Saying cisgender is bad on Twitter but CSAM is not. Very weird.
It’s not, but they could fix the issue by raising the flagging threshold for Musk-related posts.
But posts about the mass flagging also get deleted, so anyone who isn't checking the 'active' page has no idea about it all.
The mods will just gaslight you as well about the entire thing. I know for some unknown reason it’s considered bad form to have anything other than a high opinion of the job they do but I think they do a bad job. I’m not saying it’s not a hard job or anything, I just think they are actively bad at it.
There is. But seems like it’s only for [dead], not [flagged].
His hypocrisy, his position on the main-character-syndrome-to-narcissism spectrum, him getting a kick out of trolling everyone, or him having straight up psychopathy: whatever it is, I find I no longer care.
This may be giving him too much credit, the only thing we actually know is he thinks being accused of being a pedophile is bad. We know this because he's done it to several people, and flips his shit when it happens to him or his platform. He doesn't actually seem to care about pedophiles or pedophilia given his on going relationships with people he's accused.
If he's only operating on the impact of the words, and ignoring the existence of an observable testable shared reality behind the words, then yes, accusations (either direction) are more damaging in his mind than being seen to support or oppose whatever.
Which is, ironically, a reason to *oppose* absolute freedom of speech, when words have power beyond their connection to reality the justifications fall short. But like I said, I don't care if his inconsistency is simple hypocrisy or something more complex, not any more.
> Which is, ironically, a reason to oppose absolute freedom of speech...
Since the former theory of mind can't explain the latter behavior, I guess it's wrong then, right?
"I have a theory that Musk always wears green because he loves money. It's ironic that he wore red that one time."
First: Musk says he is a "free speech absolutist", his behaviour is incongruent with what he says, he does in fact ban people (and file lawsuits, and fire people) for expression of things not forbidden by law.
Second: Your second quotation of my words, these words:
> Which is, ironically, a reason to oppose absolute freedom of speech...
With these words I am not saying anything about if Musk does or does not support free speech (that's an independent statement which I also believe yields "does not"), I'm saying that the existence of people who operate on the basis of words having power beyond their connection to reality is a reason for any random person or group of people to have limits on free speech, and that my reasons why are summarised by the words after the end of your quotation: the justifications (for absolute freedom of expression) fall short (when such people operate).
Has Musk developed a more nuanced understanding of freedom of expression since claiming to be a "free speech absolutist"? If he has, he's evil rather than simply a hypocrite. But I don't care which.