Elon Musk buys Twitter to bring back Free Speech

[Eirynne Sieyes]

@Scylla Rhiadra You asked if there was a point I wanted to make, and if I thought your posts were toxic. Well...

31 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

 I'm going to use a word that I'm actually very careful not to throw about carelessly. It is too often misused.

But such a view is literally fascist.

Yes. Insinuation of fascism is inflammatory at best. 

 

[Luna Bliss]

Just now, Arielle Popstar said:

3 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

The left want healthcare. 

The right want's to criminalize people and make it a crime to support, serve or parent those people.

The left wants the state to have autonomy over everyone's body as well as the education of their children.

I'm sorry but LOL.

You really need to study what's happening in the US because you have no idea.

[Arielle Popstar]

Just now, Luna Bliss said:

You're letting your obsession with vaccine issues and Ivermectin influence the issues too much.  Issues on the 'left' involve so much more though.

Twitter skews right. And Musk does too. And that's what Twitter will increasingly move toward.

I used a ready made made example but there are plenty more. Twitter skews Left whicjh is why so many on the right had to go find alternate social media platforms. 

Are you indulging in what is called gaslighting? Want to be sure I have the right definition.

[Luna Bliss]

1 minute ago, Eirynne Sieyes said:

38 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

 I'm going to use a word that I'm actually very careful not to throw about carelessly. It is too often misused.

But such a view is literally fascist.

Yes. Insinuation of fascism is inflammatory at best. 

The truth is never inflammatory.

[Ayashe Ninetails]

1 minute ago, Coffee Pancake said:

and the culture change .. Elon has a very poor reputation as a leader in the companies he runs.

This too, yup! But generally speaking, it's pretty much the very same thing that happens whenever a company gets acquired, really. Employees tend to hate that sort of thing on the whole. The main difference here is they have very legitimate concerns that they'll lose the massive brands that helped support the platform all these years. And yes, like you mentioned - his reputation.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

5 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

If that was actually the case then twitter employees should have no issue with the Musk buyout and yet they do. From all reports it has been some major doom and gloom along with wailing and gnashing of teeth. 

Or, possibly, they are terrified of being his next targets, and being swamped with abusive bilge from his followers, as Vijaya Gadde and Parag Agrawal have been.

"Musk’s power to unleash his followers in these ways has alarmed some Twitter workers, who expressed concerns at a company town hall on Monday and in interviews about the possibility of being mentioned in tweets by their future boss. It is unusual for an incoming owner to make any public comment about his future employees, much less publicly criticize their performance or past decisions."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/04/27/musk-twitter-attacks/

[Scylla Rhiadra]

2 minutes ago, Eirynne Sieyes said:

@Scylla Rhiadra You asked if there was a point I wanted to make, and if I thought your posts were toxic. Well...

Yes. Insinuation of fascism is inflammatory at best. 

 

You don't believe that relying upon strong and powerful individuals rather than democratic institutions is "fascist"?

Possibly you might want to read a little history? Or look at a dictionary?

[Lindal Kidd]

We do have a history of very rich men wielding the press to achieve their desired ends. Two centuries ago it was Benjamin Franklin. A century ago, it was William Randolph Hearst. Today it's Elon Musk.

As bad as that can be (Hearst), it's better than the government deciding what we can read, hear, and see (Putin's Russia).

[Luna Bliss]

1 minute ago, Lindal Kidd said:

We do have a history of very rich men wielding the press to achieve their desired ends. Two centuries ago it was Benjamin Franklin. A century ago, it was William Randolph Hearst. Today it's Elon Musk.

As bad as that can be (Hearst), it's better than the government deciding what we can read, hear, and see (Putin's Russia).

Why are you making this into an either/or thing?

[Lindal Kidd]

Well, either we have a free press, or we don't. Is there some middle ground? How much government censorship is acceptable?

[Scylla Rhiadra]

2 minutes ago, Lindal Kidd said:

We do have a history of very rich men wielding the press to achieve their desired ends. Two centuries ago it was Benjamin Franklin. A century ago, it was William Randolph Hearst. Today it's Elon Musk.

As bad as that can be (Hearst), it's better than the government deciding what we can read, hear, and see (Putin's Russia).

This is just a bizarre idea, Lindal. And, honestly, it exemplifies what I just said about the loss of faith in democratic institutions.

When did you give up on democracy? And why?

I for one will not willingly be handing the care of my civil rights over to billionaires on the assumption that they are "nice people."

[Arielle Popstar]

4 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Or, possibly, they are terrified of being his next targets, and being swamped with abusive bilge from his followers, as Vijaya Gadde and Parag Agrawal have been.

"Musk’s power to unleash his followers in these ways has alarmed some Twitter workers, who expressed concerns at a company town hall on Monday and in interviews about the possibility of being mentioned in tweets by their future boss. It is unusual for an incoming owner to make any public comment about his future employees, much less publicly criticize their performance or past decisions."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/04/27/musk-twitter-attacks/

There was nothing there that he tweeted that was directly addressed to her but simply questioned a couple of bad decisions that Twitter had made as to what was deleted when it turned out to be factual.. 

[Coffee Pancake]

2 minutes ago, Lindal Kidd said:

Well, either we have a free press, or we don't. Is there some middle ground? How much government censorship is acceptable?

We have never had a free press.

Owning the press has always been a way for the rich and powerful to set the agenda. 

and let's not leave rupert murdoch out of this.

[Luna Bliss]

2 minutes ago, Lindal Kidd said:

Well, either we have a free press, or we don't. Is there some middle ground? How much government censorship is acceptable?

There has never been, and never will be, total freedom.

Without censorship the strong rise to the top and trample the more vulnerable.  So we must come together and talk it out, decide exactly what should be censored so as to protect all citizens.

It's messy, and always in process.

[Istelathis]

Is nuking social media from orbit an option? 

 

Can we please press the red shiny button, please?  I think it has single handedly driven people to the point of insanity, it is a threat to our country, and well, I just want to see it burn.

[Arielle Popstar]

1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

This is just a bizarre idea, Lindal. And, honestly, it exemplifies what I just said about the loss of faith in democratic institutions.

When did you give up on democracy? And why?

I for one will not willingly be handing the care of my civil rights over to billionaires on the assumption that they are "nice people."

It is not a loss of faith in the democratic process but rather a lack of faith in half the population who allow themselves to be swayed into voting for a party that leads them down the garden path. Like the current "Build back Better" guy as the country falls apart from the decisions he made.

[Lindal Kidd]

Yeah, I forgot Murdoch, sorry.

We have had a free press, though. We still do. Jeepers, has nobody noticed the blogosphere at all!? It's the modern equivalent of the small printer posting broadsheets outside his shop.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

2 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

There was nothing there that he tweeted that was directly addressed to her but simply questioned a couple of bad decisions that Twitter had made as to what was deleted when it turned out to be factual.. 

Musk's tweet, however "reasonable" it might have been in its own right, has unleashed a really well documented avalanche of hate from his followers.

And he has done not a thing to rein them in or condemn them. In this case, silence is complicity.

This is like leaving a loaded shotgun in a kindergarten, and then protesting that you weren't the one who pulled the trigger when someone dies.

[CaithLynnSayes]

[Coffee Pancake]

Just now, Lindal Kidd said:

Yeah, I forgot Murdoch, sorry.

We have had a free press, though. We still do. Jeepers, has nobody noticed the blogosphere at all!? It's the modern equivalent of the small printer posting broadsheets outside his shop.

That doesn't have the reach of organizations like fox or facebook or twitter.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 minute ago, Arielle Popstar said:

It is not a loss of faith in the democratic process but rather a lack of faith in half the population who allow themselves to be swayed into voting for a party that leads them down the garden path. Like the current "Build back Better" guy as the country falls apart from the decisions he made.

Ah. So the answer to "saving democracy" is to deprive the half of the population with whom you disagree of the vote?

Or better yet, find some amenable billionaire who will run things the way you want them run?

You do understand that democracy is actually premised on people disagreeing, right? In fact, Musk's defence of "free speech" is also premised on that idea: no one gets shut down, everyone airs their views, and a consensus arises.

You negotiate solutions to civil issues. You do not short-circuit those with whom you disagree by relying upon an autocrat with whom you happen to agree.

[Arielle Popstar]

1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Musk's tweet, however "reasonable" it might have been in its own right, has unleashed a really well documented avalanche of hate from his followers.

And he has done not a thing to rein them in or condemn them. In this case, silence is complicity.

This is like leaving a loaded shotgun in a kindergarten, and then protesting that you weren't the one who pulled the trigger when someone dies.

Then perhaps you have been missing the avalanche of hate directed at various personalities who have promoted various alternate political or even none political viewpoints to the point they were banned and demonetized by different platforms. If one sets the tone then one shouldn't be surprised that the time will come it will boomerang. 

[Lindal Kidd]

3 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

That doesn't have the reach of organizations like fox or facebook or twitter.

You expect to shout your message on prime time during the Superbowl for free? It doesn't work like that.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

2 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Then perhaps you have been missing the avalanche of hate directed at various personalities who have promoted various alternate political or even none political viewpoints to the point they were banned and demonetized by different platforms. If one sets the tone then one shouldn't be surprised that the time will come it will boomerang. 

I have not.

This isn't a partisan issue. Hate is destructive and corrosive of democracy, regardless of its origin.

ETA: You will note (or maybe not -- at least one other person here missed it, or is purposefully ignoring it) that I very carefully did not associate "fascism" in my comment above with the Right. And that's because there are autocratic, divisive, and hateful voices on the Left as well. I spend some of my time battling them precisely because they represent a betrayal of what I believe progressive politics should be: open, inclusive, and dialogic.

Edited May 1, 2022 by Scylla Rhiadra

[Arielle Popstar]

1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I have not.

This isn't a partisan issue. Hate is destructive and corrosive of democracy, regardless of its origin.

You are right, it isn't just a partisan issue but it is one of the biggest outlets for it. In threads past there have been quite a few who hate the hate and yet were happy when alternate views were shut down.