zlacker

[parent] [thread] 16 comments
1. xracy+(OP)[view] [source] 2022-12-16 06:32:21
In a word, Hypocrisy. Everyone is up in arms for Hypocrisy.

Musk's statement was that free speech would be allowed on Twitter. And yet, here he is chilling free speech. It's not surprising. It's just also really bad. So people are up in arms that they're losing a platform that, while by no means perfect, was better for free speech than it currently is.

replies(3): >>Dma54r+f6 >>refurb+OE >>washad+3I
2. Dma54r+f6[view] [source] 2022-12-16 07:13:51
>>xracy+(OP)
And the "this is private" company folks are seething now private company doing private things. All these American political flights are so incredibly dumb.
replies(4): >>mint2+S7 >>tstrim+u8 >>zimpen+F8 >>ryanbr+wL
◧◩
3. mint2+S7[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 07:25:52
>>Dma54r+f6
No, this argument drops flat faster than Twitter ad revenue dropped.

First they aren’t “seething”, they’re not even that surprised, they’re just pointing out that the loopy billionaire was insincere the entire time.

It’s simply news when a famous person does the exact opposite of what they’ve been loudly pretending to champion for years. Man bites dog.

◧◩
4. tstrim+u8[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 07:30:16
>>Dma54r+f6
Not seething. Just pointing out that we were right all along. The “free speech absolutists” never cared at all about free speech. They just want freedom from criticism. No one has argued he isn’t allowed to do these things. He’s free to trash Twitter as much as he wants. Just as we are free to laugh at the idiocy and the Musk defenders twist themselves in circles trying to justify his behavior.
◧◩
5. zimpen+F8[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 07:30:53
>>Dma54r+f6
> And the "this is private" company folks are seething now private company doing private things.

No. It is 100% A-OK for Ol' Muskie to ban who he wants for whatever spurious reasons he wants to post-hoc claim. It's his company, he can do that. 100%.

What people are correctly pointing out is that he rode in on his "FREE SPEECH IS GOOD" horse waving a "BOTS ARE BAD" banner, loudly proclaiming that "Only illegal speech will be banned", re-enabled a whole bunch of accounts for bigots based on bot-ridden unreliable polls, swerved hard to the alt-right lane, picked up a transphobic smoothie and blew both his feet off with a +100 Shotgun Of Hypocrisy by starting to ban people who mock, track, or report on him.

6. refurb+OE[view] [source] 2022-12-16 12:24:21
>>xracy+(OP)
It's just bizarre that the same people complaining about this are the same people that said "Twitter is private and can ban whoever they want" and defended censorship.

Then Elon turns around does the same thing and suddenly they flip and claim they were always "free speech proponents" all along.

They should just be honest and admit it's all political.

But anyways, this NH post is now at 1320 comments. It's like CNN's talking heads shouting at each other.

replies(2): >>scroll+zZ >>8note+tc3
7. washad+3I[view] [source] 2022-12-16 12:51:50
>>xracy+(OP)
The irony is that this is also the most transparent decisionmaking at Twitter has ever been. It's a live public view of the negotiation with a userbase over the future of the platform.

The release of the previous management's internal communications showed the liberal and comfortable application of euphemism, justification after the fact, and technical deniability in upper leadership.

Twitter showing outage not over evidence that the culture of banning and de-amplifying both users and public interest topics without agency or notification, condemning by decision of a secret, unauditable council under influence of the federal government and corporations, and doing so under the tack of keeping their CEO in the dark shows how carefully calculated their appearance was. Remember, they lost their canary.

I don't think Elon Musk is much if any better. I also can't say that Twitter is any worse. Speech was being chilled and controlled before, and unless your definition of "free speech" is "being free from what offends me or is counter to my opinions and beliefs", it's more likely the hypocrisy you worry about is nothing more than actually being able to draw a line between an action and its cause and a target you can confidently level a finger at.

People will adjust as they ever have. However, the ones who interact now will be the influencers of what Twitter becomes. That is what matters, not any confused and petty logic that our leaders should all be infallible and godlike.

replies(1): >>8note+kc3
◧◩
8. ryanbr+wL[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 13:19:10
>>Dma54r+f6
I think it's less that Twitter doesn't have the right to do these thing (frankly I agree that in the specific case of ElonJet that it's reasonable to have a policy around that), and more that a lot of chaos that affected a lot of people had to happen in order for Musk to realize that it's not as simple as "just have free speech, bing bong so easy".
replies(1): >>BlargM+eQ
◧◩◪
9. BlargM+eQ[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 13:59:36
>>ryanbr+wL
Except Musk has selectively applied and prioritized whatever he deemed harmful to himself prior to anything else on top of having hamsters in his head run overdrive on how he still 'supports free speech'.

It's abundantly clear from his actions and inactions what is important to him, we have millennia of written history on these cases. At this point people are willfully ignoring it.

◧◩
10. scroll+zZ[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 14:49:10
>>refurb+OE
HN is not one person. Unless you have examples of actual people flip-flopping freely between the two, your comment amounts to "Person A said this thing, it's weird that Person B said something different!".
replies(1): >>refurb+mf1
◧◩◪
11. refurb+mf1[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 16:01:13
>>scroll+zZ
Don’t gaslight.

90% of comment when Twitter was censoring before Musk were in support of it.

Now 90% of comments in this thread are against it.

replies(2): >>scroll+pl1 >>Terret+453
◧◩◪◨
12. scroll+pl1[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 16:24:36
>>refurb+mf1
It's gaslighting to tell you that different people can comment on things?

You know HN has hundreds of thousands of users, right?

replies(1): >>refurb+f63
◧◩◪◨
13. Terret+453[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-17 01:16:30
>>refurb+mf1
Being against it, and against a self-proclaimed free speech absolutist crowing about air-quoting journos he's ban-hammering, are two different things.
◧◩◪◨⬒
14. refurb+f63[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-17 01:23:49
>>scroll+pl1
Unless tens of thousands of different people are commenting in each thread, my description is accurate for the vast majority.
replies(1): >>scroll+zz3
◧◩
15. 8note+kc3[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-17 02:05:39
>>washad+3I
It's not really transparent decision making.

We all know why these rules are being made, that Elon musk's feelings were hurt and he's lashing out, but Twitter is pretending that it's for some consistent rule. Transparency would be for twitter to say straight up that it's against the rules to say things Elon doesn't like

◧◩
16. 8note+tc3[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-17 02:07:14
>>refurb+OE
You're missing one key piece of context: Elon claimed to dislike the banning and censorship, and claimed that he wasn't going to do those things.

People are making fun of him because of that, and really dont care about about the censorships or bans

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
17. scroll+zz3[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-17 05:18:17
>>refurb+f63
Then I'm sure it'll be easy for you to produce examples. Until then, this discussion is worthless.
[go to top]