Elon is looking like he got suckered into buying Twitter and now has to play the difficult and mundane role of private equity turnaround so that he can recoup his -- and his investors' -- funds. It's a huge distraction from his more important businesses.
Folks are already asking him to step down as Tesla CEO [2]. Best to kick a dog while he's down.
I think Tesla has been overvalued for some time. It's not the only EV company in the world, and soon every company (and domestic production capacity worth its salt) will be pumping out EV options for consumers. This Twitter deal was the activation energy required to jostle the Tesla stock out of its lofty position.
I hope I'm wrong, and that things at Twitter begin to stabilize. I think that SpaceX is one of the most important companies in the world right now, and it needs a leader who can continue to push the boundaries of what was thought possible.
[1] I'm thinking of putting my money where my mouth is and buying puts, which is something I rarely do.
[2] https://www.autoevolution.com/news/unconfirmed-reports-claim...
Well, c'mon, this has always been the case since the very beginning under both Dorsey and Agrawal. The difference then was that the other half of the world was condemning it.
Flying by the seat of your pants is probably fun for Elon but it makes the product worse. If the product gets worse, the people leave.
Even further? It is at $159 today from well over $300 just a few months ago.
The best time for puts was a while ago, it will be a lot harder to make the same kind of money going forward, better be careful.
Why do people feel the need to respond to valid criticism with "well technically they're ALLOWED to do [thing]?" That's neither here nor there.
We don't expect that. He absolutely does have the right to do that.
Pointing out his banning of the account simply demonstrates his free-speech absolutist hypocrisy.
it demonstrates that he very well understands that posting things can lead to safety concerns.
he is gleeful when some people or groups have safety concerns from posts.
often he actively mocks them and portrays them as unreasonable if they express safety concerns and ask for some kind of help.
If Elon is concerned maybe he could just rent a jet as needed instead of keeping one all to himself.
If they were publishing "Elon has flown X miles, used Y fuel and created Z emissions in the past T time" that would be far different than what they do.
You are reaching for excuses that can't possibly apply. Perhaps you should ask why you'd go so far to excuse this doxxing, but not others.
I personally dislike Musk and view him as a conman. I take issue with several things he's done at Twitter and even more with what he's done at companies like Boring Company, Paypal, or Tesla (eg, promising the first car to the actual founder then launching it into space just to spite them).
People here just managed to find a thing where he happens to be right (whether it comes from personal pettiness or actual principle).
Second, if it were passed, intent can be very hard to prove -- even in seemingly clear-cut cases.
Third, only the DOJ could choose to actually prosecute.
> Second, if it were passed, intent can be very hard to prove -- even in seemingly clear-cut cases.
It's not at all clear cut in my opinion. This is information that is already in a public database, and it's the location of an airplane - not a person. That's not a technicality, unless the airplane is somehow a primary residence.
It's pretty different than publishing someone's private phone number or the name of the school that their children attend. The latter type of information is actually private.
ElonJet just put the information on Twitter. And Instagram, Facebook, Telegram, and now Mastodon: https://mastodon.social/@elonjet
That is not true in all jurisdictions and definitely not in Germany. Since twitter offers it’s services to the general public, bans must be non-discriminatory and are open to challenge in court. Twitter can ban anyone who violates their ToS, but not just anyone Elon dislikes.
https://www.e-recht24.de/artikel/marketing-seo/11415-was-koe...
I do not believe such a thing exists in Germany. The claim certainly needs a proper source.
https://www.lhr-law.de/magazin/social-media-recht/olg-dresde...
It’s not surprising this exists. It’s equivalent to the Hausrecht in the physical world - if you make your place available to the public (a bar, restaurant, supermarket) you no longer can kick out just anyone without cause. You can ban people from entering (or make them leave) for reasons, but those must be non-discriminatory and not arbitrary. “I don’t like you nose/hair/color of your skin” won’t work. “You need to wear shoes or leave.” is likely valid.
Sure. But since ElonJet is run from the US, in a dispute between a US company and a US user, only US law is really relevant, any foreign court is likely to dismiss the claim as outside of their jurisdiction. As far as US-based users go, he basically does have the right to ban anyone, so long as he doesn't start banning people on the basis of a protected characteristic such as race or sex.
Even if we suppose, counterfactually, that ElonJet was run from Germany – while the German legal system might in that situation be open to hearing the case, I doubt ElonJet would win, when you consider the extensive emphasis which German (and EU law) puts on privacy rights, and the fact that it is willing to go a lot further in limiting free speech in the name of privacy than the US legal system is.
However, this makes him look bad, given he repeatedly claimed that the Twitter takeover was to make Twitter more pro free speech. Examples:
Two months ago he tweeted (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1586059953311137792):
“Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with widely diverse viewpoints.
No major content decisions or account reinstatements will happen before that council convenes“
Five weeks ago he tweeted (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1589414958508691456):
“My commitment to free speech extends even to not banning the account following my plane, even though that is a direct personal safety risk“
And yes, people can change their opinion, but this seems more like Twitter will be in favor of free speech, as long as Elon likes it.
The previous bans were controversial because they marginalized a voice. It was never about the specific people in question. It was basically invalidating the voice of many people since these were highly influential people or politicians.
There's a huge difference. I'm not taking a position on those particular people in any way, just saying that most people don't care about ElonJet in the slightest and why catching him on technicality here doesn't matter (in my humble opinion).
But even so, I find the hypocrisy pretty interesting here. This person bought a company for $44b to improve transparency, specifically said he wasn't going to ban this account to show his commitment to transparency, and then his new company banned the account about a month later. Not only that, but the company didn't ban the related accounts showing the location of others who didn't happen to buy the company out of their commitment to transparency.
Come on, that's interesting no matter what your view on the individual.
Through his actions, Musk has shown himself to be in the latter camp. Those in the former camp should be just as mad about post-Musk Twitter as they were about pre-Musk Twitter. Problem is I don't see many people (here on HN at least) saying "Wow, I thought Musk would fix Twitter but this is not what I expected when he said he supported free speech!" To me, that shows maybe a lot of people were in the latter camp all along, and are pleased things are working out just as they expected.
It's also not that he only banned the elonjet account. He banned the accounts of people posting the video that showed him being booed in SF, he banned several left leaning journalist accounts after a campaign from alt right groups [1]. It really just shows the hipocrasy, and many people are taking note.
[1] https://theintercept.com/2022/11/29/elon-musk-twitter-andy-n...
Maybe I misunderstand you, but whose voice are you calling marginalized? Is it not the voice of politicians like e.g. Trump? Is Trump not a white rich and powerful person (I was not specifically talking about Musk).
I think the problem was actually that Twitter under previous leadership was way too lenient with powerful people. Take Trump for example, he was arguably breaking Twitter TOS on a regular basis, but never faced consequences (I'd argue because he was driving engagement so it was not in Twitters interest to ban him). When they finally banned him, it thus seemed arbitrary.
Similarly, how come Musk never got a suspension for his pedo comments, also pretty clearly a TOS violation.
I think therein lies the main problem with most social media platforms, they clearly have different standards for people who are influential enough and the rest of the population and this is by no way a left/right thing.
People don't always agree 100% with their politicians. But by banning them you take away their voice entirely.
I said very clearly I was not talking about the actual people behind the accounts themselves. I am not feeling sorry for Trump or for Elon here in any way.
How does that even work?
And if 50% share similar political opinion, how is that even possible that this opinion would be somehow inaccessible?
The opinion of people like Trump or Elon is very easy to access, and supported by plenty of people. The majority of them is never banned, because the bans are not targeting an opinion, but rather conspiracy theories and abuses. You can have exactly the same philosophy as Trump, talk and promote this philosophy, and yet never say something that will make you banned.
"Trump voters" is not a marginalised set, it contains super pacs and Peter Thiel. It may contain subsets that are marginalised but those sets are marginalised by being marginalised, not by being trump voters.
People who have little opportunity for advancement being white and Christian does not mean that whites or Christianity is under threat.
Also, trump got away with his shit for years before being banned. That looks like privilege, not oppression.
I take it you see the irony of being woke about the anti-woke
As a resident HN Christian, I don't concur.
We've seen a number of Christian individuals & businesses recently taken to court/UCMJ action for refusing to do things that are contrary to their religious (Christian) beliefs, or for openly stating their beliefs [1] , [2] , [3] , [4]
The same protections afforded to observant jews and practicing muslims should also be afforded to Christians.
It is in the Constitution after all.
[1] https://thepoliticalinsider.com/colorado-baker-sued-again-th...
[2] https://reason.com/volokh/2021/10/16/justice-thomass-opinion...
[3] https://www.christianpost.com/news/obamacare-and-the-catholi...
[4] https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/air-force-cracking-down-on-c...
It is ok to operate a business with respect for religious preferences.
It would have been more relevant to show examples where the "attacker" did not had any stakes or if it would have been proven that the "attacker" has reacted this way because the person is christian, but would not have reacted if the person was muslim, or atheist, or ... but defended the same actions. For each of your examples, I really doubt there would not have been exactly the same conflict if the person was atheists but had the same strong views.
At the end, it may even feel like Christians are slowly discovering that they are people like others and that there is no reason the society should always settle to their advantage. In a way, it feels like the "threat" in question is "stopping being privileged".
I never said anything about marginalized.
But in fact, it does not really change my argument: the examples that you are providing does not show anything bad against Christians. What you provide is just examples of neighbors quarrel where one party happens to be Christian. If you think it means Christians are under threat or unfairly treated, it makes me feel that you are thinking that the normal situation is when society always side with Christians all the time, which would be a pretty strong privilege for Christians, and very unfair for non-Christians.
The reason several people were removed is because they have made really poor choices. For example, Trump could have defended his thesis while still calling for people to not take violent action. It is incorrect to pretend that the bans are stopping politicians of doing politics: you can defend your party or explain your political ideology without breaking twitter's rules. It is incorrect to pretend that the bans are targeting a political side: if you are promoting a political ideology that is not based on hatred and lies, then you never _need_ to post anything inciting to violence or spread misinformation.
If now you are saying that Republicans are more often banned, maybe one reason is that Republicans are more prone to accept hatred or lies as part of their political ideology strategy. But being banned is a strategy consequence, it's the price you pay if you go down this road that is, again, totally a choice (as long as your political ideology is not based on hatred and lies).
I don't think that aligns with the doc drops from Twitter
I'm not american, so, some of the arguments also seem crazy. For example, the fact that the majority of the employees vote democrats does not imply that the majority of the employees are immoral persons who will cheat without scruple. It is very worrying that in US, apparently, people are so polarized and uneducated to democratic concept that if they see someone that happens to be "on the wrong side", they will think they can only be the worst of the monster without even questioning that for one second.
For every bans I've seen, the person banned was ALWAYS doing a mistake, was giving a good excuse to justify the ban when it could have been easily avoided. For example, Trump could have phrased his messages such that he calls for more calm without changing his political message. He did not, he choose to send what he has sent (he had his reasons, but it is not about "freedom of political opinions", because, unless his political ideology is based on hatred and lies, his political opinions are not restricted by avoiding hatred and lies).
This is my main issue with this: if republicans are unfairly targeted, why are they so stupid to always give huge elements that can be used, later, to justify the ban. Just use your brain and don't tweet something that is, objectively, at least borderline. If republicans are victims of the democrats, why are they not even trying to not give them ways of going away with it?
But that's not the first paradox in the US. Another one: Trump claims the election was stolen. He was the president when the election was organized (and was already predicting frauds months before the election days). He claims the steal occurred in states where he almost won, which are states where he has a lot of supporters and allies. And yet, he failed to catch any little proofs. If the election was stolen, then he is super incompetent, and should never be reelected: he has proven he is easily out-smarted by democrats.
For example, Valve is a private company that can ban anyone they like from Steam, but we wouldn’t hear this defense if a publisher get banned capriciously and lost their income.
The right to free speech entails the right to censorship. I can freely throw someone out of my house for expressing something I dislike. A publisher can refuse to publish someone's work for any reason. If someone expresses an idea others find distasteful, it is their right to boycott that person and anyone associated with them.
My problem is not with the censorship. It is with the money. Our oligarchs are comparable in power to royalty of old, and they act with no oversight and no accountability. Musk was able to waltz in and start dictating terms to millions of people. One man should not have that kind of power.
I will not claim to know where the lines should be drawn. It is clearly OK for someone to run a newsletter about local Yorkshire Terrier breeders with an iron fist, but it is clearly not OK to run a global monopoly of a social media company in the same way. I don't know what happens in the middle ground.
Now twitter doesn’t really have policies, just Elon’s whims. And those can change at any time and without any external consensus. No one knows what the rules are.
> 7:30 PM · Nov 6, 2022
https://theintercept.com/2022/11/29/elon-musk-twitter-andy-n...
I agree with your other points, but this is missing the mark. There is some degree of editorial control over what “this site” publishes, but none on the comments (you’d had to go quite far to get banned). “This site” is not a homogenous single-minded entity. And you don’t have to dig far to see both stories and comments very critical of Musk. I happen to share that point of view, but that’s besides the point.
So it's pretty rich to stretch that far to whine about imaginary censorship and then just blatantly censor speech you don't like.