Musk buys Twitter

[sapator]

No, I meant they cut it out without court or scientific research. You just said it, "considered" . With "considered" , let's mouthful every opposite voice.

[sapator]

Yeah, I'm always telling friends they're Hitler and they always take it the wrong way.

Tyson and I know what we are doing, I wouldn't have written it to you as you continuously saw zero tolerance to deviations and quip's.

Tyson, you're Hitler man!

[dday9]

I guess if you were in charge yelling "fire!" in a crowed theater is free speech regardless if it harms people.

It depends. Is there a fire? If there is, then I'd say that would be protected under free speech. If there is no fire, then the person would be held liable for defrauding the other movie goers.

Again, principles like freedom of speech are easy to defend.

[dday9]

Whether you agree with it or not, it's not arbitrary at all to want to prevent the spread of information that is known to be false and that cannot help anyone and will definitely hurt people. If you don't feel more than queasy at the knowledge that millions of people died needlessly because of COVID misinformation then I'm glad you're not in charge either.

I don't know if you are deliberately doing it or not, but you're conflating a disingenuous statement that I enjoy people dying from COVID misinformation and "spread of information known to be false".

There are too many instances to count where people were banned for saying something at one point, only for the public health opinion to change a few months later validating what the banned person was saying. Many of these people are still banned too.

[jmcilhinney]

If there is no fire, then the person would be held liable for defrauding the other movie goes.

Again, principles like freedom of speech are easy to defend.

It's easy for gun nuts to defend their right to assault rifles to the parents of children killed in school mass shootings too. That doesn't mean that they're not despicable. You may feel that someone's right to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre is more important than the right to life of those who could be trampled in the stampede to get out but not everyone does. The fact that you find it easy to express that preference doesn't make inherently right.

[dday9]

Now you are making an emotional argument.

In this hypothetical scenario, I could still feel terrible about the people who died in the resulting stampede while also being relieved that people were able to get out and not perish.

[jmcilhinney]

There are too many instances to count where people were banned for saying something at one point, only for the public health opinion to change a few months later validating what the banned person was saying.

I'd have to be pointed to specific examples to speak definitively but, even if someone turns out to be correct, that doesn't necessarily validate what they were saying. Broken clock and all that. Public health advice was generally issued based on the best information available at the time. People claiming that that advice was wrong were generally doing so for ideological reasons, not because they had access to better information. If they turned out to be right in certain instances that was due to luck as much as anything else. When people made similar claims and turned out to be wrong, how often did they put their hand up and admit they were wrong and, more importantly, why they were wrong?

It's a bit of a sharpshooter fallacy to point to the ones who got it right and and suggest that that means no one making unfounded claims that were not supported by available facts should have suffered any consequences. I would point to all the proponents of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin as perfect examples. They made claims and then, when actual scientific evidence became available, they were shown to be wrong. At best, those people just went silent on the matter like it never happened and, at worst, they pretend that they never made those claims in the first place. If the scientific data came back and it actually did support the use of those treatments, those people would have been crowing that they were right all along but that doesn't mean that their claims were validated because they still had no factual basis for the claims when they made them.

[jmcilhinney]

Now you are making an emotional argument.

No I'm not. Not in the least. I'm making a completely practical argument, i.e. it is worth sacrificing some freedom so that we avoid situations where people might get sick, injured or die. I'm not saying we shouldn't be allowed to yell "fire" because we might feel bad. I'm saying it because I don't want people to be trampled needlessly. I'm not saying that finding exactly where to draw the line is easy but not doing it just because it's hard is not a good plan, in my opinion.

[TysonLPrice]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17128531

And in any way, you waiting to see if Hitler said it or not so you can take it back is not a good sing for the quote by itself. It's a friendly comment btw don't be taking it wrong, again.

Your telling me how to take things now...I find that funny. Did you mean it that way

[TysonLPrice]

Tyson and I know what we are doing, I wouldn't have written it to you as you continuously saw zero tolerance to deviations and quip's.

Tyson, you're Hitler man!

There is a common thought in politics in the US. Making Hitler/Nazi references when speaking about others rarely works the way you intend.

[TysonLPrice]

This isn't directed at any single poster...Many of the controls on social media, whether self imposed or laws, came about from the early abuses on the internet. We can look back at what happens when free uncensored postings are allowed. The darker natures of ourselves come out. I don't know how many times I've read about people falling into the anonymous world of the internet and behave in ways they never would to your face or in a social environment.

But I also agree with some posts here that the echo chambers tend to be people of the same opinion and many are not mainstream thereby somewhat monitoring themselves. But what about the groups that use the internet to plan and execute plots to harm people. How about drugs? Should those be unregulated?

So. I guess I'm all over the place on this. I think it is in part out of the very animal/human nature is to take advantage of each other. History, past and present, is rife with it. If we can't do it as individuals concerned about the whole do we get the government involved? That doesn't tend to work out well a lot.

I'm looking forward to this Twitter development evolving in the near future. Maybe Musk is rewriting the platform(s).

[sapator]

In Holland they have legal drugs so I think I instead of trying to sensor the heck out of whatever , sensor the heavy west society issues.
Other than that I agree (don't taking it wrong that I agree, I still hate you! )
Also it goes without saying that whoever makes a forum can sensor whatever he/she likes so here, we sensor anti NWO people and F# developers , other forums may do as well but if you go about and say that Twitter would be uncensored you better mean it. Other than that I don't give a rats banouka what Twitter would look like, my life is not dependent to Twitter or any other social media and there are constantly other social to go on about.For example I see rumble.com raising now.

P.S. I want to add to the sensor western list "Captain Marvel", I mean that is a positive sensor material.

[dday9]

I'd have to be pointed to specific examples to speak definitively but, even if someone turns out to be correct, that doesn't necessarily validate what they were saying. Broken clock and all that. Public health advice was generally issued based on the best information available at the time. People claiming that that advice was wrong were generally doing so for ideological reasons, not because they had access to better information. If they turned out to be right in certain instances that was due to luck as much as anything else. When people made similar claims and turned out to be wrong, how often did they put their hand up and admit they were wrong and, more importantly, why they were wrong?

It's a bit of a sharpshooter fallacy to point to the ones who got it right and and suggest that that means no one making unfounded claims that were not supported by available facts should have suffered any consequences. I would point to all the proponents of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin as perfect examples. They made claims and then, when actual scientific evidence became available, they were shown to be wrong. At best, those people just went silent on the matter like it never happened and, at worst, they pretend that they never made those claims in the first place. If the scientific data came back and it actually did support the use of those treatments, those people would have been crowing that they were right all along but that doesn't mean that their claims were validated because they still had no factual basis for the claims when they made them.

These examples are only related to COVID and not other topics.

There were several examples of people being banned for pointing out that the non-vaccinated rate of deaths were misrepresented in the beginning because the date at which the reports would claim that x% of all COVID deaths/hospitalizations are those who are not vaccinated started before vaccines were available or widely accessible. There were others who were banned for pointing out that there has been an uptick in abnormal cases of myocarditis in those vaccinated and should probably looked at more closely. There were others who were banned for pointing to studies that show masks that are not properly fitted N95 masks (mainly cloth masks) have little to no effect on preventing the spread of COVID.

I think there is also the issue of misrepresentation. Look at your ivermectin example. Everyone I listened to suggested that they didn't know if ivermectin helped with COVID or not, but their doctor prescribed it to them because it might help and the side-effects are very minimal. What is real fouled up is saying that people who took ivermectin to help with COVID were taking horse de-wormer when board certified doctors were prescribing the medicine to patients. That's like saying people who take penicillin are taking dog medicine. (fyi - I didn't take ivermectin, I just "roughed" COVID out).

As far as non-COVID related topics, I think the most disturbing example is the Hunter Biden laptop story. Twitter made it so that you couldn't even share the link to the NY Post article. Then after the 2020 election but before the 2022 midterm elections gets ramped up, the NY Times legitimizes the story and now it's fine to talk about again?

No I'm not. Not in the least. I'm making a completely practical argument, i.e. it is worth sacrificing some freedom so that we avoid situations where people might get sick, injured or die. I'm not saying we shouldn't be allowed to yell "fire" because we might feel bad. I'm saying it because I don't want people to be trampled needlessly. I'm not saying that finding exactly where to draw the line is easy but not doing it just because it's hard is not a good plan, in my opinion.

That makes sense. I thought you were making an emotional argument at first, so thank you for the clarification. I think we just fundamentally disagree on the extent of freedom of speech.

I do not think that every speech is protected (i.e. not drawing a line). Like I said, slander, fraud, etc. these aught not be protected under freedom of speech. I just think where I draw the line and where you draw the line are further apart than being able to reconcile our differences.

[sapator]

To be fair, I don't think those people where banned for covid matters, they where banned for world domination matter but the ball took everything at that point in time, including posting covid matters and more specifically they where posting post after post in a way that the thread was becoming a big spam. So not even for world domination matters but for the way they where expressing them (I'm trying to justify Funky -the foaming admin hamster).
Unless, you blabbermouth with the other mods and they told you that they where specifically banned for covid matters.If so, the mod team should be ashamed...And I feel violated as they forgot about me...

[wes4dbt]

From my point of view freedom of speech means freedom of speech. With some stand out exceptions like racism(tho that take a lot of conversation of what is really racism) and kid abuse or sell human organs on social, the heavy stuff, everything else should not be monitored.

This exposes the problem. "I want free speech, EXCEPT for this, this and this". There will always be people unhappy with what's on the EXCEPT list.

I think JMC has done a good job of explaining this but there's my two cents worth.

[sapator]

Kay, I said the western civilization heavy stuff but I would likely be open to full freedom.I don't think the pushers would Tweet about their pushing anyhow.So I take a turn for complete freedom so I won't have people grinding the wheels. Complete freedom it is!
Anyhow, you know that this whole thing is prolly gonna turn into big commercial BS right? Musk freedom and all.It's a commercial...Mask.

[TysonLPrice]

One thing to keep an eye on Musk's/Tesla relationship with China is changed. I'm bringing that up after reading this article:

https://fortune.com/2022/04/26/jeff-...everage-tesla/

I believe Jeff Bezos backed off on that Tweet and the article doesn't mention it. A few bullet points:

* Tesla was the first factory Chana allowed to not be required a have a China approved business partner.
* It is Tesla's second largest market.

It goes on about the influence China will on have Twitter but that was just speculation to me. My point is I see a real press problem with Musk, Twitter, the new "freedom of the press" branding and his new relationship with China's policies on Twitter in the future. I'm looking forward to see it unfold.

[TysonLPrice]

As far as non-COVID related topics, I think the most disturbing example is the Hunter Biden laptop story. Twitter made it so that you couldn't even share the link to the NY Post article. Then after the 2020 election but before the 2022 midterm elections gets ramped up, the NY Times legitimizes the story and now it's fine to talk about again?

Just my two cents on that...it was right before the election and Rudi Giuliani was heavily involved. His credibility was in the gutter and he was literarily running around the world "digging" up evidence on Biden's son. He ended up barred for presenting lies in court which points to his credibility. The story was headlined by the "New York Post", owned by none other than Rupert Murdoch. Who owns Fox news that constantly pushed all that other election garbage...the Murdock family. When the Post was asked to share the information they were reporting on they refused. Summing that up, Giuliani involved, the Post owned by the same family that owned a network dedicated to defeating Democrats, refusing to share the information saying "trust me", and a national election just ahead. I think any "responsible" network would have been hands off.

Just the shear idiocy of the concept at the time. A laptop pops up with all that "evidence" from the Post who won't share it from a company owned by a network dedicated to lying and Rudi Giuliani was heavily involved

[dday9]

Again, you're being incredibly partisan about this.

I personally didn't buy the legitimacy of the NY Post article when it was first put out there because of the points you made. However, when Twitter decided to censor it under its content moderation policies, it made me take a second look at it. I still didn't really buy it after my second look, but now it seems like the NY Times has validated some of the text exchanges found on the laptop.

The fact is that we have two counter examples, the Steele Dossier and the NY Post Hunder Biden story, on two extreme ends of the spectrum, with two different outcomes. Again, I'm no right-winger, but I can see their complaint here.

[TysonLPrice]

Again, you're being incredibly partisan about this.

I personally didn't buy the legitimacy of the NY Post article when it was first put out there because of the points you made. However, when Twitter decided to censor it under its content moderation policies, it made me take a second look at it. I still didn't really buy it after my second look, but now it seems like the NY Times has validated some of the text exchanges found on the laptop.

The fact is that we have two counter examples, the Steele Dossier and the NY Post Hunder Biden story, on two extreme ends of the spectrum, with two different outcomes. Again, I'm no right-winger, but I can see their complaint here.

You seem to be leaving out the Post would not share the information...that very action may have got the story out..


Edit: I'm going out on a limb...wasn't there questions about possible stolen property? That might keep news agencies other then Fox and the Post from running inflammatory stories weeks before an election.

[dilettante]

This guy is funnier than Dore anyway:

[dday9]

It is like talking to a brick wall.

Then again, I knew that before talking to you, so it really is my fault.

[jmcilhinney]

I think we just fundamentally disagree on the extent of freedom of speech.

I do not think that every speech is protected (i.e. not drawing a line). Like I said, slander, fraud, etc. these aught not be protected under freedom of speech. I just think where I draw the line and where you draw the line are further apart than being able to reconcile our differences.

That was one of my points in the first place. There are people (not necessarily you) who like talk as though they are the ones who believe in freedom and "we" don't, but it really just comes down to where different people draw the line between what they think should be free and what shouldn't. As I said earlier, I think that Florida right now is a perfect example, where so many right-wingers champion freedom with one breath and then cheer at the suppression of freedom the next. Even they know that what they're actually doing is wrong, so they have to hide it under the guise of protecting children from grooming.

[jmcilhinney]

As far as non-COVID related topics, I think the most disturbing example is the Hunter Biden laptop story. Twitter made it so that you couldn't even share the link to the NY Post article. Then after the 2020 election but before the 2022 midterm elections gets ramped up, the NY Times legitimizes the story and now it's fine to talk about again?

I can't say for sure what was in other people's heads but it was pretty clear that people were just making stuff up about Hunter Biden in an effort to throw mud at Joe Biden by association. You cam say that everyone has the right to make up their own mind who they vote for but if they make their mind up based on deliberate disinformation then is that really democracy? I don't see an issue with a social platform banning deliberate disinformation intended to change the result of a democratic election. I feel even less bad about it given that the side pumping out that disinformation are now the ones crying about the election not being free and fair.

[Niya]

Some comments from the video:-

I'm enjoying this more than I could ever express. Liberals seem to love free speech when the only speech allowed is theirs. God willing, Elon will keep his promises.

Imagine leaving the game because the referee won’t let you cheat anymore

Finally hope from the insanity that has taken over the world.

Oh no free discussion without censorship? Now arguments from each side must stand on their own merit? 😂 I wonder what the results will be?

If Elon Musk goes through with this and manages to break open public discourse and end internet censorship, he deserves a Nobel price. I'm not even joking a little bit. That would be a victory of mankind over tyranny that hasn't been seen in nearly a century.

They are not going anywhere, because they love the attention and are addicted to having a platform for their outrage. Do you really think these dirt merchants can go platformless for any real length of time. The problem is that they will now have to debate their ridiculous ideas, and that's what pisses them off.

Ah what a shame the leftists might have to see differing opinions and not have the power to get them kicked off the platform anymore

I'm loving how all of this is unfolding more than I should. What a time to be alive! Even if nothing changes in the end, this brief moment has given me hope for the human race.

The comment in red is the one that resonated with me the most.

[TysonLPrice]

It is like talking to a brick wall.

Then again, I knew that before talking to you, so it really is my fault.

Dropped into name calling...I win

[dday9]

Dropped into name calling...I win

You're old enough to know that isn't name calling, but it is me admitting defeat and you winning.

I understand that at this point, nothing I can say will change your mind and you aren't giving any arguments (only defenses) to try and change my mind, so what's the point?

Regarding your other post, you realize the extent to which I watch TV it is It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia reruns on Hulu or whatever baking show my wife puts on Netflix? Just because I disagree with you does not make me a right-winger.

[FunkyDexter]

I don't think those people where banned for covid matters, they where banned for world domination matter

I don't think DD was talking about bannings from here but rather people getting shut down on facebook, twitter etc. (correct me if I'm wrong here, DD)

For the record, there were only two bannings here (there was a third that I rolled back when I read deeper into what the user had posted and realised I had incorrectly ascribed his intent) and they were both for starting a new thread on the topic immediately after Steve closed the thread and said not to start a new one. We try to keep our moderation light but, if an admin or mod tells you not to do something and then you go ahead and do it anyway, the result is predictable.

The thread itself wasn't closed for a single specific reason but rather a combination of the potentially dangerous nature of what was being posted, the spammish nature in which people were posting and the fact that some of what was being posted was straying uncomfortably close to hate speech. I don't think we'd have ever closed that thread solely because people were expressing doubt about covid vaccines etc. (look at how long we let it run for a demonstration of that). However, once the other two factors came into play we weren't left with much choice. The thread had become a toxic and unedifying mess that was bringing this forum into disrepute.



On the whole free speech thing, I fall somewhere in the middle. Broadly I think most matters are best aired out in the open and censorship just drives dissenters underground where they become toxic. However, I'd say there are two problems with taking this as an absolute:-
1. There are some obvious exceptions derived from indecency and danger. We do not allow people to post beheading videos because we all recognise that it's indecent on a fundamental level and we all want anyone who would do that to be ostracised from our society. We do not allow people to use a platform to plot crimes of violence because we recognise the danger that represents. Of course those are two (deliberate) strawman examples intended to illustrate a point and therein lies the problem. As we discuss topics that are less and less indecent or dangerous than these everything starts slipping into shades of grey where individual morality and judgement come into play. Society as a whole needs to reach a consensus but any consensus will disappoint people on one or both sides of a debate.
2. The assumption that airing and challenging views in the open will inevitably result in a desirable outcome is demonstrably flawed, particularly when dealing with a forum as large as the internet and with so little social consequence for deviance. Offering up another strawman, there are people right now arguing from a position of anonymity that paedophilia and bestiality should be given the same status as trans genderism and homosexuality, do you really want to legitimise those voices and see where it leads? Again, that's a deliberate strawman but everything short of it is a grey area.

Where I come down is this: Free Speech is incredibly valuable but it is not an absolute. We should not be afraid to curtail it but we should be damn sure we're doing it for good reasons when we do.

It should go without saying that political partisanship is not a good reason and I think it's interesting to reflect on how that plays into the two (that I'm aware of) recent topics of conversation that have been squished on major social media platforms: Covid measures and the stealing or not of the US election. Both were politicised but, in both cases, I think it was the danger that misinformation could represent rather than the politics that motivated the actual squishing. It's unfortunate that, in both cases, it was the position politically associated with the right that got squished because that leads to a sense of political motivation that wasn't necessarily present.

As for whether those squishings met the bar of curtailment from a societal danger point of view, both fall firmly into the area of grey for me. I think adding advisories was an acceptable way to go but I would have been uncomfortable with outright censorship of the topic. None the less, I would not have viewed censorship as utterly beyond the pale given the danger involved.

I don't know enough about Biden's laptop to comment on its squishiness.

[TysonLPrice]

You're old enough to know that isn't name calling, but it is me admitting defeat and you winning.

I understand that at this point, nothing I can say will change your mind and you aren't giving any arguments (only defenses) to try and change my mind, so what's the point?

Regarding your other post, you realize the extent to which I watch TV it is It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia reruns on Hulu or whatever baking show my wife puts on Netflix? Just because I disagree with you does not make me a right-winger.

So if I was to post that "talking to you is like talking to a moron" you don't consider that devolving into name calling? That is how I took you saying what you said. I considered it insulting.

I see your points day after day on Fox news. Maybe you don't watch it but it is such a huge echo chambers of those conspiracy theories that they ooze out. That is what I tune out instantly. Maybe I should have given your reply more thought. I'm guessing we are past that now.

[sapator]

I'm not here to defend dday (he can do it better for himself) but when I read that talking wall, what my Greek mind interpreted was that you have your opinion standardized so it cannot be altered by any means. That was what I perceived on the post but I'm not sure if the US interpretation comes out bad, I would like to know tho so I can add it to my insult list.

[TysonLPrice]

The internet is really abuzz with Musk buying Twitter. This link is a single site but every one and their bother has an opinion:

https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/twitter

At the top of the list, and leaving my partisan hat off, is Trump. The big question is will he be allowed back on? Another side story is he says he won't go back on. A few more on who it is good for, democrats or republicans? I'm not unpacking all that.

My point is all the press is just spectacular for Musk. What a great start!

[FunkyDexter]

will he be allowed back on?

Oh, he'll be back on. I never met an addict who didn't loudly declare they would never do it again... and then did it again.

While I'll admit to some schadenfreude over Trump getting banned I'm not sure I agree with the decision and I think I'd rather have stuck with advisories for him. On the other hand, he was persistently breaking their published rules (though he wasn't alone in that) and he did foment an insurrection so that does get awfully close to meeting the bar where I'd support a ban - he's firmly in my grey area.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I'm not here to defend dday (he can do it better for himself) but when I read that talking wall, what my Greek mind interpreted was that you have your opinion standardized so it cannot be altered by any means. That was what I perceived on the post but I'm not sure if the US interpretation comes out bad, I would like to know tho so I can add it to my insult list.

No way! Your insult list is already so long and varied that a trained team of badgers with backhoes couldn't find the depth of it. We won't be adding to it.

Free speech is a hopeless, but necessary, discussion. As it can be seen from this discussion alone, EVERYBODY wants to restrict free speech SOMEWHERE. There isn't a single person who doesn't have a few things they feel are appropriately out of bounds. The issue is that everybody draws that line in a different place.

There isn't an absolute right or wrong when it comes to freedom, whether speech or otherwise. It's a fluid, context-driven, line. Any time anybody tries to pin it down, it shifts away from their attempts. Still, we have to study it, and shift it around.

[sapator]

Lol.
My insults are smooth and slick!

Well as we say in Greece, since the river got it (meaning that info came out), Musk will be fighting the: government agency that creating a “ministry of truth”, to combat what it deems misinformation.
See the "system" that many here so blindly trust, is finding ways to fight and keep the wheel balanced. Just like they did with the "virus that will not be named".

[Shaggy Hiker]

Musk is his own disinformation machine. His behavior around this has been erratic, at best. Some have suggested that his recent behavior is an attempt to scuttle his own deal. When it comes to Musk: Stay tuned.

[sapator]

Well I didn't say anything about Musk's behavior and you might as well be right, I just said that if the "system" don't like what you do, it will find a way.

[Niya]

His behavior around this has been erratic, at best. Some have suggested that his recent behavior is an attempt to scuttle his own deal. When it comes to Musk: Stay tuned.

The fact that he so clearly recognized the problem with Twitter and other major platforms tells me he is solid individual of sound mind. I only hope more people follow in his footsteps. It's long past time the problems he claims to want to address be dealt with. The "crazies" have had the megaphone for far too long.

I was neither here nor there with Elon Musk but after this Twitter buy, he earned by respect and if he does what he says he wants to do, I will respect him even more.

[dilettante]

Musk has been traveling to the future to obtain technology:

[Niya]

Musk is his own disinformation machine.

This is something the "crazies" would say because they have no real argument.

I'm not saying you are one of them of anything like that but you sure sound like them.

[Shaggy Hiker]

The fact that he so clearly recognized the problem with Twitter and other major platforms tells me he is solid individual of sound mind. I only hope more people follow in his footsteps. It's long past time the problems he claims to want to address be dealt with. The "crazies" have had the megaphone for far too long.

When it comes to Twitter, Musk IS the crazy. He's still feuding with the SEC over the settlement he made because of his past illegal behavior using the platform. I don't think he was intentionally trying to defraud people, it seemed more likely that he just wasn't thinking, but that might come with the environment. Twitter allows a person to put words out to the world without any thought. Mine don't matter. His can crash markets.