> and possibly publicly shame them, too

You accidentally hit upon what "free speech" means when used by whales. If Musk berates and bullies an employee with endless racist and sexist slurs, he'd get in trouble. But if he points his mook armies at that same employee and subjects them to the same abuse, it's all good. Just freedom of speech.

Yeah, like when Politico recently pointed out the FDA was told about infected baby formula months before several babies were killed by it.

Obviously Politico is just gathering their mooks to subject the poor gentle souls of Abbott and the FDA to abuse.

We can't disclose wrongdoing - think of the mean things people might say.

This is missing the point so badly it seems almost intentional. Public outcry at the actions of the government is entirely different from incited bullying of individuals with no public presence.

She has a pretty big public presence. She was on the Joe Rogan podcast with Jack. Calling someone out for being terrible never seemed to bother anyone until apparently 5 seconds ago.

Huh? Punching down has never been considered classy.

"incited bullying of individuals with no public presence"

Elon Musk never even mentioned her - he simply referred to Twitter's actions as "obviously incredibly inappropriate" and linked to an article that happened to mention her.

> "bullying of individuals with no public presence"

You can't be serious. This person is literally responsible for burying the Hunter Biden laptop story and is personally responsible for banning Trump. That's a public position whether you like it or not. I don't think anyone would think we can stop criticizing Putin the moment he exits office.

Imagine if Jack Dorsey ran Twitter without a Twitter account. That would not negate your ability to criticize his leadership even if he never spoke.

> But if he points his mook armies at that same employee and subjects them to the same abuse, it's all good. Just freedom of speech.

What does "points his mock armies at the same employee" mean here? Any examples?

The WSJ has been busy: https://twitter.com/robbysoave/status/1519407686063988736

1. This "employee" is in a very high position and makes $17 million/year. 2. She is in charge of Twitter's censorship team. She can send an email and block and ban every single account that tweeted something abusive at her.

I think she can handle some criticism.

This "employee" is also the very person who chose to A.) Block President Trump and B.) Ban the story about Hunter Bidens's laptop from the New York Post, which was declared real by the NYT two years later.

Furthermore, Elon did not berate her by name or handle, he just said that what Twitter did was "obviously incredibly inappropriate" with a link to a story mentioning her, even though he did not mention her by name.

She's calling it abusive, not because Elon called her names (he never mentioned her, just the story) even though she was behind the biggest bans and censorship. She's upset that her power has been exposed and she might have some accountability for her decisions.

For how powerful she is, imagine if we weren't allowed to criticize the President, or a member of Congress, or Jeff Bezos, or even Elon Musk himself because it might hurt their feelings. When you are in a position of that much power, criticism must come with it, and you don't get to complain about that.

Yes, this is totally bizarre. You have enormously powerful people shaping the public discourse not only crying foul at idea they might face the slightest bit of accountability, but also successfully lobbying other people to defend them from any public criticism. Then we have to listen to them sanctimoniously talk about how "disinformation" threatens democracy, or whatever! Faceless Twitter employees shaping political discourse during an election get a free pass, though?

Meanwhile, these same people have no problem with using their power to shape and weaponize discourse against other people! For example, the news media regularly unmasks regular Twitter users simply for having a huge following with non-media approved opinions and then shrugs when they face death threats. But...don't you dare talk about the journalist that did it!

It should be noted that trump had just attempted a coup against the United States when he was blocked. Preventing him access to his bullhorn was and is a good idea.

If that were true, someone would have been charged by now, and I'm not talking about the desperate misdemeanor charges they've been pulling out of their asses to save face.

It should be noted that trump "attempted a coup" without any weapons. It should be noted the only deaths on January 6th were trump supporters. It should be noted that trump's last tweet that got him banned was "let your voices be heard, and go home in peace". I should start watching Netflix and marvel comic movies again so I can exist in your reality.

Attempted murder is a crime. Failing at your attempt to overthrow the government because you tried doing it without weapons does not shield you from consequence. I'm not even talking only legal consequence here; it is completely reasonable to look at what Trump tried to do and refuse to engage with him.

I find it interesting that this comment has flipflopped gray and black. It seems reasonable enough?

Vijaya committed a federal felony of election interference and should be arrested.

It is never a good sign when a leader holds others to standards they themselves aren't held to.

Counterargument: If you hire someone make a painting of your dog, would you hold their work to a higher standard than if you had done the work yourself?

I expect leaders to lead by example and to not punish others for behaving the same way leadership does. Leaders trashing workers isn't them doing the job they are paid to do.