The new Twitter (X): Elon Musk and Freedom of Speech

[Estro Felino]

The anti-woke party is way worse. They are working on criminalizing being transgender, even gay or lesbian. It's called Project 2025, it's gaining support and it's a serious threat to democracy in the US unlike the imaginary boogeyman they call "woke".

They are not doing that. They just express their opinions.
You can also disagree...it's good to disagree.

I will repost Voltaire's quote, just in case

 

[Estro Felino]

No it isn't dictatorship. But you love right wing dictatorships. Don't you?

I don't impose anything on anyone.
I don't censor anyone.

 

[Viker]

They are not doing that. They just express their opinions.
You can also disagree...it's good to disagree.

I will repost Voltaire's quote, just in case

Death threats are not disagreements. When Elon removes the block function antisemites will be able to threaten Jews and Jews will be banned for complaining. It's that simple. Elon is a Nazi.

Quit taking Voltaire out of context. It makes you seem like you're avoiding the truth.

 

[Viker]

I don't impose anything on anyone.
I don't censor anyone.

You're supporting someone who will do it for you. And you will still pretend its free speech.

 

[Estro Felino]

Death threats are not disagreements. When Elon removes the block function antisemites will be able to threaten Jews and Jews will be banned for complaining. It's that simple. Elon is a Nazi.

I am speaking of political opinions.
Of course I condemn Anti-Semitism, it's a horrific and destructive ideology. It's devilish.
And people who threaten don't express political opinions. They are evil.

Quit taking Voltaire out of context. It makes you seem like you're avoiding the truth.

With all due respect, I believe that Americans have been taught to accept doublestandardism.
They have normalized it. In law, in civil and criminal procedure.

For instance,...I have never read the principle The law is equal for all in the US.
Because the American law is all about double standards.
That motto is written in every courtroom of any courthouse, in my country.

Because here doublestandardism is the most despicable and shameful thing ever.

 

[Estro Felino]

You're supporting someone who will do it for you. And you will still pretend its free speech.

I don't approve of his policy, if he means to censor people simply expressing political opinions.

That's why debate is fruitful.
You can convince me Musk is biased.
I can change my mind.

 

[ChristineM]

Because here doublestandardism is the most despicable and shameful thing ever.

From my time in Italy that applies just so long as you are not black or an illegal immigrant

 

[Stevicus]

But why should you censor someone you don't agree with? It's really irrational.

Censorship as a political tool/tactic never really works in the long run - even in countries which have had far worse censorship.

Censorship is about fighting ideas, but a better way to fight an idea is with another idea.

The underlying message which censorship and "cancel culture" are ultimately conveying is "We're at a dead end and we've run out of ideas." It's also a demonstration of power which can work in the short term, but not the long term.

Voltaire used to say: Je ne suis pas d'accord avec ce que vous dites, mais je me battrai jusqu'à la mort, pour que vous aviez le droit de le dire.

View attachment 81867

I think we still practice this principle in theory, although when it comes to internet platforms, it becomes more a matter of property rights. As many have continually pointed out, the First Amendment doesn't apply to private companies, only to government. So, perhaps a solution would be for government to implement their own social media and other internet platforms where they would be constitutionally required to honor the First Amendment.

- Why do certain people dislike Musk?
- Why don't they approve of the way he manages X?
- Do you agree with Voltaire's sentence?

I think Musk has shown himself to be too much of a Trump fan for many people's tastes. I think it was pure vindictiveness, as he didn't like how Twitter had banned Trump, so he devoted tens of billions to buy it just so he could wreck it. It seems he did it out of spite. Of course, I'm not really shedding any tears for Twitter or their former leadership either. Politics is about power, and they chose to enter the fray, so they have had to endure the consequences of their choices.

Another thought just came to mind, considering that Twitter is based in San Francisco, and that city has declined significantly since Musk bought Twitter. A liberal bastion like SF, and then Musk moves in, and all of a sudden it's "there goes the neighborhood."

 

[Estro Felino]

Censorship as a political tool/tactic never really works in the long run - even in countries which have had far worse censorship.

Censorship is about fighting ideas, but a better way to fight an idea is with another idea.

The underlying message which censorship and "cancel culture" are ultimately conveying is "We're at a dead end and we've run out of ideas." It's also a demonstration of power which can work in the short term, but not the long term.

That can be a tactic to silence political opponents. To eliminate them from the political field....

I think we still practice this principle in theory, although when it comes to internet platforms, it becomes more a matter of property rights. As many have continually pointed out, the First Amendment doesn't apply to private companies, only to government. So, perhaps a solution would be for government to implement their own social media and other internet platforms where they would be constitutionally required to honor the First Amendment.

Here freedom of thought (we call it like this, as in France) is imposed on anyone.
Even privates who own stores or entrepreneurs who own firms.
We are speaking of political opinions, or religion, or sexual orientation.
If an employers fires you for expressing your political opinion, no matter how controversial it can be, they are forced by the judiciary to re-hire you. And also compensate you, in the most serious cases.

C'est ça, la liberté de penser.

I think Musk has shown himself to be too much of a Trump fan for many people's tastes. I think it was pure vindictiveness,

If it is...I am totally against it.
I like the rule: don't do unto others what you don't want others to do unto you.

Another thought just came to mind, considering that Twitter is based in San Francisco, and that city has declined significantly since Musk bought Twitter. A liberal bastion like SF, and then Musk moves in, and all of a sudden it's "there goes the neighborhood."

Interesting.
I thought the whole California was something like a "woke paradise".

 

[Colt]

As you guys know, I love Elon. He's a fantastic man, especially from a spiritual point of view.
He has a beautiful soul, as J.W. Goethe defined it.

Why? Because he values freedom of speech. He bought Twitter because he wanted to give people freedom of speech.

Freedom is the most beautiful thing God has given us. God treats us as His children, and wants us to be free. Free to express ourselves and to say things.

But...of course we all cannot agree on the same things. It's okay, if you don't agree with a person. But why should you censor someone you don't agree with? It's really irrational.

Voltaire used to say: Je ne suis pas d'accord avec ce que vous dites, mais je me battrai jusqu'à la mort, pour que vous aviez le droit de le dire.

View attachment 81867

- Why do certain people dislike Musk?
- Why don't they approve of the way he manages X?
- Do you agree with Voltaire's sentence?

Thank you in advance.

IMOP, to the Left freedom of speech means to speak as they speak, not speak all points of view freely. They once dominated and controlled speech on Twitter and now that changed with the new ownership.

 

[Estro Felino]

IMOP, to the Left freedom of speech means to speak as they speak, no speak all points of view freely. They once dominated and controlled speech on Twitter and now that changed with the new ownership.

Honestly I think political opinions shouldn't be censored at all.

If we think of Trump, he was prevented from speaking. That's how he quit Twitter for good, even after being restored by Elon Musk.

 

[Stevicus]

That can be a tactic to silence political opponents. To eliminate them from the political field....

Only in the short term. If an idea is compelling enough, others will flock to it. Even if you silence one person, there might be ten more lined up to take their place. It's like the War on Drugs, where they may take out one kingpin, but then there are others waiting in the wings to take over.

Here freedom of thought (we call it like this, as in France) is imposed on anyone.
Even privates who own stores or entrepreneurs who own firms.
We are speaking of political opinions, or religion, or sexual orientation.
If an employers fires you for expressing your political opinion, no matter how controversial it can be, they are forced by the judiciary to re-hire you. And also compensate you, in the most serious cases.

C'est ça, la liberté de penser.

Here, a business can't discriminate based on religion or sexual orientation, although political opinions are another matter.

If it is...I am totally against it.
I like the rule: don't do unto others what you don't want others to do unto you.

That's the main reason for supporting freedom, civil liberties, and human rights in the first place. If I value my own rights, then I must support it for others, because I need them to support my rights too. They must apply to everyone equally.

Interesting.
I thought the whole California was something like a "woke paradise".

Only really along the beaches. The inland parts of the state tend to be more conservative.

 

[Estro Felino]

Here, a business can't discriminate based on religion or sexual orientation, although political opinions are another matter.

Unfortunately I need to be extremely blunt.
It really seems very weird and irrational to me.
Because sexual orientation and political opinions are pretty the same thing. It's individualistic freedom.
So I don't understand how double standards apply.

 

[syo]

Do you agree with Voltaire's sentence?

Yes. People can talk all they want.

I ignore them, anyway.

 

[YmirGF]

- Why do certain people dislike Musk?
- Why don't they approve of the way he manages X?
- Do you agree with Voltaire's sentence?

Thank you in advance.

*Dons fire-resistant forum gear*

1. He is a VERY large target and people feel superior attacking him simply because he is the biggest game in town. He also took the left's favourite play thing away and is converting it to his own ends, and they are NEVER going to forgive him for that. The attacks on Musk have only just begun.
2. Most have no understanding how to run a company, let alone several very large companies. I see most of the negativity about him as mere hubris of those with too much time on their hands, but wishing they had a fraction of his influence.
3. Voltaire's sentence is one of my strongest principles. Weirdly, in this era of forced "diversity" you don't hear that expression invoked very often.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But let's say that the Woke Party has a very peculiar vision of freedom of speech, based on doublestandardism:
that is...if one insults Trump, that's a sacred right. It's freedom of speech.

If JK Rowling expresses her own views on womanhood, she is crucified, because that's hate speech.

Too many double standards in the US.
Too many.


By the way, I kindly asked people here to answer my three questions. The all three.
Not just one or two.

I answered all three.

 

[HonestJoe]

Who decides what is harmful and what is not?

That's the bit I said is difficult or impossible. That doesn't prevent it being a valid distinction though.

There are plenty of things that have never been permitted on Twitter, before and after Musk and new things Musk wants to prohibit (such as calling people "cisgender"). The underlying point is that nobody is really a "free-speech absolutist" and anyone who claims to be is either a fool or a liar.

It seems to me that the Woke Party wants to formulate a very partial and biased notion of harmful and impose it on everyone. That's dictatorship.

I was under the impression this thread was about Elon Musk.

 

[Estro Felino]

That's the bit I said is difficult or impossible. That doesn't prevent it being a valid distinction though.

There are plenty of things that have never been permitted on Twitter, before and after Musk and new things Musk wants to prohibit (such as calling people "cisgender"). The underlying point is that nobody is really a "free-speech absolutist" and anyone who claims to be is either a fool or a liar.

Honestly, in Europe I mostly see free-speech absolutists, me included.
Yes, there are.

 

[Estro Felino]

I was under the impression this thread was about Elon Musk.

Also. Freedom of speech, politics as well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Also. Freedom of speech, politics as well.

Freedom of political speech exist in the US. In fact you appear to oppose it. Twitter is not a public forum in the sense of being owned by the government. It is owned by a corporation. The owners have their own right to free speech and as a result they do have the ability to determine what can be said on their forum. Just as we have free speech here, but I know that if I write "****" you will only see "****". Now one of those did have a "naughty" word in it. One did not. My "free speech" was not taken away because I agreed to that when I came here. In other words, when Twitter banned certain speech because it was harmful no one there had there free speech taken away from them.

People could always go to a street corner and give there opinions to anyone that they saw. People could always self publish. But one cannot demand that others publish what you spoke.

Now one can point out how Musk was a hypocrite because he said that he was going to get rid of all of these regulations on Twitter, but then he contradicted himself by putting his own self serving ones on it. Oddly enough you do not hear any people opposing Musk for taking away their free speech. Why it is almost as if they understand the concept.