Did I write that? I find it endlessly fascinating when people think in black and white and come back with some kind of false dilemma because I was able to make an entirely legitimate and obvious criticism.
I've a better question: is there anyone worse to own Twitter than the Saudi royal family?
I think so but there aren't many.
That wasn't the claim, if it was one. This is what I wrote:
> A Saudi prince and his family control access to the square, along with a group of incredibly rich investors. Criticism of them is strictly controlled.
We know that certain critical speech is suppressed on the platform, part of the problem is we don't know how much (hence Musk's wish to increase transparency). That does not, however, mean that all criticism is stopped at source. Do you reject, for example, the existence of shadow bans? If not, do you think they are only used against trolls?
As to citations… I'm not giving a viva. If you want me to clarify things I write, you can ask in a normal way.
What makes you think that his ownership will increase transparency. He has sued whistleblowers, he has sued and insulted and bullied people he disagrees with, he employs gilded-age tactics against workers who want to unionise... Words are cheap (especially when you're virtue signalling about things which don't impact your bottom line), but actions speak louder.
Those aren't related to transparency.
> He has sued whistleblowers,
The logic is that Tesla/Musk are suing whistleblowers to silence them because of embarrassing information. Why would Twitter's algorithms be embarrassing to Musk? Or its moderation policies?
> Words are cheap (especially when you're virtue signalling about things which don't impact your bottom line), but actions speak louder.
Exactly, all the more reason to treat words as a special case and not restrict them.
Long live HN.
I think it's more than this. Trump's tweets have had significant real world consequences. Questioning the integrity of the US elections based on no real evidence eventually led to an insurrection at the US Capitol. When someone's speech is actively dangerous, it makes sense to block it, akin to shouting fire in a crowded theater.
I can see a thousand ways that could be misused in the aid of authoritarianism. Try speaking it in a German accent, perhaps with "vhere iz your mister Churchill?", and I'm sure you'll see the problem.
> akin to shouting fire in a crowded theater
That was the example given by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr for the clear and present danger test[1] in Schenk vs United States[2]:
> The ruling established that Congress has more latitude in limiting speech in times of war than in peacetime and set out the clear and present danger test, in which Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. indicated that the most stringent interpretations of the First Amendment would not protect a person who causes public panic by shouting “Fire!” in a theater when no fire exists.
I don't see how that test would apply to Trump, even in wartime.
[1] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/898/clear-and-prese...
[2] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/193/schenck-v-unite...
That would seem a more accurate depiction. Regardless, Trump has not been stuffing chickens into bins, you're comparing speech to actions other than speech in order to justify that speech being curtailed because you don't like it. Are you okay with the Saudi royal family controlling Twitter too?