This is an argument in favour of a more liberal model is it not? Just not a centralized system that takes a dictatorial role in socially isolating people for having bad ideas. The analogy would make more sense if there was a benevolent gatekeeper blocking you from coming back into the public square (or even all big public squares) because you said something controversial.
Otherwise cultural free speech people want ideas to be openly challenged, not efficiently silenced by the system.
Harassing people is something I think most people agree crosses a line, in the same ways it’s a criminal act. But even here Twitter does a poor job at that by taking a very broad interpretation, for example it punishes people for publicly disagreeing with someone while also being popular, because their fans decided to brigade a person, then banning the parent for ‘causing it’ (without ever directly encouraging or supporting such a thing).
There’s a hundred ways to do this better than Twitter/Facebook/Reddit without throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Trying to accuse every person who wants a very limited scope for wanting Ayn Rand style anarchy is disingenuous.
Otherwise I’m not a fan of “All in” pod’s analysis.
This was covered towards the beginning of the podcast. Legally, the role[1] of the board in this situation is to get the best stock price, and not about the future fate of the business.
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revlon,_Inc._v._MacAndrews_%....
(HN is truncating the final . in the link)
Quick takeaways:
- The frequent pejorative use of the term 'elites' as a catchall for literally anyone they disagree with is hilarious. Their explanation of Musk being the iconoclastic 'anti-elite elite' sounds like Ayn Rand fan-fic written by a 14 year old who just read the Wikipedia plot summary for Atlas Shrugged. - What does 'inverting history' even mean? It seems to be another example from Glenn Greenwald's vast and vitriolic argot. (I'm sure Glenn Greenwald is another commendable 'anti-elite elite'). - Paraphrasing: "journalists 20 years ago would have been defending the first amendment!" -> this is not about the first amendment. The first amendment protects your ability to speak freely from government imposed restriction or suppression. Ironically, twenty years ago the press/journalists and even government officials were experiencing one George Bush's sweeping censorship efforts (https://www.americanprogress.org/article/think-again-the-bus...).
Anyway, the hosts wistfully allude to the past, with references to society's 'public square' and people having the ability to say whatever they wanted with no repercussions. This is nonsense. Broadly, you can absolutely say whatever you want online — it's easier than ever.
That doesn't mean:
1) Twitter is required to provide a platform for you to abuse and harass people, or spout opinions they deem to be offensive, damaging, or misleading. That's their choice. 2) Free speech has never been consequence-free. To quote Michael Hobbes: "Voicing your opinion in public has always carried the risk of being shamed or shunned."
Finally, I will concede that twitter has suffered from poor growth, and a change in leadership could be a good thing for the company. But the board also has a responsibility to protect minority shareholders from people exactly like Elon. Their resistance to his efforts may have nothing to do with the vague, insulting and unsubstantiated allegations you and the podcast hosts make (It's a 'country club', board members are only acting against musk to protect their 'status', etc). Rather, they may quite reasonably believe that a vainglorious egomaniac who has been repeatedly sanctioned by the SEC may, in fact, not be the ideal owner of a social media company.
Ps.
> 4. One AI engineer from Tesla could solve Twitter's bot and spam problem.
Do you really, seriously think this is true? It comes across as deliberately inflammatory, and you and I both know it's not true.