Ultimately he's not technically wrong. What Twitter and so many others want to sell is a publishing service where they have editorial control over their own content, to make it appealing to advertisers.
They just don't want the potentially crippling costs that come with being held responsible for their actions.
Honestly, I have a pretty severe case of lack of sympathy for that position. If I'm held accountable for my actions, Twitter can be held accountable for theirs.
Or just to push their own narratives and PR. A lot of people forget how beneficial owning twitter will be for Elon's companies. This is more powerful than a company owning all the newspapers in the country. It could finally be the thing that makes the feds go monopoly-busting again. (besides being pissy that they lost their propaganda tool)
True, but, honestly, that's part and parcel of being a publisher. That's why they're held legally accountable for the things said with their voice - not something that applies to the Sec230 publishers that tech companies are, devoid of any requirement to act responsibly or ethically because they're not held to account no matter what they get up to.
True, but at the same time, we'll see if Elon will be able to handle people throwing shade at his other ventures using his own platform to do it. He's generally a likeable autist, and he doesn't seem hellbent on destroying humanity (see his statements about how he feels everoyne should be making more babies and not just a certain group of people).
And that's why Elon has explicitly said he's not looking to make this a wholly profitable venture. I'm sure he wants to make money, everyone does, but I'm also fairly sure he knows he'll be losing money while he fixes this trash of a ship.
I'm not worried for Elon going broke due to Twitter. Now that he owns it, he can do whatever the fuck he wants with it, operating costs be damned.
These retards always go with that "free speech doesn't mean freedom of consequences" take, but we all know they become absolutely mental and unhinged when they are suffering consequences because of their own speech.
Consequences are the only thing that ever makes speech “not free” in the first place. A bullet in the back of the head is a consequence. Imprisonment is a consequence.
Freedom of speech implies commensurate consequences.
Dude with fuck you money sees this shit product and wants to do something about it
Buys out company and has plans to fix the product
All these retards aren't realizing the current product is SHIT. Overmoderation is driving people away, it's turning people into drooling retards like Hank himself is. Suppressing content kills discourse you fucking retards.
No, people who say they want free speech want whoever the hell is currently stifling people's speech to fuck off.
Some may be absolutists and some may understand that the concept of free speech is a gradient and that absolutism has some extreme limits that are negative to society (eg. Fraud and Perjury). That doesn't mean they want the reigns of the current thought police regime, literally anyone currently crying "free speech!" not "hate speech!" wants the trend of ever more crushing control mechanisms dismantled and reversed so that more speech is objectively protected, not personal control over the subjective areas.
And fuck the "it's not the town square" and "this is all entirely new" bullshit, it's the same picture on a different canvas. It seems to me that's just an excuse to completely disregard a long history on the philosophy of free speech full of compelling historic arguments and even more compelling results from following their conclusions.
I'd rather live under a dictator who generally believes in and espouses the principles of free speech - and enforces it inconsistently and subjectively because it's always going to be subjective - than a committee of busybodies who publicly hold contempt for the very concept and admit to wanting to limit broad categories of speech for the "safety" of communities because somehow words are dangerous.
Right, but you have to be aware that dictator doesn't stay there forever either. A benevolent dictator works only as far as they stay in power until someone takes it over
Basically that "structure" that allowed the benevolent dictator to control us will simply be replaced by another group who will utilize that same structure to censor us. Which is why a "wild west" approach to the Internet is way more important and decentralization and a lack of ANY kind of dictator is always better for the free movement of information.
See, the thing is, he bought his own hype. He doesn't WANT to, the thinks he is DESTINED to do it, because he is so much smarter and more rational than everyone else.
The only people who should be censored and exiled from public discourse, are those who state that there are reasons to censor and exile people from public discourse. That way, we may act morally, and treat others the way they clearly wish to be treated, while everyone else may act freely and in a manner that is most moral to themselves as well.
Funny, that reminds me of his little Youtube history series, which we were encouraged to watch in high school. I'm sure he wouldn't like it if revisionist history was made available for all the impressionable kids on Youtube to watch. That's what it's really about. The left knows their ideas don't stand up to scrutiny, so they have to censor.
Yes.
I was gonna say, that is very accurate
Yes Hank, that's why we don't want retards like you to be in charge of it.
Ultimately he's not technically wrong. What Twitter and so many others want to sell is a publishing service where they have editorial control over their own content, to make it appealing to advertisers.
They just don't want the potentially crippling costs that come with being held responsible for their actions.
Honestly, I have a pretty severe case of lack of sympathy for that position. If I'm held accountable for my actions, Twitter can be held accountable for theirs.
Or just to push their own narratives and PR. A lot of people forget how beneficial owning twitter will be for Elon's companies. This is more powerful than a company owning all the newspapers in the country. It could finally be the thing that makes the feds go monopoly-busting again. (besides being pissy that they lost their propaganda tool)
True, but, honestly, that's part and parcel of being a publisher. That's why they're held legally accountable for the things said with their voice - not something that applies to the Sec230 publishers that tech companies are, devoid of any requirement to act responsibly or ethically because they're not held to account no matter what they get up to.
True, but at the same time, we'll see if Elon will be able to handle people throwing shade at his other ventures using his own platform to do it. He's generally a likeable autist, and he doesn't seem hellbent on destroying humanity (see his statements about how he feels everoyne should be making more babies and not just a certain group of people).
And that's why Elon has explicitly said he's not looking to make this a wholly profitable venture. I'm sure he wants to make money, everyone does, but I'm also fairly sure he knows he'll be losing money while he fixes this trash of a ship.
I'm not worried for Elon going broke due to Twitter. Now that he owns it, he can do whatever the fuck he wants with it, operating costs be damned.
These retards always go with that "free speech doesn't mean freedom of consequences" take, but we all know they become absolutely mental and unhinged when they are suffering consequences because of their own speech.
Hank is one estrogen pill away from cutting off his dick and balls and getting fake tits.
He doesn't deserve the chadly name Hank.
Consequences are the only thing that ever makes speech “not free” in the first place. A bullet in the back of the head is a consequence. Imprisonment is a consequence.
Freedom of speech implies commensurate consequences.
Archive: https://archive.ph/PPWDn
Completely deranged degenerate.
He's the 'internet smart guy' on several networks, but can't see beyond his nose for half of it.
Capitalism is working at its finest right now.
All these retards aren't realizing the current product is SHIT. Overmoderation is driving people away, it's turning people into drooling retards like Hank himself is. Suppressing content kills discourse you fucking retards.
No, people who say they want free speech want whoever the hell is currently stifling people's speech to fuck off.
Some may be absolutists and some may understand that the concept of free speech is a gradient and that absolutism has some extreme limits that are negative to society (eg. Fraud and Perjury). That doesn't mean they want the reigns of the current thought police regime, literally anyone currently crying "free speech!" not "hate speech!" wants the trend of ever more crushing control mechanisms dismantled and reversed so that more speech is objectively protected, not personal control over the subjective areas.
And fuck the "it's not the town square" and "this is all entirely new" bullshit, it's the same picture on a different canvas. It seems to me that's just an excuse to completely disregard a long history on the philosophy of free speech full of compelling historic arguments and even more compelling results from following their conclusions.
I'd rather live under a dictator who generally believes in and espouses the principles of free speech - and enforces it inconsistently and subjectively because it's always going to be subjective - than a committee of busybodies who publicly hold contempt for the very concept and admit to wanting to limit broad categories of speech for the "safety" of communities because somehow words are dangerous.
Right, but you have to be aware that dictator doesn't stay there forever either. A benevolent dictator works only as far as they stay in power until someone takes it over
Basically that "structure" that allowed the benevolent dictator to control us will simply be replaced by another group who will utilize that same structure to censor us. Which is why a "wild west" approach to the Internet is way more important and decentralization and a lack of ANY kind of dictator is always better for the free movement of information.
Doesn’t he want to be in charge of what can or can’t be said?
See, the thing is, he bought his own hype. He doesn't WANT to, the thinks he is DESTINED to do it, because he is so much smarter and more rational than everyone else.
Understood
Actually, I'm done pretending I don't want my enemies to have their tongues cut out and to be ground into the dirt
I want them punished for their actions. You can still have total free speech and be able to do that.
I should point out, Twitter recommended this tweet to me.
The only people who should be censored and exiled from public discourse, are those who state that there are reasons to censor and exile people from public discourse. That way, we may act morally, and treat others the way they clearly wish to be treated, while everyone else may act freely and in a manner that is most moral to themselves as well.
His name's Hank, but his girlfriends call him Peggy.
Funny, that reminds me of his little Youtube history series, which we were encouraged to watch in high school. I'm sure he wouldn't like it if revisionist history was made available for all the impressionable kids on Youtube to watch. That's what it's really about. The left knows their ideas don't stand up to scrutiny, so they have to censor.
Physiognomy is real.