In the first case you are hoping they will use their free time on your platform.

In the second place you are exchanging money to get them to do what you want them to do instead of what they would otherwise be doing.

If I pay a plumber to fix the toilet and he starts bothering me about ANYTHING BUT FIXING THE TOILET... he's gone.

I for instance am not a free speech absolutist. I think it's okay to deplatform people who are spreading misinformation about a global pandemic, or an election. But Mr. Musk apparently thinks that's bad.

So, we get to find out where he draws the line that he claims he doesn't have.

The real test for whether or not Musk is being a hypocrite is whether or not he censors critics of him on Twitter. That is an apples to apples comparison. I think it's fair to say that continuing to pay people who criticize you is a different matter.

- Publicly attacking a man as a pedophile because he dismissed his submarine as an unworkable solution during the Thai cave rescue efforts.

- Cutting off analysts during a Tesla call, calling them boring and then soliciting fluff questions from the Internet.

Musk, like most free speech absolutists, is a hack. It's an argument used to allow _them_ to say words without repercussions.

I never understand this defense.

There are lessons one can take from successful people, but they not demigods. They're just people and people are often good and bad at the same time. Why do people defend them? If I make a controversial statement in a public forum, I should expect some uncomfortable criticism and they aren't entitled to any better treatment just because they can throw a wad of cash around.

If anything, being ruthless and deceptive are better traits to achieve this. Of course there are some exceptions. But I don’t think Musk is one.

I would expect nothing less from the woke-cancer employees. The productive members of the team must be relieved that the woke weight was shed.

or more simply: by using that word you sound dumb

then again, maybe that's how you want to identify. who am I to say

1. not qualified or diminished in any way; total.

free adjective: free; comparative adjective: freer; superlative adjective: freest

1. not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes.

hmm I wonder what 'free speech absolutist' means. maybe that one's freedom to speak is not qualified or diminished in any way? their freedom to speak is total?

What's the alternative? Does a free speech absolutist need to never make judgements on what he hears from someone's free speech? If I hear a person say he wants to murder me and my family, do I still need to invite him over for Thanksgiving dinner? Aren't I exerting some form of control of over him if I say you can't come into my home?

I think your view of the term "free speech absolutist" may make sense when analyzing the individual word meanings, but doesn't make sense as a phrase, and doesn't align with how self described free speech absolutists view themselves.

Most people aren't free speech absolutists, though, and I agree that they'd think there's a fundamental difference between employer-employee relationships and user-provider relationships as a whole. But it should be significantly harder for an employer to fire an employee than for a service provider to ban a user.

It's a situation of monopoly. If consequences to speech prohibit one from an entire category of human need (one's life, ability to earn a living, ability to find housing, etc), then those consequences are in fact limiting speech. A 'cancellation' that makes someone unemployable is much more a prohibition on speech than being fired from a single job without affecting one's general ability to get hired. If Musk were to now work to get the signatories of the letter blacklisted from broader employment this becomes an issue.

The problem is that platforms on the internet benefit from network effects and become quasi-monopolistic. If there were platforms with similar reach as Twitter that allowed the speech that Twitter does not allow, whether or not Twitter censors would be kind of a moot point.

Being a free speech absolutist is meaningless if you are going to fire people the moment they say something you don't like.

If you are a free speech absolutist, it would mean believing in no consequences.

Yes. Like not getting banned from the public square for giving your speech, or not getting arrested by the government for your free speech. No one has ever argued that truly free speech means no one can judge you on what you are saying.

> If you are a free speech absolutist, it would mean believing in no consequences.

It would mean either that, or that you are using the phrase in a different manner than other people who use the phrase.

I find this whole exercise silly. I view it as

1) I don't like someone

2) Someone says he is X

3) To me, X means Y

4) Someone is not a Y

5) Therefore, someone is a hypocrite and (1) is justified.

Words have meaning, if they didn't then there would be no such thing as hypocrisy because everyone could just have their own little definition for a term or title they want to adopt but not be burdened to live by.

To Elon rules apply to thee and not me, these firings are text book hypocrisy.

1) The meaning of a phrase is the same as the meaning of stringing together the individual word definitions of the phrase.

2) There is a universally accepted, obvious definition of a phrase

I think you could reasonably call yourself a free speech absolutist, because you will never kick someone out of the public square for saying their peace, but you are still be allowed to not invite that person to your house for dinner.

What you describe is just regular ole free speech.

if there are exceptions then it isn't absolute

Also I am not threatening his career, he is, he is choosing to take a principled stand and should understand the likely consequences and be willing to accept them.

It's a simple fact that SpaceX chose its CEO's public image over its mission statement and reputation. I hope future prospects realize that there is no stability or long-term personal growth to be found there unless they can keep their heads down and kiss ass.

But if they can't work anymore because they got fired from the one employer of their skill the consequences are quite severe. They have to learn a new field! Ideally I'd say people with this specialized skill set form a guild or union. The same thing that makes them vulnerable makes their employer vulnerable--the workers of that industry are highly concentrated, with high investment in skill development. Absent that, it's a tricky issue and I think it would be fair to say that at least a warning would have been in order before dismissal.

I don't know if the people Musk fired are in this category or not. If it were an office manager, for example, seems fine. if it is an engineer on some space ship esoterica, ouch.

Perhaps this isn't a good analogy, but if you yelling insults at the the neighbors makes it harder for him to fix the toilet, and he asks you to stop, would you still fire him for it?

Because you could argue, although with difficulty, that Musk tweeting stupid things makes it more difficult for SpaceX employees to do their work.

In practice, I've found it generally easier and wiser to leave a company with a stupid boss rather than ask the stupid boss to change, but I see why someone could try the latter.

Your point is a good one though, to continue the analogy, the plumber shouldn't want to come back. Erratic and volatile bosses are best avoided. I prefer it when they do this stuff loudly and in public so I can know to avoid them.

About 1/6 of the pay comes from his pocket, since he owns about that much of the company.

> He may be founder & CEO. But he is an employee as much as those five.

His main relationship to Tesla is as it's controlling owner, not an employee, though, yes, he's also an employee. That's pretty different from every other employee.

Sorry, pls explain me this business logic. 1/6th is his ownership which is mostly tied to stocks. The pay comes from liquidity(arising from sales, selling bonds & any additional stock dilution from the organization) Unless I am completely misinformed about how business accounting works. Ownership doesnt pay unless they sell their stocks to pay(which he did through raising funding through stock hypothication in the past)

SpaceX isn't, nor will it ever be, a town square so the rules don't extend there. (Nor do they extend to Twitter the corporation itself.)

Musk's companies are not town squares. They are private entities and employees can be fired for insubordination, harassment, or abuse of company resources.

So... racism, porn, gore, etc are all ok? After all, they are within the letter of the law

This is a misrepresentation of the current "debate" taking place regarding free speech, a debate we have frequently on Hacker News. Nobody is threatened with jail for saying anything in the US, so if that was the primary bone of contention, the debate wouldn't exist. It's more about cancel culture, etc.

The fact Musk wants to turn it into a platform for free speech doesn't imply that he believes twitter has that burden of responsibility, only that he thinks it would be a good thing if they took on that responsibility.

It's also not hypocritical for Musk to say twitter would be a good platform to take on the responsibility of free speech while also saying workplace communication is not a good platform to take on the responsibility of free speech.

Now whether you or I agree with his stance on either of these points is another subject entirely, but it is not hypocrisy as other comments seem to be suggesting.

If you call your friend mean things on twitter and your friend decides to stop talking to you, freedom of speech has not been violated.

A job is little more than a business relationship where a person agrees to do labor in exchange for money. Either side of that relationship has the ability to terminate that relationship as a consequence of speech they might not like.

Either way, to act like this "business relationship" is perfectly reciprocal is either naive or malintentioned.

1. The inevitable inconsistency in application creates hypocrisy, which makes people upset.

2. It attracts political attention if/when the enforcement is politically biased.

3. It costs large sums of money that could be spent on other things.

4. It isn't actually necessary.

5. Public forums in which ideas can duke it out are essential for a healthy democratic society. Someone needs to run them, so if you decide to create an explicitly public forum open to everyone then you have a moral duty to protect and implement free speech policies

etc etc. Not an exhaustive list by any means, just a subset of the arguments that can be mounted.

But note that none of these apply to the case of employees criticizing their employer.

Speech isn't just about the act of saying, but also being able to be heard. Anyone can whisper to themselves in bed, but that is not speech in the political sense. Being able to speak where nobody hears is doesn't mean you have free speech.

No, I don't know that. This is explicit retaliation for what appears to be organizing around working conditions. That's protected.

https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/17/23172915/elon-musk-spacex...

You cannot compare at-will employment with public speech within the letter of the law.

Simplified:

Woke Cancer Culture != Protected Class

You simply cannot compare the employment relationship and open debate within the letter of the law.

Musk has only ever said he believes people should have absolute freedom of speech; he hasn't said people shouldn't face consequences for what they say.

Edit: Isn't getting kicked off twitter simply a consequence of saying something that's against twitter's TOS? What definition of free speech is Musk using?

Being banned from Twitter is a consequence of your speech, but it's also restricting your freedom to speak. I imagine Musk feels that not restricting people's freedom of speech is more important than the consequence of banning them.

That doesn't mean he thinks there should be no consequences for speaking. Just that the consequences shouldn't limit your freedom to speak.

In this case, people fired from SpaceX are still free to speak out about Musk's brand and its influence on SpaceX. Their speech has not been restricted.

The people banned from Twitter are still free to speak about whatever as well. Frankly I think SpaceX's actions limit speech more than a Twitter ban. Ex-Twitter users just have to find a new platform, at their convenience. Fired employees have just had there livelihood taken away and have to drop everything and find something new before their savings run out.

To be clear I think SpaceX was well within it's rights to fire these people, but as consequences go I see firing as far more consequential than a Twitter ban.

I'd expect them to go on a interview campaign after this actually. I think they'll be quite publicized and amplified.

People who are fired from SpaceX have absolutely no access to the SpaceX communication channels they were fired for exercising the wrong kind of speech on.

Obviously, I am not saying what these employees are saying is equivalent, but cancelling somebody for what they say is not always cancel culture.

Trying to destroy someone's life for a wholly-subjective slight is cancel culture (social cancer)

What limits freedom of speech _are_ the "consequences". It either is "absolute" in which case there are no consequences, or limited, in which case there are consequences (but then by definition it isn't absolute anymore)

If you fire someone for their opinion about their employer, or jail them for their opinion about the president, you can't be for "absolute" freedom of speech.

It's like saying "you're free to murder people, but if you do you'll go to jail".

In a strictly legal sense, you can be allowed to call your neighbor ugly. There will be no legal consequences, because of a law/constitutional amendment protecting free speech.

On a personal level, however, your neighbor might not like being called ugly, and retaliate by avoiding you or insulting you back. This is a consequence, but not a legal one.

I think, Musk view is that expression on Twitter should play a "legal guardian" type role in moderating content on the site, as opposed to say blocking negative content (and you could argue that as a site that makes money selling ads, blocking negative content could be the smart play, similar to the NYT not hiring idiots to write for them), but that the SpaceX employees, when fired by their employer, are facing consequences not on a legal but a personal level.

Of course, there's a very good chance this is just backwards rationalizing the erratic, irrational behavior of a emotionally unstable person.

No, it isn't. Popper's paradox only applies to the speech of parties which use force, rather than speech, to suppress the free speech of others. It was written in the context of Nazi Germany, and warning about the consequences of what is now called "free speech absolutism," when that freedom is co-opted by authoritarians who don't respect it (in other words, people like Elon Musk.)

Trying to suppress speech with more speech is simply how free speech is supposed to work.