The Musk Melt-down

[Subduction Zone]

Musk will not be able to impose his rules in China, Afghanistan, Iran or even India. He will have to go by government rules or close down in that country. Freedom of speech in India does not mean what it means in the US.

How would you describe Freedom of Speech in India? I am curious and will admit that I have no clue.

Here Freedom of Speech limits what the government can do. If one has a job here and says something that the boss does not like one can quite easily lose that job. And that can go past working hours.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He might have to close down here.
Not forced by government...but by
the market for his advertising services.
He's driving customers away.

The advertisers did not like the dumper fires caused by Trump. Moderation helps to keep Twitter profitable.

 

[Curious George]

Freedom of speech limits the government. It does not limit private entities. Legally Twitter can say " You can't say that here". The government cannot say the same about citizens insulting the government.


.

that isn’t quite true. Restrictions on time, place, and manner can be constitutional.

then you have speech that is not protected.

then you have commercial speech which is sort of protected.

But even with protected speech, no right is unfettered.

 

[Stevicus]

I've low expectations.

You did try.

Because you haven't.

You've answered imagined points, not mine.

Unclear.
Explain.

Again, you continue to try to justify socialism by
claiming 1991 USSR was better than 1916 Russia.
This is irrelevant. It's a fact that socialism historically
always results in oppression. While capitalism offers
the possibility of liberty & economic success.

There is only one specific claim being dealt with in this particular discussion, whether socialists improve the overall condition of a country from what it was before they came to power.

It is not "a fact that socialism historically always results in oppression." Since you like bringing up my alleged "fallacies," here's one of yours: Post hoc ergo propter hoc

I would also point out the error where you say "results in," implying a claim that socialism directly causes oppression. Historically, every country which has had socialism had oppression before the socialists came to power, so the oppression was already there. The socialists did not cause it, nor was it the result of a socialist economic system. In any case, you haven't shown even the slightest shred of evidence to demonstrate causation.

And even if you could do that, how would it prove your wildly hypothetical speculations about what would happen if the US adopted a socialist system? That's the ultimate question here, one which you've consistently failed to answer.

You keep saying that it's better to ask questions, but why don't you answer them when they're asked?

 

[Revoltingest]

There is only one specific claim...

I've nothing to add.

 

[Estro Felino]

He might have to close down here.
Not forced by government...but by
the market for his advertising services.
He's driving customers away.

Maybe his goal is not the profit maximization.
But to implement a Western-like notion of freedom of speech...
that wasn't possible/applicable with the previous management.

 

[Aupmanyav]

How would you describe Freedom of Speech in India? I am curious and will admit that I have no clue.

Here Freedom of Speech limits what the government can do. If one has a job here and says something that the boss does not like one can quite easily lose that job. And that can go past working hours.

There (I mean here in India), Constitution and government puts limits to free speech.*

Not so easily here in India. We have the labor laws. The employer/employee cannot override the agreed terms of service. or the labor laws

Freedom of expression in India - Wikipedia
* Freedom of Speech and Expression in India
"The Grounds of Restriction:
The Constitution allows imposition of reasonable restrictions by the State in the interest of the public at large on the following grounds:

• Security of the State: Every grade of the public disorder cannot amount to threatening the security of the State. The term was interpreted in the case of Romesh Thapper v. State of Madras to refer to “serious and aggravated forms of public disorder”. Ordinary breaches like unlawful assembly and riot do not fall under the purview. It may include rebellion, waging war against the State, insurrection, etc.
• Friendly relations with the Foreign States: Inserted by the Constitution (1st Amendment) Act, 1951, this provision prohibits propagation of malicious and unrestrained propaganda against a foreign-friendly State to maintain good foreign relations at Inter-Country level.
• Public Order: Inserted by the Constitution (1st Amendment) Act, 1951, to give effect to the decision of Supreme Court in Romesh Thapper’s case. Public Order refers to public peace, safety and tranquility i.e. anything that has the potential to disturb public tranquility or public peace disturbs public order. Public order is not the normal maintenance of law and order in society.
• Decency and Morality: The standards of morality vary from one society to another. The standard can be said to be at par with the standard of obscenity as laid down in R. v. Hicklin case as to whether it intends to deprave or corrupt the minds of those who may be susceptible to such immoral influence.
• Contempt of Court: Defined under section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, it refers to the disobedience of any judgment, order, direction or process of the Court or Judiciary. The State is empowered to impose restrictions to protect and preserve the sanctity of the Judiciary.
• Defamation: Any statement that may harm the reputation or goodwill of a person is said to be defamatory in nature. Exercise of freedom by one person should not result in negatively affecting the rights of another. Therefore, a check can be placed on this ground by the State.
• Incitement to an Offence: Freedom of speech and expression cannot act as a permit or license to incite an offence i.e. any act or omission that is made punishable by law.
• Sovereignty and Integrity of India: Added by the Constitution (16th Amendment) Act, 1963, it allows the State to impose a restriction on any person who attempts to challenge or intends to disturb the sovereignty and integrity of the nation"

 

[Revoltingest]

Maybe his goal is not the profit maximization.

Ya think?

But to implement a Western-like notion of freedom of speech...
that wasn't possible/applicable with the previous management.

It doesn't look like freedom of speech has improved.
But I agree that the profit motive appears to be
sucking hind teat. Without enuf income to pay
the bills, businesses go belly up.

 

[Estro Felino]

Ya think?

I do because Elon Musk said it himself.
I am not speculating.
Elon Musk claims he's buying Twitter to 'help humanity'

 

[Revoltingest]

I do because Elon Musk said it himself.
I am not speculating.
Elon Musk claims he's buying Twitter to 'help humanity'

Hoo boy, humanity is indeed benefiting
from watching Twitter self destruct.

 

[Estro Felino]

Hoo boy, humanity is indeed benefiting
from watching Twitter self destruct.

I don't think so. The humanity couldn't care less what people tweet or don't.
At least in my country...nobody couldn't care less about social media.
But...you know...in America it's like this (Brian tweeting)...so I do understand why it's a problem comparable to nuclear war.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't think so. The humanity couldn't care less what people tweet or don't.
At least in my country...nobody couldn't care less about social media.
But...you know...in America it's like this (Brian tweeting)...so I do understand why it's a problem comparable to nuclear war.

Twitter's nascent failure is a problem comparable
in seriousness to the paucity of Marmite in local
grocery stores. Meh.

 

[Estro Felino]

Twitter's nascent failure is a problem comparable
in seriousness to the paucity of Marmite in local
grocery stores. Meh.

But you started a thread...evidently because this is a topic of interest.
If the old management hadn't established a dictatorial regime, similar to that of the Gulf countries, where nobody can say anything, wel...Elon Musk would have saved lots of money....I guess.

 

[Revoltingest]

But you started a thread...evidently because this is a topic of interest.

It is interesting...fascinating.
But don't think that it rises to the level
of concern that nuclear war does.

If the old management hadn't established a dictatorial regime, similar to that of the Gulf states, where nobody can say anything, wel...Elon Musk would have saved lots of money....I guess.

No one could "say anything".
Sure.

Trump's vision of free speech...
SpaceX Employees Say They Were Fired for Speaking Up About Elon Musk

 

[Stevicus]

I do because Elon Musk said it himself.
I am not speculating.
Elon Musk claims he's buying Twitter to 'help humanity'

Interesting:

A "common digital town square." He also mentions the danger of social media splintering into far right wing and far left wing echo chambers, which already appears to be happening to a large degree.

I do agree that the opportunity for dialogue is lost, although it doesn't appear too many people are losing sleep over that. The far right and far left aren't really going to talk to each other. The moderate right and left might do so, if there are any still around. But they don't need Twitter for that.

A digital town square would have to be public property. That seems to be where part of the problem is, since there's no public option available.

 

[Estro Felino]

Trump's vision of free speech...
SpaceX Employees Say They Were Fired for Speaking Up About Elon Musk

I perfectly recall what freedom of speech on the internet was like, during my university years. It was cool.
I guess the revolution took place after the 2010s where people's minds radically changed.

 

[Stevicus]

I perfectly recall what freedom of speech on the internet was like, during my university years. It was cool.
I guess the revolution took place after the White House Sultanate (2008-2016) where people's minds radically changed.

I think overall, the atmosphere and culture of the 1970s was probably the freest I've seen in my lifetime. There was no internet, and in a lot of ways, much of the 70s sucked really bad. But it was free and probably more "real" than anything I've seen since. That slowly started to change during the 1980s, from 1980-1992. By the time the Clintons came on the scene, the political culture had become more stifled and focused more on image. Style over substance. It was around this same time that Al Gore announced the invention of the internet, though he didn't invent it himself.

 

[Estro Felino]

I think overall, the atmosphere and culture of the 1970s was probably the freest I've seen in my lifetime. There was no internet, and in a lot of ways, much of the 70s sucked really bad. But it was free and probably more "real" than anything I've seen since. That slowly started to change during the 1980s, from 1980-1992. By the time the Clintons came on the scene, the political culture had become more stifled and focused more on image. Style over substance. It was around this same time that Al Gore announced the invention of the internet, though he didn't invent it himself.

I think that in the nineties political correctness didn't exist at all.
If we think of what television was like...those TV shows...Oprah...

 

[Stevicus]

I think that in the nineties political correctness didn't exist at all.
If we think of what television was like...those TV shows...Oprah...

I think what many people refer to as "political correctness" was a process of corporatizing and sanitizing many of the high-minded and positive ideals, which arose in previous decades, and turning them into political and corporate mush. The ideals were good, but the end result is that those who have the wealth and power to control the media and means of communication are the ones who decide what is "correct" and what is not.

It's not a grass roots or "power to the people" kind of ideal anymore, not of the kind which flourished in the 60s and 70s. It's imposed from up on high.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think what many people refer to as "political correctness" was a process of corporatizing and sanitizing many of the high-minded and positive ideals, which arose in previous decades, and turning them into political and corporate mush. The ideals were good, but the end result is that those who have the wealth and power to control the media and means of communication are the ones who decide what is "correct" and what is not.

It's not a grass roots or "power to the people" kind of ideal anymore, not of the kind which flourished in the 60s and 70s. It's imposed from up on high.

A new conspiracy is afoot!