At least Elon Musk is a very rich person who believes in free speech. Which is good for us poors. Twitter and the national discourse will be objectively better for working class voices as a result. Less so for the gatekeepers and media elite commentariat.
Tell that to the people who released valid short research on Tesla.
He believes in his free speech. Maybe. Definitely not when it comes to people who work for him or people that criticize him.
Honestly this thread has been pushing me more towards the Musk camp, which I didn't think was possible. But not one person seems to be able to point to specific, concrete criticisms with references.
e.g.: https://www.businessinsider.com/free-speech-absolutist-elon-...
His reactions towards criticism (like harassing or banning journalist criticizing Tesla, or that whole fiasco with his submarine) are always well covered too. And while it's not exactly suppressing free speech, that level of pettiness doesn't look too good.
Also, how is this pushing you towards the Musk camp? (The fact that there's such thing, and there is, is troubling on its own)
Yes thats exactly why he was willing to shell out 50,000$ to a kid to remove his flight tracking bot.
Stop licking his boot.
1. Those who back authoritarian style censorship conducted in opaque fashion
2. Those who back free speech and transparency
There is no such thing as absolute free speech and I have no idea where you all are coming up with this idea. By definition, absolute free speech cannot exist because your speech ends where mine begins. Free speech does not mean free from moderation or consequences and criticisms, both are forms of speech themselves. There is no authoritarian censorship going on here.
As with so many plagues on American society and current political discourse, this came from Trump supporters, specifically angry at being banned from social media platforms for hate speech and disinformation, and suddenly deciding that rules and social consequences for their behavior were a violation of their civil rights. The attempt to redefine free speech is part of a movement to impugn social media platforms as engaging in widespread politically motivated suppression of free speech, with the implication they need to be forced by law to host the kind of content they would otherwise refuse to.
This is a strawman argument, that nobody seriously proposed.
Advocating Totalitarian controls via Terms of Service, and/or Government !== Free Association
Come back when it attempts to have Twitter ban this persons account, then you may have a case, offering an monetary incentive for someone to change their behavior is not censorship in any form.
Stop being a tool
>I sympathize but very rich people owning the media never ends well
How does the history of the ultra-wealthy controlling the narrative in media for their own gain change that statement?
Also liquid assets for investment are harder for people that rich so still likely a major decision.
Either he used proceeds from last year stock sales or he leveraged some Tesla stock for this .
Twitter trading volumes are not so high that anyone can just come in make a 4 billion buy order .
Acquiring 10% stock of any public company without upsetting the price to much takes time and effort [1]
It is not some whimsical impluse buy, no matter how much money he has , this was calculated buy he must have considered for a while.
Jack Dorsey stepping down probably helped him to decide to make a move, a hostile founder CEO can make it ugly. Especially somebody like Jack who has another very high value startup and doesn't derive his wealth from just Twitter can make it expensive and ugly if he choose to.
[1]- unless someone is selling you a block trade outside of the market. No institutional investors have left or reduced their stake that much in the last quarter so Elon couldn't have used this route
The people I disagree with are divisive.
I don't think most people would argue that Musk isn't a visionary. I also don't think most people would argue that Musk isn't divisive.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg was never described as divisive, though she was objectively more divisive than a rich guy who makes cars and rocket ships and flamethrowers. Antonin Scalia was described as divisive, so the argument can't be made that SC justices are somehow different.
It's a rhetorical trick that's been used for many decades. It's obvious, and it's tiresome.
It seems a little contrary to the - Have curious conversation; .... Please don't sneer... guidelines. A lot of sneering going on when Musk gets a mention.
I don't believe much in canceling and like what SpaceX is doing, I just don't like Musk making fun of people like me and so I'd sooner work for his competitors than for him.