zlacker

[parent] [thread] 6 comments
1. matt_s+(OP)[view] [source] 2022-12-17 14:19:37
Nothing posted on some companies website is governed by free speech or the USA’s 1st amendment. The Terms Of Service apply and typically a user has agreed to those by simply participating on the site. This includes account bans, blocking content, etc. the company can do whatever it pleases, if it benefits them to listen to a gov’t agency request then they might do it.

Its comical that people believe Musk is promoting free speech or anything of the sort. Most of everything he does online is antics to draw attention in some way that benefits him, go look at the SEC for details around that with Musk.

I would make a bet one of his next options is to saddle Twitter with more debt as it approaches bankruptcy. Or give insider info to his investors ahead of his next Tesla sell-off so they can recoup their losses with Twitter.

replies(2): >>miedpo+qm1 >>partia+8q1
2. miedpo+qm1[view] [source] 2022-12-17 23:01:55
>>matt_s+(OP)
Just responding to one part of this, if that's cool.

I think what the comment above is saying is that it's not about whether or not speech on Twitter is protected. It's that the government isn't supposed to act to restrict speech in any manner that doesn't cross the lines he listed.

If I'm remembering correctly, there was a big court case because Trump was hiding critical responses to his tweets on Twitter. The judge ruled that Trump violated the 1st amendment even though Twitter is a private company ("private property"?).

This is because the 1st amendment not only protects speech, it restricts government attempts to control speech (or at least that's the argument that would be made).

replies(1): >>matt_s+V33
3. partia+8q1[view] [source] 2022-12-17 23:37:36
>>matt_s+(OP)
I never said Twitter was protected by the 1st Amendment, that specifically is about government. I said once government (which is limited by the 1st) intervenes to try to get a company to stop free speech, that's an affront to the 1st Amendment. It's coercion. Do you really think governments don't try to kill speech and ideas through coercion? Do you really see no problem with that?

I have no idea why people like yourself try to twist the argument. Also, there is a thing like "principles" which aren't encoded into law but are encoded into society and makes it work quite well, which includes free speech. So, I can believe a platform should have the maximum amount of free speech possible...and that is not the same as saying it has or needs 1st Amendment protections.

For the amount of backlash HN gives to private companies for harvesting private data and handing it over to government...there are SUPRISING amounts of people here defending the government in coercing on this. Baffling.

replies(2): >>mikrot+422 >>matt_s+J13
◧◩
4. mikrot+422[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-18 07:49:44
>>partia+8q1
People? Or sockpuppets?

I'm quite suspicious of the large amount of anti Elon propaganda going around. Especially on this platform where comments are usually more measured. It just looks different to normal and it has my Spidey senses tingling.

replies(1): >>paledo+nz2
◧◩◪
5. paledo+nz2[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-18 14:16:52
>>mikrot+422
Criticism is very different from propaganda.

I am a former Tesla fan and remain a SpaceX fan. I hold Tesla stock and I would buy SpaceX stock in a hot minute if I could. And I credit Musk in no small part with making both companies what they are today, the good and the bad, although not nearly as much as Musk credits Musk.

And yet with all of that, I still think he's gone off the deep end. I've voted against him as CEO in the past several shareholders' votes. Defending his recent actions and attitudes at this point is an increasingly untenable position.

If you want to stand in his corner, I suppose that's your choice, but being critical of him is the far more defensible position. Claiming that those who do are all sock puppets is frankly disingenuous.

◧◩
6. matt_s+J13[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-18 16:59:26
>>partia+8q1
Your base argument is asserting that user contributed content on websites is governed by free speech, its not. I’m not for or against anything, just pointing out that the base of thinking user contributed content is somehow governed by 1st amendment is wrong. Does the US 1st amendment apply to people from other countries?
◧◩
7. matt_s+V33[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-18 17:10:21
>>miedpo+qm1
The base of those thoughts is that user contributed content is somehow an expression of free speech. Is it? what if it the user contributed content is from someone from another nation? what if its a bot/ChatGPT generated content? I think there are arguments that user content online can’t be universally treated as protected by one countries laws. IANAL so I could be wrong.
[go to top]