“I’ve been heavily engaged in keeping up with media stories for about 35 years now, politics, economics, sport, social movements etc. Have come to a point now where I’m not sure that extra bit of news is adding much value to my life.”
I’ve heard it called infobesity, I’ve also heard it called the new propaganda, just the sheer volume and pace of info which just buries things and makes it disappear.
"Social media companies could be forced to reveal the identities of anonymous users in an effort to crack down on online trolling, under new laws being drafted by the federal government."
"A key part of the new rules is clearing up who takes responsibility for content published online. A recent High Court case found that the person managing a public page on social media was responsible for comments made by others on that page, rather than the social media company that runs the platform.
It meant, for example, that if a media outlet posted a news story on Facebook, it holds legal responsibility for any potentially defamatory comments made by others on that post. These new laws will push that legal responsibility onto the social media company."
About bloody time. Social media companies have been profiting off abuse misinformation and insults using some sort of faux libertarianism as an excuse. You.publish it, you own it. Happy with your work over the years Ben?
SupafreakMonday, 29 Nov 2021 at 6:06pm
I wonder what will happen with Twitter in this country, in the comments section in this link they have even written songs about Fauci.
I and The Science are one. He who has seen me, has seen The Science. No man comes to The Science but through me. He who criticizes me, criticizes The Science. https://t.co/1iQLlhgtSW
"Earlier this year, England's footballers were subjected to sustained online abuse. If anonymity was a factor in aggressive online behaviour, you'd expect abuse to have come from anonymous accounts. But 99% of the accounts banned were not anonymous."
So what? The issue is not the anonymity it is the abuse and the misinformation. The fundamental issue is ethical publishing. The ethical responsibility of web sites for the material they put into the public domain is the same as that of those producing hard copy.
boxrightTuesday, 30 Nov 2021 at 10:35am
Not quite. The govts most recent push is for anonymity to be either omitted or users easily traced, in the belief that it will end abuse. I tend to think they're a decade too late as there seems less need to hide behind a fake name these days. Abuse is out in the open.
blindboyTuesday, 30 Nov 2021 at 4:10pm
The proposed legislation is for the benefit of public figures to enable them to sue sites for defamation. My point is not about the legislation but the fundamental reason why abuse and misinformation have become rampant. I mean does anyone really believe that protecting the owners of the sites responsible serves any purpose beyond increasing their profits?
BlowinTuesday, 30 Nov 2021 at 4:21pm
The sites that don’t censor provide invaluable and rare platforms for free speech. That’s worth protecting. Very much so. If a business profits whilst providing the platform then good for them as they are providing a service which people value highly enough to pay for it.
blindboyTuesday, 30 Nov 2021 at 4:29pm
Free speech is under no threat threat in Australia. Providing outlets for bigotry, misinformation about the pandemic, personal abuse, climate denialism and political manipulation is not defending g free speech it is under-mining it as governments will continue to tighten regulations as the existing freedoms are abused.
BlowinTuesday, 30 Nov 2021 at 4:37pm
Your judgement on what constitutes worthwhile personal expression is subjective and not representative of the broader community.
Vic LocalTuesday, 30 Nov 2021 at 4:54pm
Let's look at the realities of the situation here.
Anyone taking action using these proposed laws is going to need very deep pockets. Defamation is a rich person's game.
There's a pretty good reason why Scumo wants to limit what people say about powerful people. Probably has something to do with him leading the most corrupt govt in Australian history.
BlowinWednesday, 8 Dec 2021 at 5:26am
Unfortunately Australia is now home to an ever growing number of spineless chicken shits who can’t wait to sue you because their fragile ego has been tarnished or they wish to de platform opinions they dislike or they’re just malevolent scum who really need to be wrapped in chicken wire and thrown overboard.
Unfortunately Australia is now home to an ever growing number of spineless chicken shits who can’t wait to sue you because their fragile ego has been tarnished or they wish to de platform opinions they dislike or they’re just malevolent scum who really need to be wrapped in chicken wire and thrown overboard.
After threatening violence against other posters here on multiple occasions, I will just assume you want to silence people the old fashioned way. Bit rich you accusing others of having a fragile ego too champ.
GuySmileyWednesday, 8 Dec 2021 at 5:42pm
Constance B Gibson wrote:
Constance, what about the island’s most infamous resident @info-#alwaysacomment?
CockeeWednesday, 8 Dec 2021 at 5:50pm
Let's all hope that indo's not also Thomas D.
H2OThursday, 13 Jan 2022 at 12:40pm
Woody may be spinning in his grave
CockeeThursday, 13 Jan 2022 at 3:01pm
Didn't know Zuck played guitar - the things you learn from the internet never cease to astound.
It looks like its going to happen, Elon Musk is going to buy Twitter.
I don't use the platform but a huge win for free speech, the man is an absolute legend, putting his money where his mouth is.
"Elon Musk has clinched a deal to buy Twitter for $US44 billion ($61.4 billion), in a transaction that will shift control of the social media platform populated by millions of users and global leaders to the world's richest person.
Key points:
The sale was unanimously approved by Twitter's 11 directors
Twitter shares rose about 6 per cent following the announcement
Donald Trump reportedly says he will not return to Twitter
Discussions over the deal — which last week appeared uncertain — accelerated over the weekend after Mr Musk wooed Twitter shareholders with financial details of his offer."
Musk has the right things to say about internet censorship but he has other ideas which are not so savoury. We will have to see how it all pans out. Superficially appears to be a positive development though.
Certainly more appealing than the alternative….
indo-dreamingTuesday, 26 Apr 2022 at 7:44am
Im liking him more and more i think he has a real logically balanced mindset most of the time and for those that dont know he is not a conservative he votes Democrat, obviously pro renewables ect, but still against wokeness and not scared to call out crazy ideology (like meme above), and very pro freedom of speech ect
But yeah listened to some long interviews with him and some aspects of where he see's humanity going or believes should go, is downright scary and im strongly against, pimping humans brains with high level computer type tech type thing.
batfinkWednesday, 27 Apr 2022 at 4:35pm
Ha ha ha ha ha. Gold there Constance.
indo-dreamingWednesday, 27 Apr 2022 at 5:41pm
thermalbenThursday, 28 Apr 2022 at 6:25am
indo-dreaming wrote:
It looks like its going to happen, Elon Musk is going to buy Twitter.
I don't use the platform but a huge win for free speech, the man is an absolute legend, putting his money where his mouth is.
How is it a win for free speech?
I'm more interested in whether he can turn the business around. In the last nine years it's been a listed company Twitter has made a loss in all but two of those years. 2021 saw a loss of $221 million, 2020's loss was $1.14 billion.
DudeSweetDudeSweetThursday, 28 Apr 2022 at 6:44am
Because Musk’s stated mission is to end the politically partisan censorship which currently occurs on Twitter.
How effective he will be and how committed to open discourse he truly is has yet to be determined.
SupafreakThursday, 28 Apr 2022 at 7:11am
Google and Apple threatening to delete the App if things get out of hand . I personally think he’s wasting money that could have been better spent if he truly wants to help mankind .
DudeSweetDudeSweetThursday, 28 Apr 2022 at 7:34am
Free speech is essential to civilisation. I think it’s an appropriate and admirable way to spend the money if it truly allows an equal voice to the population as Musk proposes.
The threat to freedom of speech is evidenced by the tech monopolies circling the wagons and claiming they’ll censor Twitter. Disgraceful state of affairs.
stunetThursday, 28 Apr 2022 at 8:14am
So will he send more SpaceX satellites into lower orbit?
If so, fuck that.
flolloThursday, 28 Apr 2022 at 8:28am
stunet wrote:
So will he send more SpaceX satellites into lower orbit?
If so, fuck that.
It's already very crowded, I hope not. Imagine tweets in the night sky. Sounds like some crazy science fiction but I can totally see it happening.
'SpaceX and a Canadian startup plan to launch a satellite that will beam adverts into space. Anyone can buy pixels on the satellite's screen with dogecoin.'
Don't know about you crew, but I've often found myself gazing up in to the immense expanse of the night sky and wondering what the odds are for first goal kicker, or how long i can go interest free with the purchase of one of gerrys washing machines. I can fret no more! Pioneers, truly.
DudeSweetDudeSweetThursday, 28 Apr 2022 at 10:19am
There’s a lot to find unappealing in Musk’s behaviours in multiple fields but none diminishes the positive actions he claims to be trying to establish with his Twitter purchase.
Perhaps I’m wrong but it’d be quite easy to imagine a class action civil suit leveraged at SpaceX if they start polluting the night sky with advertising. I’d like to think it’s the step too far which would see the insidious business of marketing finally meet its limits.
Though I’ve often thought that about the standard roadside billboards for years. Fingers crossed it never happens.
The Twitter purchase has potential to be great though. The totalitarians are revealing themselves at the possibility.
jwithayThursday, 28 Apr 2022 at 10:39am
I struggle to see his claims as anything but PR and the takeover as anything but serving his self interest. He plays the crowd like a fiddle, despite the hypocrisy being plain to see for anyone who looks past the words to the actions. I guess we will see what happens.
Looking forward to the origin story of how Elon Musk started twitter.
DudeSweetDudeSweetThursday, 28 Apr 2022 at 11:19am
jwithay wrote:
I struggle to see his claims as anything but PR and the takeover as anything but serving his self interest. He plays the crowd like a fiddle, despite the hypocrisy being plain to see for anyone who looks past the words to the actions. I guess we will see what happens.
As far as I can see there is zero hypocrisy contained within the tale of Musk not selling a car to someone who’s whinged about the car. What’s that got to do with his alleged rejection of free speech ?
Perhaps Musk will reveal himself to be a hypocrite but there’s no evidence at all in the link provided. If Musk had tried to silence his critic by censorship or deplatforming then I’d agree with you but responding to criticism of his product by withholding said product is not a restriction of free speech.
thermalbenThursday, 28 Apr 2022 at 11:34am
jwithay wrote:
I struggle to see his claims as anything but PR and the takeover as anything but serving his self interest. He plays the crowd like a fiddle, despite the hypocrisy being plain to see for anyone who looks past the words to the actions. I guess we will see what happens
You may well be right.
It’s looking increasingly likely that Elon Musk will withdraw his $44 billion takeover offer for Twitter. https://t.co/Mcf7PbiC0a
I struggle to see his claims as anything but PR and the takeover as anything but serving his self interest. He plays the crowd like a fiddle, despite the hypocrisy being plain to see for anyone who looks past the words to the actions. I guess we will see what happens.
Musk is such a dick...and an exagerator extraodinaire. A self serving ego
indo-dreamingThursday, 28 Apr 2022 at 12:10pm
DudeSweetDudeSweet wrote:
Free speech is essential to civilisation. I think it’s an appropriate and admirable way to spend the money if it truly allows an equal voice to the population as Musk proposes.
The threat to freedom of speech is evidenced by the tech monopolies circling the wagons and claiming they’ll censor Twitter. Disgraceful state of affairs.
100%
AndyMThursday, 28 Apr 2022 at 12:21pm
Roadkill wrote:
jwithay wrote:
I struggle to see his claims as anything but PR and the takeover as anything but serving his self interest. He plays the crowd like a fiddle, despite the hypocrisy being plain to see for anyone who looks past the words to the actions. I guess we will see what happens.
Musk is such a dick...and an exagerator extraodinaire. A self serving ego
Exactly, he's the first guy to block or cancel when it suits him.
To me he's someone to be very wary of.
DudeSweetDudeSweetThursday, 28 Apr 2022 at 12:25pm
Ben- The Reuters link you posted does nothing of the sort if you’re claiming it reinforces Musk’s alleged hypocrisy on free speech. All it does is distinctly emphasise that the world currently has a problem with the restriction of free speech. Note how there is no distinction made between the unapologetic totalitarianism of China and the same stance now openly taken by the US and EU .
The article confuses Musk’s alleged hypocrisy with the impediments placed in front of him by authoritarian businesses, institutions and governments.
From the link :
“China is a major sticking point too. Tesla produces half of its vehicles there, as well as a quarter of its revenue. But Twitter is no friend to the People's Republic, most recently for defying Beijing in its handling of content related to Hong Kong protests. China could easily hold Tesla to ransom if a Musk-owned Twitter didn’t play ball. That’s uncomfortable for a self-professed “free speech absolutist.
In reality, Musk’s absolutism probably won't survive a Twitter deal anyway. European Union Commissioner Thierry Breton told the Financial Times this week that the company must police illegal or harmful content or risk being banned. In the United States, where regulators are less aggressive, other technology firms could effectively create the same threat. Apple, for example, gets to decide which apps appear in its influential store“
When the West is now aligned with a dictatorship in the rejection of free speech we officially have a problem on our hands.
I’d have thought this problem was more important and in need of greater attention than the potential character flaws of an individual who is bringing the issue into focus and putting the undemocratic notion of silencing un sanctioned voices under the spotlight.
DudeSweetDudeSweetThursday, 28 Apr 2022 at 12:29pm
Let me get this straight-
Some on here want Musk’s stated mission, to protect free speech from the open assault it is currently enduring, to fail because they don’t like Musk?
You realise that Musk -according to his claims- is spending his own money to bolster your voice on the internet and to reject the idea that only the powerful are allowed to have an opinion or declare what is allowable information in the public sphere?
Strange.
jwithayThursday, 28 Apr 2022 at 12:29pm
DudeSweetDudeSweet wrote:
jwithay wrote:
I struggle to see his claims as anything but PR and the takeover as anything but serving his self interest. He plays the crowd like a fiddle, despite the hypocrisy being plain to see for anyone who looks past the words to the actions. I guess we will see what happens.
As far as I can see there is zero hypocrisy contained within the tale of Musk not selling a car to someone who’s whinged about the car. What’s that got to do with his alleged rejection of free speech ?
Perhaps Musk will reveal himself to be a hypocrite but there’s no evidence at all in the link provided. If Musk had tried to silence his critic by censorship or deplatforming then I’d agree with you but responding to criticism of his product by withholding said product is not a restriction of free speech.
There are many ways to go about censorship. By cancelling the order of a customer critical of the company, what message do you think that sends to other Tesla customers? If I had ordered a Tesla, wasn't happy with the process and felt like expressing that view online, I would be very wary about doing so knowing how their CEO has reacted to criticism. Musk gets to continue parading his 'free speech' credentials, while shutting down future dissent.
DudeSweetDudeSweetThursday, 28 Apr 2022 at 12:35pm
No mate. It’s not censorship and it’s not restricting free speech if you choose to not sell a car to someone. There’s a million criticisms of Tesla online and Teslas are still being sold to the public.
Censorship is restricting public access to information not denying a customer access to product because they talked smack about the product. The customer is still free to publicly denigrate Tesla.
indo-dreamingThursday, 28 Apr 2022 at 12:36pm
DudeSweetDudeSweet wrote:
Let me get this straight-
Some on here want Musk’s stated mission, to protect free speech from the open assault it is currently enduring, to fail because they don’t like Musk?
You realise that Musk -according to his claims- is spending his own money to bolster your voice on the internet and to reject the idea that only the powerful are allowed to have an opinion or declare what is allowable information in the public sphere?
Strange.
The problem is there is many people including those here, that are extremely intolerant of others views and want views they don't agree with silenced.
DudeSweetDudeSweetThursday, 28 Apr 2022 at 12:40pm
All I’m hearing is ad hominem attacks on one of the only individuals with the ability to directly circumvent the current tendency towards authoritarianism we are living through.
What is going on here?
Why do you people resent someone standing up for your human rights?
If there is a gulf between Musk’s stated aims and their eventual reality then that’s one thing but to tear down someone on the possibility that they might not follow through on their stated aim of acting in your own best interest is bizarre.
Who else is standing up for your human right to decide for yourself which information you should be allowed to hear and speak?
DudeSweetDudeSweetThursday, 28 Apr 2022 at 12:44pm
indo-dreaming wrote:
DudeSweetDudeSweet wrote:
Let me get this straight-
Some on here want Musk’s stated mission, to protect free speech from the open assault it is currently enduring, to fail because they don’t like Musk?
You realise that Musk -according to his claims- is spending his own money to bolster your voice on the internet and to reject the idea that only the powerful are allowed to have an opinion or declare what is allowable information in the public sphere?
Strange.
The problem is there is many people including those here, that are extremely intolerant of others views and want views they don't agree with silenced.
For sure.
The communist party l Anders in the Chinese Great Revolution weren’t out in the streets shaming every individual and burning every disallowed cultural artefact themselves. They convinced the weak minded mob to destroy their own communities for them.
jwithayThursday, 28 Apr 2022 at 12:52pm
DudeSweetDudeSweet wrote:
No mate. It’s not censorship and it’s not restricting free speech if you choose to not sell a car to someone. There’s a million criticisms of Tesla online and Teslas are still being sold to the public.
Censorship is restricting public access to information not denying a customer access to product because they talked smack about the product. The customer is still free to publicly denigrate Tesla.
I see where you're coming from, and our conflicting views (in my mind) start getting at many of the issues with 'free speech' and its power to begin with. I haven't the time to carry on with this today - a long hike beckons - but I've appreciated your perspective.
RoadkillThursday, 28 Apr 2022 at 12:54pm
DudeSweetDudeSweet wrote:
Let me get this straight-
Some on here want Musk’s stated mission, to protect free speech from the open assault it is currently enduring, to fail because they don’t like Musk?
You realise that Musk -according to his claims- is spending his own money to bolster your voice on the internet and to reject the idea that only the powerful are allowed to have an opinion or declare what is allowable information in the public sphere?
Strange.
Musk, doesn't give a fuck about your or my free speech. However, many people see what he wants you to see....you are the perfect suckered in mouth piece.
Free Speech, comments and the recent High Court decision
Michael West has produced a great explainer of the recent High Court decision regarding free speech on Social Media platforms.
Michael and his team have done some incredible investigative journalism over the years, check out his site and please subscribe if you like his work.
https://www.michaelwest.com.au/
Good post Batfink.
“I’ve been heavily engaged in keeping up with media stories for about 35 years now, politics, economics, sport, social movements etc. Have come to a point now where I’m not sure that extra bit of news is adding much value to my life.”
I’ve heard it called infobesity, I’ve also heard it called the new propaganda, just the sheer volume and pace of info which just buries things and makes it disappear.
Being a discerning consumer is crucial.
Facebook papers…lol. Cyber Gulf of Tonkin.
"Social media companies could be forced to reveal the identities of anonymous users in an effort to crack down on online trolling, under new laws being drafted by the federal government."
"A key part of the new rules is clearing up who takes responsibility for content published online. A recent High Court case found that the person managing a public page on social media was responsible for comments made by others on that page, rather than the social media company that runs the platform.
It meant, for example, that if a media outlet posted a news story on Facebook, it holds legal responsibility for any potentially defamatory comments made by others on that post. These new laws will push that legal responsibility onto the social media company."
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-28/social-media-laws-online-trolls/1...
About bloody time. Social media companies have been profiting off abuse misinformation and insults using some sort of faux libertarianism as an excuse. You.publish it, you own it. Happy with your work over the years Ben?
I wonder what will happen with Twitter in this country, in the comments section in this link they have even written songs about Fauci.
"Earlier this year, England's footballers were subjected to sustained online abuse. If anonymity was a factor in aggressive online behaviour, you'd expect abuse to have come from anonymous accounts. But 99% of the accounts banned were not anonymous."
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2021-11-30/online-bullying-trolling-...
So what? The issue is not the anonymity it is the abuse and the misinformation. The fundamental issue is ethical publishing. The ethical responsibility of web sites for the material they put into the public domain is the same as that of those producing hard copy.
Not quite. The govts most recent push is for anonymity to be either omitted or users easily traced, in the belief that it will end abuse. I tend to think they're a decade too late as there seems less need to hide behind a fake name these days. Abuse is out in the open.
The proposed legislation is for the benefit of public figures to enable them to sue sites for defamation. My point is not about the legislation but the fundamental reason why abuse and misinformation have become rampant. I mean does anyone really believe that protecting the owners of the sites responsible serves any purpose beyond increasing their profits?
The sites that don’t censor provide invaluable and rare platforms for free speech. That’s worth protecting. Very much so. If a business profits whilst providing the platform then good for them as they are providing a service which people value highly enough to pay for it.
Free speech is under no threat threat in Australia. Providing outlets for bigotry, misinformation about the pandemic, personal abuse, climate denialism and political manipulation is not defending g free speech it is under-mining it as governments will continue to tighten regulations as the existing freedoms are abused.
Your judgement on what constitutes worthwhile personal expression is subjective and not representative of the broader community.
Let's look at the realities of the situation here.
Anyone taking action using these proposed laws is going to need very deep pockets. Defamation is a rich person's game.
There's a pretty good reason why Scumo wants to limit what people say about powerful people. Probably has something to do with him leading the most corrupt govt in Australian history.
Unfortunately Australia is now home to an ever growing number of spineless chicken shits who can’t wait to sue you because their fragile ego has been tarnished or they wish to de platform opinions they dislike or they’re just malevolent scum who really need to be wrapped in chicken wire and thrown overboard.
Be forewarned
https://theshot.net.au/general-news/defamation-a-users-guide-how-to-twee...
After threatening violence against other posters here on multiple occasions, I will just assume you want to silence people the old fashioned way. Bit rich you accusing others of having a fragile ego too champ.
Constance, what about the island’s most infamous resident @info-#alwaysacomment?
Let's all hope that indo's not also Thomas D.
Woody may be spinning in his grave
Didn't know Zuck played guitar - the things you learn from the internet never cease to astound.
It looks like its going to happen, Elon Musk is going to buy Twitter.
I don't use the platform but a huge win for free speech, the man is an absolute legend, putting his money where his mouth is.
"Elon Musk has clinched a deal to buy Twitter for $US44 billion ($61.4 billion), in a transaction that will shift control of the social media platform populated by millions of users and global leaders to the world's richest person.
Key points:
The sale was unanimously approved by Twitter's 11 directors
Twitter shares rose about 6 per cent following the announcement
Donald Trump reportedly says he will not return to Twitter
Discussions over the deal — which last week appeared uncertain — accelerated over the weekend after Mr Musk wooed Twitter shareholders with financial details of his offer."
More https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-26/elon-musk-buys-twitter/101014798
Interesting, Indo.
Musk has the right things to say about internet censorship but he has other ideas which are not so savoury. We will have to see how it all pans out. Superficially appears to be a positive development though.
Certainly more appealing than the alternative….
Im liking him more and more i think he has a real logically balanced mindset most of the time and for those that dont know he is not a conservative he votes Democrat, obviously pro renewables ect, but still against wokeness and not scared to call out crazy ideology (like meme above), and very pro freedom of speech ect
But yeah listened to some long interviews with him and some aspects of where he see's humanity going or believes should go, is downright scary and im strongly against, pimping humans brains with high level computer type tech type thing.
Ha ha ha ha ha. Gold there Constance.
How is it a win for free speech?
I'm more interested in whether he can turn the business around. In the last nine years it's been a listed company Twitter has made a loss in all but two of those years. 2021 saw a loss of $221 million, 2020's loss was $1.14 billion.
Because Musk’s stated mission is to end the politically partisan censorship which currently occurs on Twitter.
How effective he will be and how committed to open discourse he truly is has yet to be determined.
Google and Apple threatening to delete the App if things get out of hand . I personally think he’s wasting money that could have been better spent if he truly wants to help mankind .
Free speech is essential to civilisation. I think it’s an appropriate and admirable way to spend the money if it truly allows an equal voice to the population as Musk proposes.
The threat to freedom of speech is evidenced by the tech monopolies circling the wagons and claiming they’ll censor Twitter. Disgraceful state of affairs.
So will he send more SpaceX satellites into lower orbit?
If so, fuck that.
It's already very crowded, I hope not. Imagine tweets in the night sky. Sounds like some crazy science fiction but I can totally see it happening.
https://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-start-up-launch-satellite-space-a...
'SpaceX and a Canadian startup plan to launch a satellite that will beam adverts into space. Anyone can buy pixels on the satellite's screen with dogecoin.'
Don't know about you crew, but I've often found myself gazing up in to the immense expanse of the night sky and wondering what the odds are for first goal kicker, or how long i can go interest free with the purchase of one of gerrys washing machines. I can fret no more! Pioneers, truly.
https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2021/12/27/year-ahead-will-space-adver...
There’s a lot to find unappealing in Musk’s behaviours in multiple fields but none diminishes the positive actions he claims to be trying to establish with his Twitter purchase.
Perhaps I’m wrong but it’d be quite easy to imagine a class action civil suit leveraged at SpaceX if they start polluting the night sky with advertising. I’d like to think it’s the step too far which would see the insidious business of marketing finally meet its limits.
Though I’ve often thought that about the standard roadside billboards for years. Fingers crossed it never happens.
The Twitter purchase has potential to be great though. The totalitarians are revealing themselves at the possibility.
I struggle to see his claims as anything but PR and the takeover as anything but serving his self interest. He plays the crowd like a fiddle, despite the hypocrisy being plain to see for anyone who looks past the words to the actions. I guess we will see what happens.
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/so-much-for-free-speech-flashback...
Looking forward to the origin story of how Elon Musk started twitter.
As far as I can see there is zero hypocrisy contained within the tale of Musk not selling a car to someone who’s whinged about the car. What’s that got to do with his alleged rejection of free speech ?
Perhaps Musk will reveal himself to be a hypocrite but there’s no evidence at all in the link provided. If Musk had tried to silence his critic by censorship or deplatforming then I’d agree with you but responding to criticism of his product by withholding said product is not a restriction of free speech.
You may well be right.
100%
Musk is such a dick...and an exagerator extraodinaire. A self serving ego
100%
Exactly, he's the first guy to block or cancel when it suits him.
To me he's someone to be very wary of.
Ben- The Reuters link you posted does nothing of the sort if you’re claiming it reinforces Musk’s alleged hypocrisy on free speech. All it does is distinctly emphasise that the world currently has a problem with the restriction of free speech. Note how there is no distinction made between the unapologetic totalitarianism of China and the same stance now openly taken by the US and EU .
The article confuses Musk’s alleged hypocrisy with the impediments placed in front of him by authoritarian businesses, institutions and governments.
From the link :
“China is a major sticking point too. Tesla produces half of its vehicles there, as well as a quarter of its revenue. But Twitter is no friend to the People's Republic, most recently for defying Beijing in its handling of content related to Hong Kong protests. China could easily hold Tesla to ransom if a Musk-owned Twitter didn’t play ball. That’s uncomfortable for a self-professed “free speech absolutist.
In reality, Musk’s absolutism probably won't survive a Twitter deal anyway. European Union Commissioner Thierry Breton told the Financial Times this week that the company must police illegal or harmful content or risk being banned. In the United States, where regulators are less aggressive, other technology firms could effectively create the same threat. Apple, for example, gets to decide which apps appear in its influential store“
When the West is now aligned with a dictatorship in the rejection of free speech we officially have a problem on our hands.
I’d have thought this problem was more important and in need of greater attention than the potential character flaws of an individual who is bringing the issue into focus and putting the undemocratic notion of silencing un sanctioned voices under the spotlight.
Let me get this straight-
Some on here want Musk’s stated mission, to protect free speech from the open assault it is currently enduring, to fail because they don’t like Musk?
You realise that Musk -according to his claims- is spending his own money to bolster your voice on the internet and to reject the idea that only the powerful are allowed to have an opinion or declare what is allowable information in the public sphere?
Strange.
There are many ways to go about censorship. By cancelling the order of a customer critical of the company, what message do you think that sends to other Tesla customers? If I had ordered a Tesla, wasn't happy with the process and felt like expressing that view online, I would be very wary about doing so knowing how their CEO has reacted to criticism. Musk gets to continue parading his 'free speech' credentials, while shutting down future dissent.
No mate. It’s not censorship and it’s not restricting free speech if you choose to not sell a car to someone. There’s a million criticisms of Tesla online and Teslas are still being sold to the public.
Censorship is restricting public access to information not denying a customer access to product because they talked smack about the product. The customer is still free to publicly denigrate Tesla.
The problem is there is many people including those here, that are extremely intolerant of others views and want views they don't agree with silenced.
All I’m hearing is ad hominem attacks on one of the only individuals with the ability to directly circumvent the current tendency towards authoritarianism we are living through.
What is going on here?
Why do you people resent someone standing up for your human rights?
If there is a gulf between Musk’s stated aims and their eventual reality then that’s one thing but to tear down someone on the possibility that they might not follow through on their stated aim of acting in your own best interest is bizarre.
Who else is standing up for your human right to decide for yourself which information you should be allowed to hear and speak?
For sure.
The communist party l Anders in the Chinese Great Revolution weren’t out in the streets shaming every individual and burning every disallowed cultural artefact themselves. They convinced the weak minded mob to destroy their own communities for them.
I see where you're coming from, and our conflicting views (in my mind) start getting at many of the issues with 'free speech' and its power to begin with. I haven't the time to carry on with this today - a long hike beckons - but I've appreciated your perspective.
Musk, doesn't give a fuck about your or my free speech. However, many people see what he wants you to see....you are the perfect suckered in mouth piece.