Therefore, it's ok to censor your speech that I disagree with right?
What about the long list of politicians who actively and loudly proclaim that Republicans are racist. That's pretty dehumanizing. Censor them too, right?
See how the word "dehumanizing" can be stretched to fit any speech I disagree with?
This is how authoritarian censorship works. By manipulating language.
But only time will tell. For me it was good news, honestly.
This is just my opinion, you do not have why to agree, of course.
Totally reasonable, and not an unhinged egomaniac with entirely too much money, and not enough humility.
I'm sure it won't go to his head, as evidenced by his many level-headed tweets about covid, immigration, and many other topics. That is because his huge brain enables him to think clearly about anything and everything, so anything he censors will be correct censorship!
If anyone should control a major media platform, it's a stable genius like him...
His father held some stocks in part of a mine. That is all I know for a fact. This guy, and many rich, has been attacked repeteadly just bc some ppl think that influential and rich ppl should be attacked. I do not have anything for or agains Mr. Elon Musk.
But any business person compared to the politicians or activists that usually attack them are way way better than those who attack them, that usually create zero value and a lot of induced division. Bc they live from doing that. We have to stand ppl like that in this world, unfortunately...
If you've followed the trial of Alex Jones regarding this you'll learn that in court he admits it's not true. But his fans still think it's the case, and meanwhile have terrorized parents of the victims.
Some speech should not be amplified, it's a shame that you can't recognize that.
Nothing is perfect, but living from your own job without forcing 3rd parties to do what you want is something that I respect. Later he couldbe whatever, even it could hapoen I do not like him personally. But in that regard, nothing against any business person that tries to provide things for others.
You're openly admitting that censorship is necessary to keep your desired candidate and less censorship will hinder the political efforts of a "specific" party.
"The United States is also a one-party state but, with typical American extravagance, they have two of them." - Julius Nyerere
Most recently, look at the white house trying to pressure twitter to ban journalists: https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/the-white-house-privatel...
I can understand why the WH was concerned.
When you give someone a gun, especially someone powerful, especially the federal government, you can not predict who will be holding it in the future and where they will aim it.
I find it interesting that other bans don't get the same concern from the usual suspects, e.g., abortion gag laws, library book bans, don't say gay laws, etc. Should the former president retake office I expect bans of political enemies and more -- the type of abuse that you rightfully fear.
This is a nuanced subject and requires corresponding consideration. We all agree that some speech isn't good for society but remain at odds over what that speech is.
It always blows my mind when someone makes a claim and then cites a source and their source actually proves the exact opposite.
They never acknowledge the self-own.
Still, there's more and more evidence that the U.S. government has been behind the latest private organization censorship push.
Furthermore... if your main concern about Musk taking over Twitter is that certain information (of any kind) is going to be shared, then you're concerned about the existence of the unregulated internet in general. Not only does the "they're a private company, they can censor whatever they want" not apply here, it's turned on its head.
I don't really have concerns over Musk taking over.
I think Musk is less likely to ban what some people call misinformation than the current Twitter leadership and I think, at least in the current climate, that it is better to allow misinformation then it is to ban it.
I take no pleasure in that ban but it is unfortunately appropriate.
>The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!”
And
>“To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”
There is no way any reasonable and objective person could come to the conclusion that either of those are inciting violence.
Perhaps you think Trump deserves a ban, but Twitter's reasoning is wrong.
The followers of Trump seems like a cult. He was shockingly prescient in his statement about being able to shoot someone on 5th Ave and not lose a vote.
Stochastic terrorism is a real thing, and he's not afraid to engage in it (see his comments about Mitch McConnell and his wife, re: death threats). His Big Lie has eroded trust in our electoral process and has emboldened a movement to seize control of the process to subvert democracy in the future.
I could go on and on, but Trump engages in dangerous speech which should not be amplified, let alone celebrated. This is a cherry on top of the right wing movement to demonize the opposition and further ensure the political divide we have today will not heal.
I expect plenty of downvotes and hate for this comment (should it be noticed), but we're in new territory here. Free speech used to comprise public protest, letters to the editor, publishing books, etc. Now we have the digital equivalent of IV drug consumption and the corresponding danger of what that brings.
I do believe in the value of having a marketplace of ideas, but I also believe that markets are well-served by proper regulation.
If you think Twitter should have banned Trump for things he said and did off the platform that is fine. The problem is Twitter didn't say they were doing that.
>This is dangerous territory for dialog but I'm going to give it a go the best I can.
What is dangerous? Discussing whether or not a social media company is lying about their reasons for deplatforming?
>The followers of Trump seems like a cult. He was shockingly prescient in his statement about being able to shoot someone on 5th Ave and not lose a vote.
Will you say the same about Bernie's followers? One of his followers literally tried to kill a congressman (he shot him) likely because Bernie's rhetoric.
>Stochastic terrorism is a real thing, and he's not afraid to engage in it (see his comments about Mitch McConnell and his wife, re: death threats).
And you are engaging in it. You are demonizing Trump's supporters by calling them cultists. This has some level of statistical probability of causing violence. That is the definition of stochastic terrorism.
>His Big Lie has eroded trust in our electoral process and has emboldened a movement to seize control of the process to subvert democracy in the future.
There was massive doubts in previous elections being stolen as well: 2000, 2016, 2018. Is Trump responsible for eroding the trust in the Gore v Bush election?
>I could go on and on, but Trump engages in dangerous speech which should not be amplified, let alone celebrated.
Why didn't Twitter point to those cases? If he only said stuff off Twitter then why is Twitter banning him on platform? Does their TOS say they can do that?
>This is a cherry on top of the right wing movement to demonize the opposition and further ensure the political divide we have today will not heal.
Both sides are clearly demonizing one another. Do you remember Clinton calling Trump supporters deplorables? Or the case I mentioned above with Bernie. The rhetoric on both sides has been intensifying. I think it is bad, but the problem is only criticising one side is not doing anything to heal the divide. If we are going to hold to the standard that off platform demonization should result in a Twitter ban then Clinton and Bernie should be removed from Twitter as well. Since as I pointed out above you are engaging in terrorism you should be removed as well.
>I expect plenty of downvotes and hate for this comment (should it be noticed), but we're in new territory here.
You are likely in the majority position on HN.
>Free speech used to comprise public protest, letters to the editor, publishing books, etc.
Sure.
> Now we have the digital equivalent of IV drug consumption and the corresponding danger of what that brings.
So free speech shouldn't exist on the internet because it is easier to spread. Why not ban free speech with printing presses. That allows content to spread quite fast as well.
>I do believe in the value of having a marketplace of ideas, but I also believe that markets are well-served by proper regulation.
The problem is the false reasons Twitter banned Trump. He wasn't actually banned for the Tweets they claimed. Surely you believe that the "proper regulation" should actually be followed. Trump's tweets were not actually the reason he was banned.
If a person stole something he shouldn't be arrested for murder. That is not proper regulation.
I'd like to address the other issues too but I feel it would be pointless. Maybe later if I'm feeling frisky. I'm guessing that you're a Trump supporter, so that leads me to this:
How likely is it to dissuade a person that their religious beliefs are wrong and they should be abandoned? Answer: not at all.
I'm not religious in that sense or politically -- my identity is not associated with any party, candidate, or group. The closest I've come to political worship is having a Feel The Bern shirt as a campaign gift but I don't worship Bernie. I respect him as being consistent and sincere in his beliefs because he's been consistent in his words and actions.
My take is that 99.9% of Bernie supports are like me in that regard. Meanwhile Trump is being literally declared as a gift from God. Both sides are not the same.
It is correct from every vantage point. Twitter lied about their reasoning.
>I'd like to address the other issues too but I feel it would be pointless. Maybe later if I'm feeling frisky. I'm guessing that you're a Trump supporter, so that leads me to this:
You know what they say about assuming...
>How likely is it to dissuade a person that their religious beliefs are wrong and they should be abandoned? Answer: not at all.
People change their religious views all the time. They change sects and religions all the time. People who are atheists join religions and religious people leave religions.
>I'm not religious in that sense or politically -- my identity is not associated with any party, candidate, or group. The closest I've come to political worship is having a Feel The Bern shirt as a campaign gift but I don't worship Bernie. I respect him as being consistent and sincere in his beliefs because he's been consistent in his words and actions.
Bernie isn't even consistent though. He used to support far stricter rules on immigration but changed likely due to politics. He used to understand you can't have a robust welfare system with mass immigration.
>My take is that 99.9% of Bernie supports are like me in that regard. Meanwhile Trump is being literally declared as a gift from God. Both sides are not the same.
This is the same with Trump. It just so happens that the 0.1% is very vocal so you think it is widespread. Talk to the average Trump supporter in person and they don't say anything like this. You only hear this sort of thing on the internet.
It happens but you make it seem like picking what you want to watch on tv. For those that are devout, the odds are incredibly slim that such a thing happens.
> Bernie isn't even consistent though. He used to support far stricter rules on immigration but changed likely due to politics. He used to understand you can't have a robust welfare system with mass immigration.
There's a difference between evolving and being a political opportunist. Hillary was beyond qualified for the office but it was clear that she was not driven by the courage of her convictions.
> Talk to the average Trump supporter in person and they don't say anything like this
Talking to a Trump supporter consistently feels like I'm talking to my teenage son, who delights in disagreeing with me for sport.
So? People can change.
>There's a difference between evolving and being a political opportunist. Hillary was beyond qualified for the office but it was clear that she was not driven by the courage of her convictions.
I don't think Bernie evolved on immigration. I think he is a political opportunist. No different than Clinton.
>Talking to a Trump supporter consistently feels like I'm talking to my teenage son, who delights in disagreeing with me for sport.
Some of that is just being defensive. Some might be trolling. Some could just be deliberately trying to annoy you.
That however is mostly online behavior. The average in person conversation with Trump supporters isn't anything like that when I engage with them.
If it turns out like that for you, in person, then you are likely putting them on the defensive. Believe it or not, but calling people terrorists and cultists isn't a great way to start discussions.
This was right after the January 6th attempted insurrection. The concern about enabling that and more is justifiable.
> And you are engaging in it. You are demonizing Trump's supporters by calling them cultists. This has some level of statistical probability of causing violence. That is the definition of stochastic terrorism.
I beg to differ. Maybe you think cultists should be killed, but I think they should be helped to understand their relationship and find a way to free themselves from that control.
I'm also curious as to what you think comprises a cult and any examples of such. And if one is a member of a cult how that person should be "dealt with".
I'm also curious as to if there is anything that Trump could do or say that would cause you to no longer support him.
My goal of engaging with you is not to make you wrong or me right -- it's about finding some common areas of agreement that we can find come together as a country to make things better. It unfortunately looks like that may not be possible and that fills me with despair.
The very fact you are calling somebody a stochastic terrorist is in fact stochastic terrorism.
Why do you think I think cultists should be killed?
Regardless, just because I don't think cultists should be killed doesn't mean your rhetoric isn't likely to cause violence. That is the only thing that matters when it comes to stochastic terrorism.
>I'm also curious as to what you think comprises a cult and any examples of such. And if one is a member of a cult how that person should be "dealt with".
You are the one calling people cultists. You should be defining it not me.
>I'm also curious as to if there is anything that Trump could do or say that would cause you to no longer support him
What makes you think I support Trump? I just don't like giant multi billion dollar companies suppressing speech under false pretenses. I would be making the same arguments for any person removed under false pretenses.
>My goal of engaging with you is not to make you wrong or me right -- it's about finding some common areas of agreement that we can find come together as a country to make things better. It unfortunately looks like that may not be possible and that fills me with despair.
Maybe we can find common ground on these statements:
- social media companies should not lie about their reasons on banning people.
- social media companies should have specific and clear rules
- social media companies should only ban people for violating their rules or when directly required to by a legal order
Does there exist speech that should not be amplified? Is HN depriving you of your rights if @dang deletes your comments or posts that do not follow the community guidelines (aka Terms Of Service)?
>Should misinformation be amplified?
Obviously (almost) everybody agrees that there should be some speech that should not just not be amplified but banned. Child porn is an example.