disney and Co being the arbiters of discussion. We already have Facebook and Reddit for that, and neither are any better for generating healthy societal discourse.

He calls them not spending their add money on Twitter "blackmail" and goes on to say they will kill the company.

That doesn't sound like "if you can't handle freedom of expression on the platform then don't use the platform." To me. They AREN'T using the platform and he's mad about it.

This is silly. He obviously wants money from major advertisers. Why wouldn't he? He still runs a business and has employees to pay. That motivation is enough for him to want them to stay, yet he is clearly making a major sacrifice for his values.

The stretches people to through to get upset about him is bizarre. He did enough real shit to dislike him, no need to obsessively twist everything into what it isn't just to have new things to get upset about.

The comment I'm replying to (your comment) says this:

> He's saying if you can't handle freedom of expression on the platform then don't use the platform.

Sounds like we are in agreement he is not saying that. He wants advertisers to use the platform regardless of if they can "handle it". And is indeed upset they are not.

>He obviously wants money from major advertisers. Why wouldn't he? He still runs a business and has employees to pay. That motivation is enough for him to want them to stay, yet he is clearly making a major sacrifice for his values.

yes, we call that hypocrisy. Spouting one sentiment ("you are free to do whatever and I respect that") and then the opposite when it works againt you ("you are blackmailing me by leaving the platform and pulling your ad money. This is an invasion of speech"). It's not the worst thing he's done, but the most relevant thing to the post submitted here.

Oh come on. He made headlines last week for telling advertisers to go fuck themselves, then a few minutes later complained that they were doing ot bankrupt/destroy the company and saying he would put out detailed documentation on how they did it. If he does not actually want or care about their money then stop whining about bankruptcy and making sad accusations of blackmail and so on.

I don't see how any of that is being inconsistent. Wanting companies to remain advertisers without bullying him into censoring users (or his own speech) is a valid position and obviously something he wants. But he doesn't have to bend over to make it happen.

I highly doubt Disney etc would suddenly start coming back if he was simply polite in response to them making a very public statement about leaving. Obviously they want him to make concessions in censorship that he finds untenable and his response was to fuck off if that's their demands.

He didn't buy Twitter just to run it the same way as @jack and say yes to whatever powerful company/gov agency demands of them.

Nobody owes him advertising $. If he wants to tell advertisers to go fuck themselves because they don't want to appear next to nazis that's his prerogative, but whining about how it's hurting his company is his problem.

> He didn't buy Twitter just to run it the same way as @jack and say yes to whatever powerful company/gov agency demands of them

One of the many ironies is, of course, that musk's twitter says "yes" to government requests far more frequently than jack's did.

In case you're wondering, this is one of the many reasons people dislike him in relation to twitter, he talks a lot about "free speech" but his actions are consistently about supporting only the speech he himself makes.

Musk has been having temper tantrums for the last few weeks about people not advertising on his platform, Rockstar not hosting a GTA video on his platform, etc etc. He seems unhappy when people _actually_ stop using the platform.

> he is unable to hold participants hostage

I observed Twitter/X was recently loosening previous owner's restrictions and censorship. I'm apparently misinformed, so how is enabling previously banned accounts hurting free speech?

If it was actually about free speech, the Elon Jet Tracker account wouldn’t be banned. It’s actually about being able to say bigoted things without consequences.

Also if it was actually about free speech, he wouldn’t immediately capitulate every time a foreign government asks him to remove content they deem inappropriate.

> I'm apparently misinformed, so how is enabling previously banned accounts hurting free speech?

I never said it was. That is a choice. Elon doesn't like advertisers pulling their spend (free speech) and the general public leaving (free speech and association). He wants to demand an audience under his terms (participants must stay, advertisers must continue to spend under his terms), leading to this natural experiment. I apologize if that wasn't clear from my turn of phrase with regards to being held hostage.

Twitter will die, Elon will take the L (but probably not learn from it until some future wealth destruction event), and everyone will move on to other forums and digital third spaces. Enjoy the show.

Of course, criticizing advertisers for pulling their spend because they do not like the free speech of other users is also free speech. It's quite reasonable to name and shame companies that take actions that try to restrict other peoples' free speech.

(I'm using 'free speech' outside of the governmental context - the government can't abridge free speech, but outside of that free speech is simply a good idea.)

Let's be honest here. It isn't some objective definition free speech, it is whatever Elon believes to be free speech at the time [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. It is absolutely silly to expect any company to financially support a platform with a dynamic and fluid version of "absolute free speech." I certainly don't want my consumer dollars flowing through companies to Twitter/X as marketing spend based on how it operates.

If you have speech others don't like, be prepared to get your wallet out and pay for it yourself. No one is obligated to financially support speech they don't agree with. You might believe that to "name and shame companies that take actions that try to restrict other peoples' free speech" is going to result in some backlash against these companies; it won't except in some small, immaterial population. Let Elon put comms out and say, "If you don't directly pay for Twitter, Twitter will die" and lets see how many people show up to pay their expenses and fiat behind their belief system.

> but outside of that free speech is simply a good idea.

This is an opinion, and other takes are going to be based on the limits involved [6].

> 65% of Americans support tech companies moderating false information online and 55% support the U.S. government taking these steps. These shares have increased since 2018.

> Americans are even more supportive of tech companies (71%) and the U.S. government (60%) restricting extremely violent content online.

> Democrats are more supportive than Republicans of tech companies and the U.S. government restricting extremely violent content and false information online. The partisan gap in support for restricting false information has grown substantially since 2018.

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/15/media/twitter-musk-journalist...

[2] https://www.thefire.org/news/twitter-no-free-speech-haven-un...

[3] https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/twitter-elon-musk...

[4] https://time.com/6229960/twitter-bans-accounts-elon-musk-imp...

[5] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/twitter-suspends-user...

[6] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/07/20/most-amer...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com