This is dishonest competition (all other major companies do the same but not as blunt: Facebook, Google, Amazon for example). Twitter could be an exception. But it won't.
Because the journalists Musk banned were definitely not banned for their opinions on Musk?
I'm going to preempt the 'harassment' argument--the photo Musk posted, when he was claiming that the journalists caused him to be stalked, was found to have been taken an hour after Musk's jet took off and nowhere near any airport.
They banned because they shared his jet location.
> he was claiming that the journalists caused him to be stalked
Did he claim that specifically? I'm not sure. But if he did, these claims are probably incorrect.
But that does not cancel the fact that journalists were posting jet location after he asked (via twitter policies) not to.
This is false in some cases.
https://variety.com/2022/digital/news/elon-musk-bans-washing...
And she is unsuspended already.
Here's her explanation why https://twitter.com/TaylorLorenz/status/1604559889585410048
Here's Musk explanation: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1604482428281753601
(Sorry, could not post earlier, massively downvoted, so HN prohibits me from posting replies.)
It's at the very least Musk's explanation. Lorenz's tweet with her offsite links predates the new policy; if they're related, the policy was a retroactive explanation similar to how they made up the "no real-time location" policy after banning @elonjet.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11550753/Taylor-Lor... has a screenshot of her Tweeting him asking for comment on a story that came out today, https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/12/18/details.... That, IMO, is the most likely explanation for the action.
> And she is unsuspended already.
Yes, he's gotten a lot of backlash today.
And the account was banned until the links are removed by the account owner (this is how twitter deals with such posts).
Taylor Lorenz did enough harm already, for example, revealing identity of libsoftiktok was inappropriate, she is a bad person.
I don't think that anything prior to rule introduction should stay forever. If she was forced to delete it, that's fine.
But Elon as usual could have managed it better.
I guess she got banned for reminding musk about the time he doxxed her for reporting on Tesla.
They are other examples.
And the question isn't if it's true or not. The question was: what would make you change your mind about EM. To me, it was the pedo accusations about a rescuer who refused his 'help'. I then found videos about how fake and dumb the Hyperloop was, and I was done with him.
Can you give a link to the source please?
> what would make you change your mind about EM
I change my mind constantly when I get more information. But my opinion of Musk is not polar either absolute evil and absolute good. When he does something good, I give him a point, when he makes a mistake, I subtract a point.
So far Elon was net positive for Twitter.
Hyperloop, I don't think this is a big deal. Musk has thousands ideas, not all of them work.
I don't care about pedo story. It was inappropriate for sure, but everyone can make mistakes. Who is without sin... I prefer people who make mistakes openly to people who know how signal virtue.
In the end, for me, it is important what you do, and not as much, what you say.
> she accuses Musk of having 'always' doxxed people in an attempt to silence critics of his treatment of employees
I remember it was before the idiotic pedophilia accusations, he retweeted someone who doxxed her email address after tweeting about her like 5 times in a row, i thought 'wow, not cool'.
Here what I found [0]: "This is worse than just stalking: Musk is setting his army of fanboys loose on Lopez, he’s retweeting stuff they find, and he’s encouraging them every step of the way. Milo Yiannopoulos was banned from Twitter for setting mobs upon his enemies; Musk should be banned too, but won’t be."
[0] https://slate.com/business/2018/07/elon-musks-attacks-on-rep...
Maybe he did something else, and that is bad, but let's not move goalposts.
> he retweeted someone who doxxed her email address
"Doxxing" for revealing email address a bit exaggeration. This is also bad, but doxxing usually means revealing something which may give people significant distress. Like home address.
Also if there's a screenshot of such tweet. Since it seems to be disappeared from the internet, probably nobody really cared.
> Musk is setting his army of fanboys loose on Lopez
This is journalistic exaggeration. There's no proof of that in the article. Mentioning someone in Twitter does not mean he intentionally sets "his army of fanboys".
You are 100% incorrect in that free speech is not, has never been, and will never be limited to political preferences/opinions.
Commercial, frivolous, inconsequential, satirical, and all other forms of free and independent thought are "speech".
"Drink more Ovaltine" is speech the same way "slavery is bad" is speech. These two disparate utterances are equally important and protected as "speech".
"I like big butts and I cannot lie" is speech as important as a treatise on political theory.
The comment you replied to lampoons Musk's "free speech absolutist" schtick. A nuance you have failed to appreciate.
What hasn't been noted here, yet, as far as I can tell, is that the EU prohibits this type of behavior (banning mentions of competitors) and it will be interesting to see how they respond. But that's an antitrust matter, not free speech.
Maybe not as much before Musk, but it does now:
https://theintercept.com/2022/11/29/elon-musk-twitter-andy-n...
Did not read every accusation from it, but it mention for example, Andy Ngo and VPS_Report.
Here is the tweet about both of them:
https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1594550575383072770
I must say, VPS_Report is an evil person. I don't know if he deserves his right to speech after he posted his threats, but I won't miss him on Twitter.
Andy Ngo is fine. You may disagree with him, but he only does journalist work.
I don't get why it's banned, is it because he found some jan6 protestors who weren't caught by the police yet with his tools?
And, I mean, crimethinc, really? You cannot do mellower on the anarchist side. I don't think they even defend the second amendment. It's clearly political.
Musk promised that everyone will get explanation why they were banned. I'm waiting for it.
> It's clearly political.
It may be personal, but I doubt it is political. It just happens that people who attack Elon are on the left, and people who were banned by previous administration and unbanned now are on the right, so it looks political.
Of course, Twitter moderation should not be based on personal preferences of Elon.
I do not think this is true. At least not in this scale. You can post on FB about Twitter or Mastodon. You can search on Google about DuckDuckGo[0] or OpenStreetMap and so on.
[0] Even first suggestion for me when I enter the 'd' char.
Because people do not threaten FB to leave to Mastodon. But you can't link (maybe you can now, but some time ago you couldn't) to Telegram inside Whatsapp, because Facebook considered Telegram a competitor.
> You can search on Google about DuckDuckGo
Again, because Google does not consider DDG a competitor.
But a while ago (long before the war when everybody were at peace), Russia was the only country where Google Chrome did not offer the choice of search engine. Because Russia was the only country where Google was not the leading search engine. There's famous commit in Chromium repository which explicitly excludes Russia.
Freedom of speech encompasses far more than just "political preferences/opinions".
> This is dishonest competition (all other major companies do the same but not as blunt: Facebook, Google, Amazon for example).
1. I know of exactly zero other social media platforms that ban the mere mention of other social media platforms.
2. Precisely none of those companies are owned entirely by individuals claiming to be "free speech absolutists".
3. Mastodon is not a company, major or otherwise. It's a "competitor" to Twitter in the same sense that me raising chickens in my backyard makes me a "competitor" to Tyson or Foster Farms.
WhatsApp banned links to Telegram.
Facebook ranks links to Twitter/YouTube lower than content without such links.
> Precisely none of those companies are owned entirely by individuals claiming to be "free speech absolutists"
Either Elon Musk is no longer "free speech absolutist" or does not consider Twitter policy must match his personal preferences.
> Mastodon is not a company, major or otherwise
Competition may be not only for money, but also competition for users. It is quite possible that critical number of users will leave Twitter for Mastodon.
> Facebook ranks links to Twitter/YouTube lower than content without such links.
Right, links, not "mere mentions".
> Either Elon Musk is no longer "free speech absolutist" or does not consider Twitter policy must match his personal preferences.
Very likely the former - or more accurately, he wasn't ever a "free speech absolutist" in the first place, but dishonestly claimed to be one. The latter is obviously a possibility, though it would go against the whole ostensible point of him buying Twitter in the first place.
> It is quite possible that critical number of users will leave Twitter for Mastodon.
It is also quite possible that a critical number of chicken eaters will stop buying frozen chicken strips in favor of raising chickens themselves or getting chicken meat from neighbors who do so. That doesn't make backyard chicken farmers Tyson/Foster competitors in any meaningful sense.
During the #deletefacebook movement, Facebook didn't ban links to or discussion of competitors.
But Facebook bans links to Telegram in WhatsApp.
Also Facebook ranks posts with links to Twitter (or YouTube) lower than other posts.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34044189.