Elon vs Twitter update: Elon helped America win , Tesla stock through the roof

i was criticizing musk for being a hypocrite and a liar. im not sure why tinman brought up clutch in response.

the only thing he and musk have in common is that they both slept with grimes.

 

translation: twitter is going under regardless of who runs it, so why associate that failure with me? let me put this on someone else.

 

tinman is a fool. he is a man child and a troll.

 

For @Xerobull since he loved the last one.

 

Musk spent $44B to run his polls.

I run my polls here on clutchfans for $0.

He might have overpaid.

 

Except wouldn’t a “free speech absolutist” consider that bans are by whim also are an infringement of free speech as bans that might be based on policy? A ban based on a policy might be considered through rational Argument whereas a ban thought on personal picque has little rational basis.

 

sure they are. But the situation is so volatile and evolving so quickly that it is simpler to just sit back and watch what unfolds. Again very different than long-term censorship trends.

 

So from the "Free Speech Absolutist" point of view it's fine to let private "censorship" go as long as it's done in a volatile situation.

And also doesn't volatile situation show that there isn't actually a long term censorship trend if things just change with ownership?

 

you are creating a straw man.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/12/19/elon-musk-twitter-destroyed-fix/

Opinion: How Elon Musk destroyed Twitter... and how to save it
By the Editorial Board
December 19, 2022 at 4:41 p.m. EST

So much for free-speech absolutism.

It took less than two months for Elon Musk to turn Twitter into exactly what he had accused the social media site of being all along: a town square, with a dictator for a mayor, where policy is enacted and enforced based on caprice and political — or, in this case, personal — grudges.

As of this writing, Mr. Musk was still in charge — but a poll he conducted asking whether he should resign as Twitter chief returned a solid majority of yeses. No matter what he decides, Twitter would remain his property, and the company’s imperative would be the same: Revive Twitter as a forum and as a business by laying ground rules that apply to all, enforcing them fairly, and informing the community when and how that happens. That is, the opposite of what Mr. Musk has done.

If there’s anything to learn from the Musk era at Twitter, it’s that the free-speech absolutism Mr. Musk claimed to espouse is untenable as a guiding principle. Those running social media sites will inevitably find something they don’t want on their property. Maybe it poses a threat to someone’s physical well-being; maybe advertisers don’t want their brands next to it; maybe it gets the goat of the guy in charge. There are fair and credible ways to deal with this reality. Then there is what Mr. Musk did.

The billionaire capped off weeks of erratic rulemaking and rule-revoking by suspending the accounts of several U.S. journalists, including from The Post, last week. He said that they had posted “basically assassination coordinates” for him and his family — a claim The Post found no evidence to support. It seems he was upset that an account had been tweeting public data about his private jet, so he conjured up a policy to justify banning it and used that same policy to justify banning reporters who criticized the move. Eventually, he allowed many to return.

Next Mr. Musk exiled those who repeatedly encouraged users to join competitor services; “free promotion,” suddenly, was against the rules, too.

Twitter is both a private company and a public square. Any owner has the legal prerogative to govern by whim. But owners also bear an ethical responsibility to strike a tricky balance, protecting speech and safety at the same time. Mr. Musk has made a mockery of the enterprise, caring about speech only when it’s his own speech and safety only when it’s his own safety.

This is not only an ethical failure but also a business disaster. Advertisers have fled Twitter. Journalists are some of Twitter’s most important users, and now they ask themselves whether they should leave the social media platform because they can’t report honestly on one of the richest men in the world without risking banishment.

In rebuilding Twitter — or, indeed, improving trust in any number of social media sites — it is unfair to expect that these companies will establish perfect and unchanging rules governing what users can say and how they can say it. Conservatives might want more speech allowed; progressives less. They can disagree in good faith on the limits. No terms of service policy will be comprehensive enough to cover every possible situation in the impossibly vast realm of human interaction. Twitter’s decision to ban then-President Donald Trump from its platform in the pre-Musk era was an exception to its “public interest” policy in which world leaders were afforded more leeway to break rules than everyday users — based not only on the content of his tweets but also on the context of the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.

The important thing is that social media companies try to craft and enforce their rules fairly — and keep trying. These sites are going to get it wrong sometimes, given they’re administrating millions or billions of users saying millions or billions of nonsensical things every day. What matters is that they’re set up to get it right, in aggregate, according to the public commitments they’ve made.

That starts with something as simple as platforms committing to transparency, so that, for example, platforms’ conversations with government agencies and campaigns occur through proper channels and that responses to requests are consistent with existing standards.

These companies can hardly be blamed for not having had ironclad policies in place to address a U.S. president inciting armed insurrection; it was the first — and, hopefully, the last — time. But they can be blamed for lacking procedures for how to handle situations that their rules don’t easily accommodate. It should be clear which teams are involved at which point in the conversation and where they are supposed to look for guidance — whether that’s similar policies or company’s stated values.

Content moderation has evolved beyond a takedown, leave-up binary to include interventions such as labels that add context to posts, prompts that urge users to reconsider posts and algorithms that reduce the spread of posts. Platforms should explain when they’re employing these tactics — at what scale, for what types of content and, most important,to what end. That means two things: That companies should study and publish the impact of their content moderation decisions, and that they should be able to connect that impact to their stated aims.

Without strictures that recognize the push-and-pull reality of expression on the internet, and a credible process to apply the rules, there will be nothing to guide these platforms if they’re trying to do the right thing — and nothing to constrain them if they’re not.
​

 

Congress needs to ask the heads of every three letter agency if they are paying anyone who works at a social media company

 

Althouse:

December 18, 2022
"I think it's a lazy response to say that Twitter’s a private company. That may get you a good grade in high school..."
by noreply@blogger.com (Ann Althouse)

"... but everyone who's taken a constitutional law class knows that. The point is, of course, they're a private entity. The question then becomes, What is the responsibility of private entities to democracy and the public sphere? If The Washington Post or The New York Times had a policy to say we aren't going to print any progressive politicians op-eds, that's their right, but we would be critical of that. And they don’t have as much of a reach as Twitter in terms of users or followers. The debate should be about what you think a good public forum looks like and less about what the specific legal requirements are on Twitter."

Said Ro Khanna, quoted in an interview with Bari Weiss titled "The Twitter Files and the Future of the Democratic Party/With Silicon Valley's Congressman Ro Khanna on why we should be skeptical of Big Tech's power" (The Free Press).

Posted by Ann Althouse at 7:05 AM
​

 

I agree with Khanna. I hope this isn't in any way eroding his "progressive" cred with the Left. He's very good, IMO.

 

Also pretty lazy to not talk about the context in which this happened….

A pandemic and Russian meddling in social media. Trump and Giuliani getting caught looking for dirt on the Bidens in Eastern Europe.

Seems pretty disingenuous to talk about this without that context.

 

I don't read those other tweets as being openly white nationalist. It's expressing the common view that white people are "under attack" by the Left.

 

Where in the world is that account "white nationalist"?