How did you come to these conclusions about the goals and future of Twitter? My naive expectation was that Musk is mostly interested in enriching and aggrandizing himself, and that a crusade against some social group is only interesting as long as it serves the primary interests.
This is clearly not true. X represents Elon’s politics. Best example: Elon has X officially blocked any usage of the term cis as part of his crusade against his trans daughter - and I don’t say that lightly, he was not anti trans until she came out.
https://www.fastcompany.com/91126082/elon-musk-x-cisgender-c...
No, because people acting with hate as motivator don’t care if they are within a social minority. They will cease any opportunity to use every aggression tool they have at their disposal to express loudly their will to oppress whoever looks like unaligned with their mindset.
This is in sharp contrast with minorities whose only wish is to live in a way that is aligned with with their own aspirations that perfectly fit in a specter of harmonious social differences even if it doesn’t fall right in the middle of the median mainstream stereotype.
Everybody is part of some minorities. But not everyone think that because they are a member of this or that minority they should be given some hegemony over everything and the rest in the political matter of their society.
Difference without distinction in this case. The left actually polices its luminaries to some degree (not perfectly but still) which makes it incompatible with the grifter class Musk is chief president of. He’s never going to drift leftward because we’re not going to metaphorically suck his balls because he promotes basic human decency. Figures like him only go rightward.
As for if he bought twitter explicitly to make it a greater hotbed for racism, I think you’d have a hard time proving it in court, but at the same time, he’s unbanned a lot of prominent alt-right figure heads, and boosted tons of their tweets to the financial detriment of the platform. Can’t say he bought it to do that but the huge drops in value because of it hasn’t deterred him so…
It isn't just a left issue. Liberatarians also don't really care about LGBT people expressing themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_perspectives_on_LG...
So Musk isn't libertarian nor left on social issues. He is conservative right. Although his exact philosophy is hard to pin down because he isn't really a supporter of the traditional family.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8090810/
https://gradesfixer.com/free-essay-examples/the-way-we-never...
https://pixiedane.wescreates.wesleyan.edu/research/tradition...
https://www.humanities.org/spark/the-myth-of-the-traditional...
Moreover, it’s not that simple. Racists can express themselves. I was talking about racist discourse, not racists themselves. Racism is a hate speech, which has nothing to do with, for example, the right to enjoy one's body and have an abortion as a woman or the ability to express one's gender identity—something that, according to all scientific studies and meta-analyses on the subject, clearly improves the well-being of trans people.
I know very well that racists are experts at playing the victim and making it seem like they are the ones facing repression, but who runs the country? Who are the journalists on television? Are they women or men? White? Rich?
It’s outrageous to claim that the richest man in the world—Elon Musk, a racist, antisemitic, misogynistic white supremacist—is supposedly "censored" and unable to express himself freely! Remind me of a time in American history when a woman had as much power as Elon Musk over the country, or even over other countries (as we see with ALD in Germany)?
Maybe (if it's about black or white), but anti-Semites have a pretty loud and public voice in the "Western" world.
Just look how many likes Ye’s “I AM A NAZI” tweet has…
"Liberal Zionism" used to be in vogue in Israel, which takes a more moderate view and criticizes the Israeli occupation while still arguing for an Jewish state, but I think it's gotten less and less popular these days, at least from what I tell from the outside, and a more extreme form has become the popular one again.
Another part of the issue is that especially among young people, words have lost their meanings. Everything is toxic, a genocide, sexual assault, rape, cultural appropriation, god knows what else - the room for nuances in discussion has been entirely lost because large parts of society lack the vocabulary to talk about it, 1984 says hello.
The combination of hyper-social media, ever shorter dopamine feedings / gamification and a complete lack of awareness for the importance of basic education and history are disastrous.
So do Jews. So are we seeing full free speech in action? Or is whats right decided by which side people agree with?
Even free speech has its limits...for example calling for the extermination of a race.
>Or is whats right decided by which side people agree with?
Correct, most of the time it is, and that is exactly why laws (esp. international ones) exist and Justitia is/should be blind.
It doesnt though, thats the point.
Its the same as competition in a capitalist marketplace. A company can sell terrible products and what should happen is people see they are terrible products and vote with their wallet to stop buying. Then the company goes out of business.
With free speech if somebody is saying something that other people think is terrible, they should stop listening to that person. They are still allowed to say anything they want, but their reputation is tarnished and hardly anybody listens to them and they loose their platform/influence.
In reality, people are weak and do not do these things. They keep buying the terrible products because they dont want to have to think about looking for a better alternative. They keep listening to the hate speech because its easier to respond in anger than to ignore the person. The solution to all these things is education and people spending more time thinking about how they respond to things in the world. Again in reality this wioll never happen, and so people will keep shouting and shouting about what they dont like until the world ends up destroying itself through hate and anger.
It’s an interesting analogy to free speech.
I agree, thanks for pointing that out. There are nuances on both sides which make it an interesting thought experiment to apply to the other side.
Not a Lawyer, but threatening to kill someone is not protected by free speech right?
>They keep listening to the hate speech
The definition of "hate speech" is unclear and a made-up word to make people feel bad for being angry -> Two Minutes Hate
>>The political purpose of the Two Minutes Hate is to allow the citizens of Oceania to vent their existential anguish and personal hatred toward politically expedient enemies
It depends on context. The legal test is called the "Imminent Lawless Action" Test in the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio#Brandenbur...
Buddy, do a little bit of googling before you say plainly incorrect stuff like this. [1] [2]
Just because there’s not a single definition of a word does not mean the meaning of the word is unclear.
I think everyone on the planet could identify the vast majority of hate speech from the age of like 11. They say the edgiest stuff, after all.
Even if you agree with hate speech, you can still identify it.
Also like… all words are made-up
1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hate%20speech 2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
So, from the opposite direction, I have the same issue as the other commentator but with the divergent use of the word "woke" by those mostly on the right (and sarcastically by those on the left) — if the person hearing/reading it doesn't know what to expect, it's not a useful word.
Therefore, while I know what I mean by "hate speech" (demonising/dehumanising a group), I tend to avoid using the term as it doesn't successfully replicate my thoughts into the heads of other people.
If someone threatened to kill me theres no way I would be trying to invoke law to protect me. Why would I when they have done nothing wrong? If they pick up a gun and shoot at me then that becomes illegal and I will call the police or defend myself. If they pay somebody else to act on their opinion and cause me harm then again it becomes illegal. But to expect the law to punish someone just because they said 'I want to kill you'? That IMO is barbaric and completely ridiculous.
In practice, the law not taking this seriously is how a lot of women in abusive relationships die
Yes agreed, and its also the reason we have an innocent until proven guilty justice system.
Things can be said in anger, and not really meant. In fact I would wager out of all the death threats made in the entire world, the vast majority are said in anger and not meant to be followed through on. This is why we dont lock people up for just saying things. There needs to be other motives and evidence behind it to show intent.
Unfortunately yes this means we have situations where people are not believed and go on to receieve harm. Humanity has decided as a society that this is less harmful than locking far too many innocent people up by mistake. I do not have an opinion on whether this is right or wrong, but it is what exists for us and created by us.
If you have a better idea for a more fair justice system then go advocate for it, but the whole history of humanity hasnt found one yet.
You are incorrect, at least in California
https://www.cronisraelsandstark.com/criminal-threats-califor...
Not quite
From your link: "the prosecutor must prove that the threats placed the victim in reasonable fear and that the fear was sustained"
You cant just be prosecuted for saying something. You always need to back it up and prove it was a real threat where harm was a real possibility or the victim was in sustained genuine fear of their life.
While I appreciate your free speech maximalism, I can't help but feel you're shutting the door after the horse has bolted.
My feeling is that someone should be allowed to say that they hate me, and that they'd like to kill me. All the same, if I think they'll actually attempt to do so then I'm ok with the law trying to prevent it.
I'm fact I'm glad that they're allowed to express themselves like this because then I know who not to stand near cliff edges with.
For real though I think a lot (but not all) of opposition to things like hate speech is really an opposition to the feeling being expressed, rather than the expression itself. I'd prefer someone didn't have hatred in their heart, but once they do I prefer that they're open about it.
(You might say that that will only encourage others to become hateful, I don't necessarily agree, but it's a fair concern.)
> if I think they'll actually attempt to do so then I'm ok with the law trying to prevent it.
This is the sticky issue which nobody is able to solve though. How do you prove someone will actually attemt to do it? Currently the legal system requires more than them just saying it to prosecute. There needs to be more motive, or evidence of actual persistent stalking or harm.
What do you think makes the difference between an idle threat and an actual intention of harm?
On the other hand, it may not be necessary. When I say the law can try to prevent my murder, I don't necessarily mean to deprive my would-be murder of liberty or privacy (since those should be protected in the absence of proven guilt). If you put the prevention on the other side, and offer e.g. a police escort or enforced blocks on communication media then maybe you can discourage/prevent my murder without answering difficult questions like intent.
You might well say, "I shouldn't have to do any of that, they should have to not murder", or "that's all fine but who's going to pay". I have a most marvellous answer to those, but is comment is too small to contain it.
> You might well say...
Well indeed I do say who is going to pay. If we had a society where you could get your own police escort or phone block just by saying that someone threatened you, I feel that service would be open to abuse and would end up costing the taxpayer a whole lot.
> I have a most marvellous answer to those
Please retort your answer, I am intrigued :)
If free speech has no limit, that means you can't prevent people from arguing against the end of free speech.
Such arguments have been convincing in many places and in many times, for many different reasons. Including the USA — the things that are considered "corrupting our youth" at different times and in different ways, plus a bunch of other stuff that society just doesn't function without banning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
> A company can sell terrible products and what should happen is people see they are terrible products and vote with their wallet to stop buying. Then the company goes out of business.
Like the 84% reduction in Twitter revenue prior to the election?
> They are still allowed to say anything they want, but their reputation is tarnished and hardly anybody listens to them and they loose their platform/influence.
Musk sued the people who pointed out to brands advertising on twitter that their reputations were getting tarnished by what their content was getting associated with on Twitter.
> The solution to all these things is education and people spending more time thinking about how they respond to things in the world.
Number of times I've personally witnessed sales clerks and customer support teams not knowing their own products suggests this is one of those solutions that sounds easy but isn't.
Had to tell one that not only did we support browsers other than Internet Explorer, but that they were themselves using Firefox at the time they claimed to only support Internet Explorer.
As a more general approach to freedom, we can consider that freedom can only begin where it confirms others’ freedom. If we don’t act with reciprocity in mind, we are on the track to build some kind of hegemony, not to establish a society of free people.
Correct, they can talk about it all they want but cant act on it.
> Like the 84% reduction in Twitter revenue prior to the election?
Yep, and if the majority of the world fully agrees that Twitter is in the wrong and is a horrible place then it will plummit further and cease to exist. The thing here is that there is a massive percent of the population that loves twitter as it is, and so it will continue as there are still enough people to justify the advertising.
> Musk sued the people who pointed out to brands advertising on twitter that their reputations were getting tarnished by what their content was getting associated with on Twitter.
He didnt. He is trying to and we will see what hapopens there. Personally I think his case will be thrown out but thats just an opinion.
> Number of times I've personally witnessed sales clerks and customer support teams not knowing their own products suggests this is one of those solutions that sounds easy but isn't.
I agree, I never said it was easy. In fact I said that the majority of the world will take the easy way out and not put the thought required into their reponses to things.
"Election".
Action very easy. They do it a lot. Did it this time, even, despite what they say.
> He didnt.
He did.
Here's the lawsuit that X Corp. filed: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.38...
That is him doing the thing.
I disagree.
> He did.
Did he win? IMO saying he 'sued' someone means he was successful and they had to pay him. Otherwise he just filed a lawsuit.
This is not how people typically use the term. And if you look it up the dictionary also doesn't use it that way.
And while we're on this point, there's such a thing as vexation litigation. You should look that up too.
Because words are used to communicate between parties, one cannot unilaterally define an existing term to mean whatever they wish it to mean. (Another good thing to look up: Humpty Dumpty and the meaning of words.)
Yeah fair enough, I am not a laywer and so am not knowledgable on exact legal definitions. However you argued your point as if he was successful, which he is not, and so your point is moot until a ruling.
No need to go off on other tangents that I have not mentioned anything about, then again you have the right to free speech so feel free to rattle on about whatever you want!
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/14/media/white-house-ap-ban-...
https://variety.com/2025/film/news/julianne-moore-donald-tru...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/13/pentagon-sch... (Wasn't this the villain's plot in one episode of Buffy?)
https://www.statnews.com/2025/02/13/trump-dei-ban-banned-wor... ("Trans" is a common prefix in chemical words, irregardless of humanity, this is stupid)
> Did he win? IMO saying he 'sued' someone means he was successful and they had to pay him. Otherwise he just filed a lawsuit.
To sue is to file.
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/sue#:~:text=Brit%20%2F...
For the case I linked to, the status appears to be "Oral argument in the Fifth Circuit is scheduled for February 18, 2025" i.e. tomorrow: https://knightcolumbia.org/cases/x-corp-v-media-matters
Lots of people can't fight lawsuits even if they're in the right. This is called "lawfare" or a "SLAPP".
Here's the result of a different SLAPP case that he was involved in, that was dismissed by a judge because it was identified as a SLAPP case by a judge in a jurisdiction where that's deemed anti freedom-of-speech:
"""A judge in California on Monday dismissed the tech billionaire Elon Musk’s lawsuit against the Center for Countering Digital Hate, a non-profit that has published reports chronicling the rise of racist, antisemitic and extremist content on X, formerly Twitter, since Musk’s acquisition.
The case was dismissed in accordance with the state’s anti-Slapp law, which forbids nuisance lawsuits intended to punish the exercise of free speech.""" - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/mar/25/elon-musk...
> It doesnt though, thats the point.
In theory. But in practive even the most staunch pro-free speech jurisdictions have limits on them. A lot for good reasons that most people would agree with (threats and fraud, stuff like that), but also some that would be absurd in other jurisdictions (obscenities for example, which is usually very locality specific).
There's a Wikipedia page with free speech exceptions in the USA. Those exceptions don't really seem weird, but just seeing that there are reasonable exceptions makes free speech absolutism less sensible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
So one can still be a free speech absolutist with respect to speech in itself, while still holding people responsible for unlawful activity that the speech is helping to facilitate.
You could just as easily look at those places and say they must not actually have free speech because they have legal limits on what you say.
Combine the two and it isn't that you said something that is illegal, its that the statement is interpreted as a clear signal of actively planning to do something which itself is illegal.
That's why governments make rules to protect those with less indormation and power.
According to your logic cyberbullying is just free speech.
Should I wish for you to by cyberbullied, so you see first hand that free speech has limits?
And don't forget that many free speech apologetics say that free speech doesn't mean free of consequences. At this point it's clear that for most people free speech doesn't exitst because they censor their posts if say fear consequences.
IMO it is
> Should I wish for you to by cyberbullied, so you see first hand that free speech has limits?
Feel free to, you have that right. If people choose to act on it I will deal with it on my end appropriately, and I wont be complaining to you to stop saying what you have the right to.
So you think you can’t damage people’s psyche through words?
Words are still just words until they are acted on, but this is just my opinion and you are entitled to yours.
> So you think you can’t damage people’s psyche through words?
Not sure where you got that from, of course it is possible. But we are all gatekeepers of our own minds.
You seem to be ignoring my responses and trying to lead me further into extreme examples to trap me. Carry on if you feel you must, but at the end of the day we both have our opinions and we are entitiled to them.
You overestimate the power of your mind. Constant attacks breaks everybody and don’t forget the mind of children and young people is even weaker. But it doesn’t matter because free speech over all?
Back to extreme examples, what about Charles Manson? He didn’t kill anybody, was his imprisonment wrong?
> You overestimate the power of your mind
No I dont. I am fully aware of mine and everybody elses weakness and bias.
> But it doesn’t matter because free speech over all?
Exactly!
I think you are overestimating your opinion, you come across as if you know everything thats right and wrong and everybody should have the same opinion as you.
Luckily for myself and free speech, opinions are subjective. Here you are trying your hardest to offend me and back me into a corner about what I think. Yet my overarching opinion is that you are free to say anything you like about me. I have no issue with your opinions, and if you didnt have issue with mine this would be a much nicer world to live in.
Try tolerence of other peoples opinions sometime, even if you dont agree with them. Its actually quite refreshing and liberating.
To be clear, you're comparing anti-semites (a racist "group") with Jews (an ethnic/religious group). One is defined by holding a targeted, hateful ideology. The other is a group of human beings, by birth/existence.
I make no claim against you, but this framing represents the insidiously successful repackaging of hate as an "equal right", which racists have used to mainstream hateful ideas that, at-scale, ultimately infringe on the rights of groups of people. This can include (has included) incitement to violence. The latter is famously a limitation of free speech, and all rights are generally circumscribed by their infringement on the rights of others, in any case.
The other insidiously misleading argument around this issue is that Twitter is enforcing "free speech" in the first place. Only the government can infringe on the right, as it restrains only the government. Twitter is no "protector" of free speech, because it cannot be. It can, however, make the choice to allow and promote hateful speech against others, and that's exactly what it's doing.
So, the argument here is not whether promoting rights is good for society. The argument is whether promoting hate is good for society.
I disagree. In this context they are 2 groups of people who disagree about something, everything else is irrelevant. It is your opinion to colour one side or the other 'hateful', 'racist' or any other word. You are applying your opionin and bias to other people arguments to paint one side better than the other.
Take this same opinion and apply it to Israel/Palestine, and suddenly it becomes not so clear cut. Both sides claim something about the other side, and both are killing each other because if it. In this instance, who would you call hateful and racist? It completely depends on who you sympathise with as there is no correct answer here. It is no different to any other groups of people who you are not part of.
You should look up the word, antisemite.
>Take this same opinion and apply...
I understand why you'd want to change the subject, but no.
I also understand why you ignored the rest of my comment.
I see now that you're a promoter of exactly the insidious "hate as an equal right" mantra that turned Twitter into what it is today. While it's infected too many people, it is heartening to watch the exodus underway that's rapidly evolving it into a 4chan-esque echo chamber.
Prejudice is completely different to hate. They are often associated but are not the same.
> I see now that you're a promoter of exactly the insidious "hate as an equal right" mantra that turned Twitter into what it is today.
You seem very quick to label and categorise people into boxes about what they think about. Be careful, that is a very dangerous road to go down as history has proved time and time again.
Your abridged definition is your cartoonish admission that you're aware that you're wrong.
With just a little more cleverness you could have easily avoided that reveal and actually challenged me.
>You seem very quick to label...
Ah yes, the old, "labeling the labelers is the real problem here" routine.
I'm seeing now that you're just kind of a lazy troll—boring and unimaginative. This is where I exit. Feel free to carry on with yourself!
Theres a main difference between you and I here which is becoming quite apparent at this point.
I respect your right to think and say anything you like. I have no issue with you or your opinions, and you are free to express them against me as you wish. This is the whole basis for all my posts as can plainly be seen.
You seem to have very strong feelings against me, resorting to labelling and name calling very quickly. You dont seem to respect my opinion or right to have one. You seem to think I am 'wrong' in the general sense, yet have nothing other than your opinion of me, a random person on the internet, to back that up.
Carry on with your offense throwing, I completely respect your right to express yourself in that way and will not tell you you are wrong or you should stop:)
This is an absurdly disingenuous way of phrasing the situation. One group is ideological and defined by its generalized hatred towards members of the other, while the other group is an ethnic/religious group. Being jewish does not imply that you subscribe to any particular opinion or identify with either end of the political spectrum. There is no possible way this can simply be seen as as a disagreement between "two sides".
Your attempt to equate this to the Israel/Palestine conflict is equally absurd. The Hamas and the government of Israel are both committing heinous acts of terrorism in the name of hatred, bigotry and racism.
I dont agree with your definitions or opinions and thats OK, we have the right to do that.
Are you affording me the same courtesy? Because it sounds like you are not.
It does not matter how politely you formulate your opinion if it legitimizes racism by reduction to a "two sides" argument. Merely existing as a religious or ethnic group is not the same as expressing an opinion, and it doesn't legitimize the expression of unqualified hatred towards the same group. We should tolerate the expression of opinions which we disagree with, but I think there is a limit, and we should not tolerate intolerance.
The problem is, and I'm sure you wont agree here, is that what constitutes racism is subjective. This is because the strength of the definition of 'prejudice' differs from person to person.
Some people say racism is when you make big decisions that negatively affect a whole race of people, other people say its when you say a rude word to a black or gay person.
See this enojoyable opinion of a black man on white peoples ideas of racism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LA8k5uj8AyA
There is no universal definition of racism which the whole world subscribes to. If you think there is, then you need to see that thats just your opinion and you have made yourself think everybody else agrees with you.
It seems that you think you have your definition of racism wrapped up with a bow, and that the rest of the world should agree with you on what that is. Unfortunately the world doesnt work like that, and unless you are willing to discuss these things without calling the other side 'absurd' and actually start exploring these topics properly then it will always devolve into a 'sides' argument.
> we should not tolerate intolerance
But right now you are being intolerant of me, so should I not tolerate you back? Again, the definition of tolerance is subjective. Until we can all tolerate every other persons opinion to the point we can calmly debate it, then we will not get anywhere in purging prejudice from the world.
The Jewish people who are against genocide really do not appreciate people like you staining them with that lie.
https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2024/02/14/travaglio-a-la7-...
But if you criticise israel, that's the standard answer you get.
I don't blame folks for being tired of this, but Gaza chose this route just like we in the US chose ours. Gaza made an extremely gross and unwise decision to go with the hamas losers. Its natural when a country picks poor quality folks to run their government that there may be consequences for their unwise choice. That goes for any country who picks the wrong leaders. I'm sure during world war 2 the civilians inhabiting axis territories probably experienced things you guys would call genocide.
All people need to do is to come up with something other than the complete destruction of Israel, and maybe there could be the start of a peace process.
I wouldn't agree with that, what I try to do is to gather the news the best I can, try to include the historical context and then try to reason about where the conflict exists. My intent with this process requires that by necessity I DO try to see the other side(s), because conflicts often arise from incompatible worldviews, so what are these worldviews?
Often with these long standing beefs, there is a chain of hostile actions met by more hostile actions by opposing sides or interests. I think the reason that the october 7 action is now forgotten was that it was sudden and ended pretty quickly for obvious reasons.
Is the destruction in Gaza disproportionate in nature, well it clearly looks that way, but on the other hand if I shoplift a candy bar and get arrested, the consequences are not comparable in magnitude to the price of the candy bar, heck its often hundreds of times more severe :)
>No point talking to you then :)
Its fine if you don't like to discuss things like this, I understand the frustration. Drilling down into these subjects seems suspiciously close to work and I know many of us just post here for fun. I do it to cultivate a "slander free" posting style and avoid things like assuming what sources of information others exclusively subscribe to.
If you did differently, you wouldn't have written what you wrote :)