Elon Musk takes control of Twitter, fires top management

[anothernewbbaccount]

@tcg550

Setting a precident where government can decide what’s dangerous speech is a very bad thing.

This thinking assumes the govt is not the people, nor accountable to the people. It may be accurate thinking these days in the US (may have been for a long time, seeing as the US was founded in a manner designed to escape a govt).

The counter is, of course, that the govt IS the people. It’s just that some countries’ democratic mechanisms are less democratic than others. (And none are very good. But better than the alternatives, etc.)

But in most, even a govt that legislates to restrict speech, will eventually get thrown out if it goes too far, unless the electoral processes are messed with or designed so as to be a sham. Which is increasingly the case in so many gerrymandered parts of the US. See other topic on NYT article.

And many other democracies, some more democratic than the US, DO in practice regulate speech. Successfully, and with the full support of their citizenry. There is precedent for being able to do this without infringing anyone’s rights other than those who would deny those rights to others. (See below.)

The US’s obsession with wilfully not deciding as a society that some types of speech are inimical to democracy (‘because that would be the govt telling me what to do and that ain’t right’) may stem from the manner of its escape of its colonial shackles but it seems to me to be much more often defended these days by the sort of people the image below is aimed at than by those wishing to maintain a truly open and free democracy, many of whom might agree there ought to be some limit to that freedom.

I.e. a majority of the vociferous defenders of their right to say what the fuck they like without consequences are precisely those who want to end democracy! They are using the US’s flawed idea of what democracy is, to achieve that aim.

Do not tolerate the intolerant.

@tcg550

Everyone agrees child porn is bad, you really think we can get that same agreement for the type of speech you want to prevent?

See below. Those who do not agree do not get a vote. It sounds wildly illiberal, wildly undemocratic to deny anyone a voice or a vote. But there are times where it is simply not the case.

ETA I doubt Musk is familiar with the concepts espoused by Popper. Maybe if a few thousand people tweeted that image to him… nah, who am I kidding?)

[gracchus]

@tcg550

Everyone agrees child porn is bad, you really think we can get that same agreement for the type of speech you want to prevent?

Child porn is not a form of speech, but rather a form of rape (which is both immoral and illegal).

[chenille]

Can we stop imagining fascists care about precedent? In case recent events hadn’t made this very clear, wherever they gain power, they won’t act with restraint and couldn’t care less about what was done before.

That’s why it’s so important to keep them from power. The only precedent that deplatforming fascists establishes that actually matters is that it’s not ok to be a fascist. I will echo that lots of other countries have had no problem figuring that out.

[fnordius]

@anothernewbbaccount

ETA I doubt Musk is familiar with the concepts espoused by Popper. Maybe if a few thousand people tweeted that image to him… nah, who am I kidding?)

The problem with guys like Pedo Guy is that he would see this as an attack against himself, duck into his mental bunker and eventually plot revenge. No wait, that was his former business partner, the hypocrite who vowed to destroy a news website for revealing inconvenient truths about him.

Immature men going through midlife crises are not receptive to new ideas. They are insincere in their arguments, looking only to win instead of understand by exchanging ideas.

[smulder]

@tcg550

I don’t think the solution is passing laws banning speech we don’t like because then it makes it easier for those extremists to ban speech they don’t like if they ever get control of the law making process

That’s an argument against having any laws at all

… which is fine, like, Go Team Kropotkin and all that, but it’s beyond the scope of this article

[tcg550]

How does this guy manage to keep any employees?

The employees said they are worried about being fired without cause or warning, rather than laid off with severance. Some are worried that they will not be able to reap the rewards of stock options that are scheduled to vest in the first week of November, according to documentation viewed by CNBC.

Twitter employees who were there before Musk took over said they have been asked to show his teams all manner of technical documentation, to justify their work and their teams’ work, and to explain their value within the company. The threat of dismissal looms if they do not impress, they said.

Managers at Twitter have instructed some employees to work 12-hour shifts, seven days a week, in order to hit Musk’s aggressive deadlines, according to internal communications. The sprint orders have come without any discussion about overtime pay or comp time, or about job security. Task completion by the early November deadline is seen as a make-or-break matter for their careers at Twitter.

Elon Musk has pulled more than 50 Tesla employees into his Twitter takeover

[FGD135]

Stock options?

[FGD135]

On second thought: ponies. Yes, definitely ponies.

[VeronicaConnor]

@tcg550

Except they’re private and there’s that whole free speech thingy.

Which is it? Are you arguing that free speech should dominate these decisions? If so, no, because they are are private. If you are arguing they are private and therefore should get to control it, that’s what they are doing. If you don’t like the criteria they are using to police speech on their private platform, don’t use it. Twitter is only used by a tiny, tiny fraction of the population of the planet and studies have shown 80% of the content on it comes from 20% of even that small group. It’s hardly a global public square.

Also remember that free speech laws are different all around the world. Hate speech is explicitly illegal in Canada, for example. Groups like the Proud Boys are designated terrorists here. They are not allowed to say the things that might be protected in the US. Though even in the US, speech is not as free as Americans like to think. All sorts of stuff is illegal to say there too.

[VeronicaConnor]

@tcg550

So if the government can moderate private businesses what happens if those fascists control the White House and congress?

You think businesses shouldn’t be regulated? That’s insanity.

@tcg550

Setting a precident where government can decide what’s dangerous speech is a very bad thing.

Governments are accountable to the people. Corporations aren’t. That’s the whole point of democracy. The thing we need to prevent is the government becoming fascism.

You seem to be arguing against all government regulation just in case the government stops being democratic. That’s an insane position that is only satisfied by pure libertarianism that would destroy civilization.

[tcg550]

I’m just saying I don’t want the government deciding which speech is good or bad because it will change depending on who controls the government. If the republicans get control and it’s been made okay that the government can moderate then guess who gets silenced. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t be happy if groups like the proud boys were silenced.

I’ve also said social media should police themselves but as long as free for all makes them more money than moderating, they probablly won’t get serious about it.

I also think twitter and the like are good for other things besides hate speech. The only time I see the hateful racist stuff is if somebody posts a link to something or I seek out what they are up to. None of my daily social media feeds have anything hateful in them.

Other very good groups use social media to get their message out and until a perfect platform comes along they will and should use what they can.

[VeronicaConnor]

@tcg550

I also think twitter and the like are good for other things besides hate speech

Dynamite is super useful for mining. That doesn’t mean it should be unregulated.

@tcg550

I’m just saying I don’t want the government deciding which speech is good or bad because it will change depending on who controls the government.

You need to let go of the idea that fascists care what anyone before them did. If bad people get in power, they’ll simply make all those laws you’re afraid of regardless of what anyone does now.

Not deplatforming Nazis now actually makes that dark future come more quickly.

[tcg550]

Who decides which speech should be regulated?

Everyone in this forum knows which speech is bad, everyone on truth social also knows which speech is bad.

[Jesse13927]

@tcg550

I’m just saying I don’t want the government deciding which speech is good or bad because it will change depending on who controls the government.

Those decisions are being made and will continue to be made by governments, corporations, schools, professional organizations and so forth whether you like it or not.

But I assure you, we are not talking about speech here. We are talking about slurs for slurs’ sake. Threats of rape and violence for lols. Posting names and addresses just in case anyone wants to drop by for whatever. Telling people to take horse dewormer because that’s exactly what the Man doesn’t want. There is no speech here. There are no opinions here. That is not what we are trying to regulate here. And if you haven’t seen enough to know that, then you need to take a look at what is actually going on in social media.

[VeronicaConnor]

@tcg550

Who decides which speech should be regulated?

The government, because the government is the people.

This is already how it works. All democracies regulate speech to varying degrees, including the United States.

[gracchus]

@tcg550

I’m just saying I don’t want the government deciding which speech is good or bad because it will change depending on who controls the government.

Even the U.S. government already makes a number of non-protected exceptions in regard to speech. It’s far from the free-for-all that Libertarian free-speech absolutists like Musk cynically claim it is. Don’t buy into that false narrative.

@tcg550

I’ve also said social media should police themselves but as long as free for all makes them more money than moderating, they probablly won’t get serious about it.

They will if they face legal consequences for allowing non-protected speech that leads to criminal behaviour. To be clear, I don’t think the frequently proposed (usually by conservatives) revocation of Section 230 is the answer here, but if a platform is not consistently and diligently enforcing its own standards and rules there need to be regulatory (and not just market-based) consequences. The de-centralised fediverse model for social media platforms offers another way to reduce harm.

@tcg550

I also think twitter and the like are good for other things besides hate speech.

On balance and broadly speaking, Twitter and Facebook have done more harm than good. Not only have they provided a megaphone for bigots, but they’ve been the most significant contributor to the degradation of liberal democracy and the rise of fascism in America and have become distribution channels for woo peddlers of all sorts.

@tcg550

until a perfect platform comes along they will and should use what they can.

That’s the Nirvana Fallacy at work. There will never be a perfect platform, but there’s a lot of room out there for better platforms.

ETA: some potentially good news in that regard regarding the most toxic platform.

Facebook’s Monopoly Is Imploding Before Our Eyes

[tcg550]

What happens when the government decides this forum is the wrong speech because the people elected all those whack jobs to represent them?

Currently, in my opinion of course, our government is not the people, it’s a bunch of politicians beholding to everyone besides the people they are supposed to represent. There are exceptions of course, but not enough to make me confident that the government is the best way to regulate speech.

[gracchus]

@tcg550

What happens when the government decides this forum is the wrong speech because the people elected all those whack jobs to represent them?

Do you see the same degree of support for fascism, bigotry, and dangerous snake oil on this forum that you do on FB or Twitter? If not then you don’t have to worry about the American government in general (as opposed to a fascist government operating in bad faith) shutting it down. What you’re discussing and are legitimately concerned about here happens when a liberal democracy doesn’t heed the lessons of Popper’s Paradox regarding speech that’s specifically inimical to its ideals. Once again, in cartoon form:

[VeronicaConnor]

Your goalposts are moving back and forth so fast that I can’t keep up any more. All your points have been spoken to repeatedly here, but you continue to argue in circles. I’m bowing out now.

[tcg550]

Sorry, I don’t think I have moved the goalposts.

There is plenty of speech that should be regulated, I don’t want the government doing the regulating. It would be nice if social media did the regulating but as long as there is more profit in free for all speech that won’t happen.

Both of our points have been spoken to so I guess I should both bow out as well.