Merged Musk buys Twitter!/ Elon Musk puts Twitter deal on hold....

[HansMustermann]

As a programmer, I'd probably say "yeah, sure, fire me." I assume anyone who's anywhere near competent would.

 

[mumblethrax]

Not sure why getting the idea to ask your congressman about that would be so big a problem.

Because forcing a false choice between legislating against speech or nothing makes legislating against speech that ought to be protected more likely.

But IF you can convince a majority that it's a problem, I see no reason why it wouldn't become illegal.

The question isn't whether it would become illegal, but whether it ought to become illegal. If "free speech" simply means "that speech which is not illegal", it's powerless to challenge suppression of speech, and is useless.

But generally, I'm not sure exactly what's illiberal about the rule of the law.

By 'rule of law' do you mean majoritarian democracy? A measure that restricts free expression where no real harm (which distinguishes child pornography from the more ordinary kind) can be identified is illiberal by definition, and whether it has broad popular support or not is wholly immaterial.

Really? 'Cause nobody raised the exact same concerns about newspapers and news sites before? Or how does that reasoning go? Like, how do you imagine we even got the free speech right in every western constitution? Someone way back then said, "nah, when Twitter gets founded, they'll moderate that kinda stuff"?

This does not make sense as a response to the quoted text and does nothing to rehabilitate the flawed reasoning it identifies. Popular support for unmoderated private platforms is not entailed by a lack of legal restrictions on any given speech act.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ohhh look who is now the 2nd largest Twitter shareholder...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattdu...s-second-largest-shareholder/?sh=3abf2223523a

I'm sure a Saudi prince is totally 100% onboard with absolute freedom of speech

He already owned a **** ton of Twitter shares before the buyout. Read your link. He isn't acquiring new shares. What he's doing is just keeping a small ownership stake rather than cashing out. He has no more influence now, and possibly less, than he did before. Did you complain about his previous stake in Twitter?

 

[HansMustermann]

Because forcing a false choice between legislating against speech or nothing makes legislating against speech that ought to be protected more likely.

But again, that's literally the choice they made for, say, newspapers, and it didn't come out that way. As I was saying, things didn't start or end with Twitter or Facebook. The notion of what to do if someone bought this newfangled printing press and decides to publish some radical inflammatory article instead of keeping it moderate is as old as the 15'th century when the movable-type printing press was invented.

And even that was technically not the start of it.

But anyway: Nobody waited to see how/if Twitter moderates it before deciding one way or another.

Because there wasn't even just one platform, to base your decision on whether that one moderates it or not. There was some newspaper in every town, and there was no guarantee that all of them will moderate things the same way. Some guy called Karl Marx could decide to print the Neue Rheinische Zeitung and agitate for communism and against the government in it.

Now what? Should you allow that kind of stuff, or crack down on it, since he's definitely not moderating it down?

It's not a 21'st century Internet problem.

 

[mumblethrax]

But again, that's literally the choice they made for, say, newspapers, and it didn't come out that way.

Made what choice? Newspapers, famously, have editors, and print letters from the public at their discretion. They are heavily moderated, so the comparison is inapt.

Media platforms that can, in principle, publish everything that anyone cares to write have only become technically feasible in the last few decades. This is very much a 21st century problem.

 

[HansMustermann]

Well, no, but the newspaper itself could be run by someone with whatever radical views you don't like. Just because it was moderated, didn't mean whatever was in it was mild. I already gave you the example of the newspaper of Karl Marx. Hell, if people are so worried about "nazis", I'll even give the example of the actual newspaper of the NSDAP, the Völkischer Beobachter. Kinda "the ethno-nationalist observer." You didn't have to worry about what if some letter from some nazi slips through the moderation: it was only stuff written by some nazi or another (hell, quite often by Goebbels), and the moderation was done by the NSDAP "Propaganda Department".

So yeah, instead of worrying about one post slipping through, you had whole damn newspapers being full of only commies or nazis or, worse yet, anarchists. The late 19'th early 20'th century kind who liked to throw bombs.

So yeah, the problem of whether it's ok for those to get published and whether the government should get involved still isn't a totally new 21'st century thing.

 

[mumblethrax]

Well, no, but the newspaper itself could be run by someone with whatever radical views you don't like.

Which is a wholly different proposition with significant barriers to entry.

 

[HansMustermann]

Yes, but someone having money to throw at propaganda actually makes it worse. Not sure why you think that the possibility that some redneck might post a "<bleep> the <insert racial slur>" on Twitter is somehow a bigger problem and much more worthy of the government's attention than a whole newspaper that's actually funded, organized and staffed to make a more compelling and consistent case of why you should <bleep> that particular race.

 

[mumblethrax]

Yes, but someone having money to throw at propaganda actually makes it worse.

I am not really interesting in this discursion. I am identifying obvious flaws in Musk's (any your) reasoning, not making any argument about what makes propaganda better or worse, nor any argument about propaganda per se at all.

Not sure why you think that the possibility that some redneck might post a "<bleep> the <insert racial slur>" on Twitter is somehow a bigger problem and much more worthy of the government's attention than a whole newspaper that's actually funded, organized and staffed to make a more compelling and consistent case of why you should <bleep> that particular race.

To further clarify what I think was already a clear argument, I'm saying this is worthy of Twitter's attention, precisely because I don't want it attracting the state's attention. I am not advocating for state censorship, but pointing out the anti-speech incentives introduced by his moronic elucidation of free speech.

The obvious difference between Twitter and some near-zero circulation Trotskyite rag is penetration and exposure. The public and time-gapped nature of periodicals also makes them far less useful for things like organizing (and executing) targeted harassment.

 

[tyr_13]

One of my favorite things about pseudo-skeptics attempting to weaponize the burden of proof is the contradictory nonsense of an argument they work themselves into, just to pretend they're not making a positive claim. Actually defending their argument is too much when implication will do.

No. That was technically Musk's argument, not mine. Mine was merely that I don't see a problem if Musk decides to actually follow through with it, nor do I understand the butthurt reaction at the mere idea of it from the pseudo-progressive gang.


That is in fact what I actually said before, not just thought. Even in this thread. And which you even quoted before. Alzheimers'? To repeat: I don't see a problem with their using any standard it wants. In fact, I said I don't understand those going butthurt at such a change.

You claim it wasn't your argument, it was Musk's that you do not endorse, to use 'awful but lawful is ok', but that you also don't see a problem with it because it's lawful for them to do so (indicating you do use legality yourself as a measure), and you don't see a problem with them using other standards the same as Musk's idea, but also that anyone arguing against this standard are butthurt pseudo-progressive, not that you're arguing for this standard that anyone arguing against is against free speech. Free speech that is absolutely needed to prevent atrocities that companies like Twitter don't have interest in not aiding or associating with, free speech which somehow can prevent atrocities with no need to evidence that on your part because you're not arguing it but can't be used by others to support them and that needs not just evidence but actual court rulings that it does. Because echo-chambers are bad and Twitter was a progressive echo chamber which you don't need to provide evidence for but the evidence that it was not doesn't count....because no reason for that one actually.

But yeah, you don't need to support anything and everyone else has to support everything. Because skepticism.

The whole reason why there was an investigation was that yes, it's illegal to incite violence. So no, you don't get to use that as "awful but lawful".

Which he was never even charged with, yet you demand in other example case-law. So yeah, I do get to use it as an example. Just denying it isn't valid reasoning on your part.

Technically I only said I see no problem if it does. But hey...

Anyway... The point is that we already have a democracy where the people decided that it's not awful at all to allow free speech. It's in fact a lot better on the whole than the alternative.

You don't get to pretend the freedom of association doesn't exist, nor private property, freedom of the press, etc, to act like the only choices are near absolutist free speech everywhere, especially when you claim you're not arguing for that.

Own it or don't, but it doesn't change that you're making a silly false dichotomy.

Ah yes, so you reach for another of the standard 'excuse' of illogical woowoo peddlers. Why doesn't it surprise me any more?

No, again, you can complain about the other's standards or acceptance of logic AFTER you've actually used good logic, including actually meeting your burden of proof, not INSTEAD of. Not when all you have are your own bare postulates.

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." -- Christopher Hitchens.​

So, no, it's still YOUR failure not mine. And your keeping on flailing and dodging isn't changing any of that.

Naw, your denialism is on you.

Really? It's not about an "echo chamber", you just actually want to go there and hear as little as possible of other groups' opinions in there? (Oh yeah, and great work calling them nazis and harassers if you disagree with them.) I'm pretty sure that's exactly what is meant by "echo chamber," silly. Yes, wanting the place you want to talk to be free of those other groups also talking there is by definition asking for an echo chamber.

All you're saying there is that you didn't get a perfect echo chamber. It doesn't change your apparently wanting one.

Utterly laughable. By your reasoning disallowing illegal speech is also an 'echo chamber'.

No, that's not what I'm saying. What rot. My specific examples show how badly you're distorting, well everything.

And again, you are here arguing that any standard but 'awful but lawful is ok' would be the wrong standard. You do have a problem with it. You are arguing for Musk's standard. You don't get out of owning those arguments just by elsewhere saying 'no I'm not'.

It's not a strawman when you've actually written several message arguing exactly against freedom of speech as something "awful".

'Strawman', just like the other fallacies, have clear definitions. They're not buzzwords that you too can throw around to sound cool on the Internet

Sure, sure, valid reasoning is a buzzword when used against you, but perfectly valid used against others.

The evidence and reasoning is against you. Do better but at least stop kidding yourself that those who disagree are just 'butthurt pseudo-progressives'.

 

[angrysoba]

I see people making fun of Elon Musk for trying to sell a worthless product in the most cringey and obvious way, but it has been pointed out that this really proves his genius.

He is compiling a mailing list of the absolute most gullible rubes to target ads selling brain pills, penis enlargement devices, ivermectin etc…

 

[Checkmite]

One of my favorite things about pseudo-skeptics attempting to weaponize the burden of proof is the contradictory nonsense of an argument they work themselves into, just to pretend they're not making a positive claim. Actually defending their argument is too much when implication will do.

It is a form of intellectual cowardice.

 

[tyr_13]

He already owned a **** ton of Twitter shares before the buyout. Read your link. He isn't acquiring new shares. What he's doing is just keeping a small ownership stake rather than cashing out. He has no more influence now, and possibly less, than he did before. Did you complain about his previous stake in Twitter?

I did complain about that. He demanded accounts be unmasked to arrest people for dissident Tweets (one woman got 30something years for her criticisms of the royal family).

But Musk's acquisition and the failure of the Saudis to take the buyout does in fact leave the Saudis with much more influence than before. Why wouldn't they sell for a good profit? No one serious believes Twitter stock is going to go higher than what Musk paid for it. There must be another reason.

That reason is Musk is much more pliable to Saudi demands than Twitter as a company was before. Musk needs money. Badly. The maintenance on Twitter's buyout is something like just under a billion dollars a year for a company that has never made more than a few hundred million a year, and mostly hasn't made that. But that's something the Saudis could indeed make up the difference on if it gets them some sweet data they should never have.

They can lavage the same number of shares far more against the narcissistic techbro troll who over paid than they could against any even barely competent board. Of course it's now more a danger than before, especially as the E-Loon himself admitted, ads aren't going to pay the bills.

 

[newyorkguy]

In an apparent call out challenge to Elon Musk a false 'Tweet' was posted reporting the death of donald trump.

[imgw=400]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1457&pictureid=13225[/imgw]

Sky News reported:

In a co-ordinated attempt to test Elon Musk's stance on disinformation on the platform following his takeover, trending topics in the US and beyond were for hours topped with news of Mr Trump's apparent demise...At its peak, tens of thousands of tweets drove the hashtag to the top of the trending charts. Verified accounts got in on the joke, with one from comedian Tim Heidecker [shown above] racking up close to 10,000 retweets, while others mocked up screenshots of news sites including CNN. Sky News link

I'm not sure what this proves but, unless I missed something, these tweets are still up.

Is Elon Musk known for having a sense of humor?

 

[tyr_13]

It is a form of intellectual cowardice.

I don't know if they don't realize it, or they think no one is paying that much attention so it will never be added up, or what, but it's not exactly subtle.

'I'm not arguing that Musk's idea is a good one or that it should be used, all I'm saying is that anyone who opposes it is a butthurt psuedo-progressive who hates free speech and demands dangerous circle-wank echo chambers,' is just...such a reach as a negative claim.

 

[dudalb]

I see people making fun of Elon Musk for trying to sell a worthless product in the most cringey and obvious way, but it has been pointed out that this really proves his genius.

He is compiling a mailing list of the absolute most gullible rubes to target ads selling brain pills, penis enlargement devices, ivermectin etc…

What nest? Selling band instruments and uniforms to kids in Iowa?
"Professor" harold Hill did pretty well seeling those to the rubes...

 

[dudalb]

Everybody trying to parse Musk's apparently reversal on no censorship this morning.
My own feeling is that the advertisers on Twitter are not happy at the prospect of Twitter become a toxic waste dump of bigotry.
What his also shows is how willing the right is to defend bigotry.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Not sure if this is rude or a clever put-down:

I’m leaning towards rude.

 

[theprestige]

Not sure if this is rude or a clever put-down:

[qimg]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52473710809_768860c93d.jpg[/qimg]

I’m leaning towards rude.

I'm leaning towards an elected US congressperson getting into a slapfight on Twitter probably deserves a double facefull of rudeness. YMMV.

 

[Chanakya]

Not sure if this is rude or a clever put-down:

[qimg]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52473710809_768860c93d.jpg[/qimg]

I’m leaning towards rude.

It's a bit like Ricky Gervaise's shtick.
Neither funny, nor witty, nor even insightful. Just saying bluntly what people are usually too polite to directly say. That's simply an ******* giving vent to their asshattery --- or maybe someone pretending to be an *******, but given a one-single-note performance day in and day out, makes no difference either way, classic Poe --- except it occasionally hits home, occasionally amounts to saying aloud what needs to be said but usually isn't.

RG has made a successful career off of that one-note shtick. Arguably so has EM, except with him it's a side gig, an over-and-above, not the one single thing that feeds him.