Elon Musk buys Twitter to bring back Free Speech

[Ayashe Ninetails]

17 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

And as Twitter exists in the US and EU, they are either going to have to limit who can see who's tweets based on geography (ha!) or just ban certain things everywhere.

That, and Twitter's got far too many high-profile brands and advertisers tied to it for it to spiral too far into the depths with zero rules. 

I'd be surprised if anything on the platform even changed, tbh.

[Luna Bliss]

56 minutes ago, Lindal Kidd said:

Being a jerk on social media is words. A balanced response would be words in return. When the "right of people not to be attacked" (with words, mind you) is enforced by censorship, or worse, by "cancellation" (the process of attacking a jerk's income), it's no longer balanced.

I've worked on digital jobs for companies, and sometimes I've needed others with specific skills to complete said jobs. Let's say I hired one of the expert scripters we have in SL and discovered they were posting racist, sexist, or homophobic views on Twitter. I don't want anyone like that associated with my company, so why would it be wrong to fire them or "cancel" them?  It's not about balancing their words with my words of confrontation on their Twitter account -- I simply don't want to associate with jerks and why should I have to do so because of this "cancellation" phobia many are disturbed about?

[Innula Zenovka]

Nils Prately, writing in The Guardian, asks what the deal means for shareholders in Tesla (Tesla shares have fallen by 10% in value after the news emerged that Musk is buying Twitter.

Quote

Jeff Bezos, another tech tycoon turned media owner, referenced the latter mischievously. “Did the Chinese government just gain a bit of leverage over the town square?” Tweeted Amazon’s founder.

It’s a good question because Bezos’s line of thinking is easy to follow. Twitter is blocked in China because the social media company, rightly, refuses to bow to Beijing’s security laws on what can be said about, say, the strangulation of democracy in Hong Kong or the persecution of Uyghur Muslims.

But Musk, wearing his Tesla hat, is a beneficiary of Chinese largesse in the form of financial incentives to build cars in China. Rich Chinese consumers are also big buyers of Teslas and key kit for the batteries comes from the country. What would happen if Beijing were to suggest that Twitter might wish to give the Chinese Communist party an easier ride in the interest of smooth commercial relationships for Tesla? Chinese officialdom, one suspects, won’t distinguish between Musk’s ownership of Twitter (100%, if everything proceeds) and that of Tesla (17% currently).

 

[Luna Bliss]

1 hour ago, Lindal Kidd said:

I would also suggest that social media will ALWAYS be a dangerous and toxic space. Its rise over the last ten years goes hand in hand with the polarization of our country. Might be better to just ignore it and let it die, in the words of a famous thread.

Likely it will always be a toxic cesspool, and hate speech laws have specific parameters that frequently won't apply. But society ignoring it would not be wise, as social media now influences us greatly.

[Luna Bliss]

1 hour ago, Lindal Kidd said:

I hold no love for the right wing jerks out there. I hold none for the people who think they have a right never to be offended or upset by anything at all, either. I have no idea whether Musk's new toy is a good thing or a bad thing, but I do have a deep love for freedom of speech. We'll see if this promotes or degrades that.

I would like to see hate speech laws tightened in the US.  It looks like the EU is doing so.

[Istelathis]

I don't think free speech is possible on any website that is funded by advertising such as most social media sites are.  The advertisers will deem what is acceptable or not, then of course you have various laws established by countries.  If Musk cuts all advertising out of the equation, then perhaps it will be more free speech but that would either require him footing the entire bill, or people willing to pay for a subscription.

My guess is, twitter will remain relatively the same.  People will still get banned, a lot of people will leave twitter in favor of some other platform as they have been for years, and twitter will slowly die off as people find it less relevant.  Eventually Musk will sell it off to someone else.

If you want free speech, where there are no rules then go to 4chan, or one of the variants.  

Edited April 26, 2022 by Istelathis

[Innula Zenovka]

7 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

I've worked on digital jobs for companies, and sometimes I've needed others with specific skills to complete said jobs. Let's say I hired one of the expert scripters we have in SL and discovered they were posting racist, sexist, or homophobic views on Twitter. I don't want anyone like that associated with my company, so why would it be wrong to fire them or "cancel" them?  It's not about balancing their words with my words of confrontation on their Twitter account -- I simply don't want to associate with jerks and why should I have to do so because of this "cancellation" phobia many are disturbed about?

Speaking as an SL scripter, I rather wish you'd chosen a less specific example, but let's run with it.

What's your view if someone hires me, only to fire me because they've subsequently read some of the  left-wing and pro-choice views I've expressed in various social media?

[Coffee Pancake]

2 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

What's your view if someone hires me, only to fire me because they've subsequently read some of the  left-wing and pro-choice views I've expressed in various social media?

If they are that far removed from your positions as to cause that much of a reaction, all that's left to do is thank them probably.

[CaithLynnSayes]

 

[Luna Bliss]

24 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

39 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

I've worked on digital jobs for companies, and sometimes I've needed others with specific skills to complete said jobs. Let's say I hired one of the expert scripters we have in SL and discovered they were posting racist, sexist, or homophobic views on Twitter. I don't want anyone like that associated with my company, so why would it be wrong to fire them or "cancel" them?  It's not about balancing their words with my words of confrontation on their Twitter account -- I simply don't want to associate with jerks and why should I have to do so because of this "cancellation" phobia many are disturbed about?

Expand  

Speaking as an SL scripter, I rather wish you'd chosen a less specific example, but let's run with it.

What's your view if someone hires me, only to fire me because they've subsequently read some of the  left-wing and pro-choice views I've expressed in various social media?

As you've likely gleaned about me so far, my primary way of judging whether anything is right or wrong is through the lens of what is determined as abusive.
It's abusive to discriminate against people because of the color of their skin or whether they are male or female, and so I have no qualms about firing someone who does so.

I can't see any abuse in your left-wing politics, so their firing of you for left-wing beliefs would seem absurd.
If they fired you because of your stance on abortion they might be able to make a case with me, as so many just see a little baby being snuffed out, view this as abusive, and are unable to comprehend the complexity surrounding this issue.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

It's almost endearing that Musk thinks that the negative responses to his purchase of Twitter represent a fear of free speech rather than a visceral dislike and distrust of him, personally.

Well, we all cherish our personal delusions, I suppose.

[Robin Kiyori]

I'm not American so American friends correct me if I'm wrong.

But doesn't Free speech only protect you from the government, not  random twitter users?

Or am I right and this is just another example of rules for thee but not for me?

Edited April 26, 2022 by Robin Kiyori
dear fluff did I mangle that quote

[Solar Legion]

2 minutes ago, Robin Kiyori said:

I'm not American so American friends correct me if I'm wrong.

But doesn't Free speech only protect you from the government, not  random twitter users?

Or am I right and this is just another example of rules for thee but not for me?

Oh no, you are quite correct.

The way many tend to treat it is essentially a myth that they buy into.

[Arielle Popstar]

3 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

It's almost endearing that Musk thinks that the negative responses to his purchase of Twitter represent a fear of free speech rather than a visceral dislike and distrust of him, personally.

Well, we all cherish our personal delusions, I suppose.

That is assuming it is what it really is over. Quite a few do hold him in high regard for his advancements in technology and the Sciences that will benefit mankind as a whole from that perspective. No doubt certain groups can find something wrong about anybody who has what you would deem as too much money.

The focus here has been on hate speech but quite a few are looking more at free speech in the tech, medical and scientific fields as increasingly speech in those areas is labeled misinformation where it does not serve the financial interests of certain corporations, groups and governments.

[Rowan Amore]

We see what you did there.  Not surprised.

[Arielle Popstar]

Just now, Rowan Amore said:

We see what you did there.  Not surprised.

Who you talking to?

[Scylla Rhiadra]

18 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

The focus here has been on hate speech but quite a few are looking more at free speech in the tech, medical and scientific fields as increasingly speech in those areas is labeled misinformation where it does not serve the financial interests of certain corporations, groups and governments.

I'm not going to get into my own dislike of Musk. I don't think I need to; I think it's much less important than the larger principle at stake here.

I'll just repeat -- depending upon any individual (not to mention one who has a very deep financial interest in producing goods in the "tech, medical, and scientific" fields) for a disinterested and public-spirited defense of free speech is leaning upon a very shaky stick indeed. I wouldn't trust Bernie Sanders to run Twitter for the same reason: the maintenance of the principle of free speech belongs in the public realm, and we therefore shouldn't have to rely upon the good will of an individual, who is inevitably going to have his own biases and agendas, for that.

Twitter is going to be Musk's -- he can, within limits, do what he likes with it of course.

But god help us all if we are devolving into a society in which we depend upon the wealthy and the powerful to protect our civil rights.

Edited April 26, 2022 by Scylla Rhiadra
Typo

[Arielle Popstar]

2 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I'm not going to get into my own dislike of Musk. I don't think I need to; I think it's much less important than the larger principle at stake here.

I'll just repeat -- depending upon any individual (not to mention one who has a very deep financial interest in producing goods in the "tech, medical, and scientific" fields) for a disinterested and public-spirited defense of free speech is leaning upon a very shaky stick indeed. I wouldn't trust Bernie Sanders to run Twitter for the same reason: the maintenance of the principle of free speech belongs in the public realm, and we therefore shouldn't have to rely upon the good will of an individual, who is inevitably going to have his own biases and agendas, for that.

Twitter is going to be Musk's -- he can, within limits, do what he likes with it of course.

But god help us all if we are devolving into a society in which we depend up the wealthy and the powerful to protect our civil rights.

The problem there is that the public realm will default to the government of the time. Canadian Media as you should know is now controlled by our current federal government who by subsidies to compliant media's and now additionally through licensing only those deemed to not be carrying "misinformation" content, has taken control of the narrative whereby we no longer have access to anything unless they deem it fit for public consumption.

Where there is a monopoly, there is no longer the freedom of choice, good or bad.

[Maryanne Solo]

Noting from the beginning that Twitter was destined to be an irksome mess of "holier than thous", and be hijacked
by "less than desirables"....
I created my account to deliberately question & challenge its very existence.
It took them over four years of attempting to find a definitive reason to actually ban me.
Every single post I made or replied to was precisely structured to fit the EXACT allowed wordcount.
Laughably, they simply could not find technical fault with my endless double entendre's and proving the hypocrisy
of "the chosen", by way of posting images & text which proved my points, (or butchered media organisations untruths), precisely.   
In the end they just made up a reason to cancel my account. (Despite 3 years of relentless goading).
I didn't bother challenging their decision as I had had 4 years of fun.

I was very impressed with Twitters actual ability to be useful and be a "Town Centre" in the beginning.
I watched the horrendous Japanese Tsunami and devastating nuclear incident live, as it unfolded.
It was some solace, (also, most appreciated by recipients), to be able to send messages of love to Japanese
people during those nightmares.
There may have been another incident or two where Twitter excelled and fulfilled its intended purpose?
But I cant really recall anything else.
It shall always remains digital Twoilet Paper as far as I am concerned.

[Quartz Mole]

Can we please stick to the topic, which is Elon Musk buying Twitter,and try not to go off-topic into discussions of media ownership in general?   

There are many sidetracks down which this thread might be diverted that will almost inevitably lead to it turning into a complete mess that we have to lock, and I'm trying to prevent that happening if I can.

[Theresa Tennyson]

10 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

The problem there is that the public realm will default to the government of the time. Canadian Media as you should know is now controlled by our current federal government who by subsidies to compliant media's and now additionally through licensing only those deemed to not be carrying "misinformation" content, has taken control of the narrative whereby we no longer have access to anything unless they deem it fit for public consumption.

Where there is a monopoly, there is no longer the freedom of choice, good or bad.

So, how have you been reading/hearing what appears to be the generous amount of "non-approved" media you consume?

[Mollymews]

as has been mentioned quite a lot in the financial pages, should this sale proceed then Mr Musk has to figure out how to make it worth the $44 billion.  Revenue receipts are currently $6 billion

(is not a completely done deal yet, Mr Musk can still pull out if he pays the penalties for doing so)

[Theresa Tennyson]

Just now, Mollymews said:

as has been mentioned quite a lot in the financial pages, should this sale proceed then Mr Musk has to figure out how to make it worth the $44 billion.  Revenue receipts are currently $6 billion

(is not a completely done deal yet, Mr Musk can still pull out if he pays the penalties for doing so)

You say that as if it isn't just a big fun Mr. Microphone for him.

 

[Mollymews]

11 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

You say that as if it isn't just a big fun Mr. Microphone for him.

if is only about this then it could turn into Elon's Folly. Historically has been quite a few successful business people who overreached themselves when they went into an area of business that isn't build on a discerning customer base. The non-discerning customers that don't see the product in the same way that the business owner does

will be interesting as up til now Mr Musk has only ever had discerning customers for his products

Edited April 26, 2022 by Mollymews
grammar

[StarlanderGoods]

57 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

We see what you did there.  Not surprised.

She is dying to say that covid is not real, but knows it would be too unpopular.