-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Musk Melt-down
- Thread starter Revoltingest
- Start date
You do like to shove your nose into some strange orifices...(metaphorically)
Yes... that is what we call a "difference in perspective" though the results are the same.
Interesting. That confirms the reason of pre-ElonMusk censorship.
Because people do care what other people say...and that can defy their certainties or can challenge their daily routine.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
We had a saying in England, when I was a child; "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me." Of course, it wasn't true. Words can cause great harm, more so sometimes than sticks and stones.
I guess that's difficult...because if someone denies that the moon landings ever took place, that claim cannot affect my life in any way.
And similar claims were censored on Twitter, apparently. I mean, before EM took over.
Last edited:
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
But if, for example, someone claims that a secret Zionist cabal is manipulating governments and plotting to control populations through the use of sinister new technologies, that could lead to an increase in anti-semitism which might affect the lives of many people.
If we are speaking of a "cabal", it deals with a very small group of people.
To give you an example, the Vatican is infinitely small compared to the hundreds of millions of Catholics all over the world. So if I invent a conspiracy theory that says that the Vatican is made up of delinquents who want to lead people astray or something like that, I am not saying that all Catholics are bad. Just the few hundreds of people of the Vatican. So will I be accused of Catholicophobia?
The Jews are not a monolith, so targeting very small group does not imply that normal people of Jewish religion are like that. So it is not anti-Semitism.
Last edited:
People often do care about what other people say, but by the same token, they don't really seem to know or care why they're saying it. That's where there's a disconnect.
I think a lot of this came about because Twitter banned Trump from their platform. At the time, Trump and his fans cried foul, but Twitter fans argued that it's their platform, their property, so they can ban whoever they like. As a private company, they're not bound to follow the First Amendment. But since they are a business, they can be bought by someone else.
Would Musk have still bought Twitter if they had not banned Trump? Is Musk's purchase and self-destruction of Twitter simply a way to retaliate against the individuals whom he saw as making the decision to ban Trump? He's wasted billions in the process, so I wonder if it's really worth it to him. It seems he did it purely out of spite.
Of course, I'm not shedding any tears for Twitter or Musk. Musk has money to burn, and the former Twitter employees will probably find work elsewhere in their field. They'll all be fine, so it's not as if anyone will die from the demise of Twitter. The world will still keep turning.
Musk likes censorship too, albeit not for racism, sexism,
& anti-semitism. Just censoring people who dis him.
Twitter bans comedian Kathy Griffin for impersonating Elon Musk
‘Jewish Users are Subject to Unrelenting Harassment’: 180 Organizations Call on Elon Musk to Combat Anti-Semitism on Twitter
Advertisers cannot afford to have their brands
tainted by association with such a hate filled venue.
Answering your questions: no, EM probably bought Twitter in order to restore an absolute notion of freedom of speech.
Also because Twitter or FB are molded according to the Anglo-Saxon juridical tradition, aka Common Law system.
It is not molded on the basis of Napoleonic system, and its notion of freedom of thought.
In few words, if you claim something on Twitter (for example X took place on Y in Z), in the Common Law system you cannot say that unless you substantiate that claim.
In the Napoleonic juridical system I am allowed to say that, unless someone proves me wrong.
The burden of proof is on Twitter in this case. It's not on the Twitter user.
That is why our freedom of speech in France or in Italy is much wider than in the US.
This is a given.
Unless they criticize or mock His Majesty.
Ah...ok. So since I restlessly say that I like him, that I fancy him, that he's a god...I would never be censored by him.
That's good to know.
Have you ever contacted him?Ah...ok. So since I restlessly say that I like him, that I fancy him, that he's a god...I would never be censored by him.
That's good to know.
Do you know something? I guess electric cars were invented for us gals.
That's why we like Tesla (and Elon of course).
I thought his cars were uni-sex.Do you know something? I guess electric cars were invented for us gals.
That's why we like Tesla (and Elon of course).
Although his attempt at a truck
was definitely not "manly".
I think the general principle governing Twitter or Facebook is rooted in property rights. It's their property, so they have the right to decide, regardless of whether anyone can substantiate their claims. If they want to say that "up is down and anyone who disagrees with that is banned," then they get to do that. It's their property, their right. This point has been driven home over and over by many people, even back when I was on AOL and people were upset about being banned from that service.
Outside of that, if I'm on public property or using my own property or printing press, then I can claim whatever I like, and no one has any right to stop me or prevent me from exercising that right. But by the same token, everyone else has the same rights, so people get to argue and yell at each other all they want - within reason, of course. Don't want any violence or threats or anything that might create a clear and present danger.
So, that would be my solution. The government could create a public platform which would be free and open to all - and it would be considered public property and not viewed as some narcissist techie's own personal kingdom. Of course, the same rules that apply in a public setting, like a town square, would still apply. It wouldn't be an "anything goes" affair.
It's impossible.
A street corner preacher can express all sorts of
horrible views because that's a passive platform.
But an electronic public venue is active, & run by
the people, ie, government. Offending speech
would inexorably attract regulators.
That's also what the Napoleonic civil system differs the most in.
Service providers are not allowed to limit constitutional freedoms, even if they are the proprietors of the service provider.
Since freedom of speech is a constitutional freedom, it cannot be limited by anyone, also because there is a big difference between piece of property like a house and an internet service provider.
An internet service provider is a business, and the relationships between customers and suppliers of goods and services are regulated by the EU regulations and national codes (for example we have the Code of Consumers dlgs 206/2005).
In other words, no internet provider can prevent me from exercising my freedom of thought, and in fact there are Court of Cassation judgments that ruled in favor of the social media users in Italy.