Opinion For the richest man in the world Elon Musk acts pretty dumb

[Jack V Savage]

I'm going to bow out of discussing this with you. You are just blatantly lying at this point. Seek help bro. You have some serious issues with honesty and absorbing reality.

OK, but just FYI, you were caught as a hypocrite, and you haven't identified any dishonesty from me. You're just saying that I'm dishonest because you were caught.

 

[Siver!]

OK, but just FYI, you were caught as a hypocrite, and you haven't identified any dishonesty from me. You're just saying that I'm dishonest because you were caught.

That's kinda all that poster does.

Just accuses you of dishonesty and claims they've tied you in knots.

Very poor.

 

[RoastBeast]

That's kinda all that poster does.

Just accuses you of dishonesty and claims they've tied you in knots.

Very poor.

You serious? That's exactly what he's done. I asked him multiple times to quote or prove his accusations and he never did. He never will be able to either because they don't exist. Why don't they exist? Because he's lying about it. Don't let this guy manipulate you.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You serious? That's exactly what he's done. I asked him multiple times to quote or prove his accusations and he never did. He never will be able to either because they don't exist. Why don't they exist? Because he's lying about it. Don't let this guy manipulate you.

What exactly do you think I'm lying about?

Also, why are you so reluctant to clarify your position on the Media Matters issue?

 

[Jack V Savage]

You're trying to have it both ways.

Either, it's a private company that can do what it wants, censor people, ban whoever, etc. Which also applies to Twitter before Elon owned it. If that's your rationale, then you can't have been screeching about free speech under the previous ownership. And along with that, you have to abandon any notion of Elon being a free speech warrior. It's his company. He can censor people at the behest of foreign dictators. He can let nazis in. He can ban anyone he wants. And all of that is in direct contradiction to his freeze peach culture war grift.

It's either that, OR

Twitter is the public commons and free speech laws apply to it. He cannot ban anyone. He cannot censor people at the behest of foreign governments. Obviously he's not doing any of that.

But you're trying to make arguments from both sides of this dichotomy and it's incoherent.

I think the consistent pro-free-speech position is:

1. Twitter has the right to ban anyone they want for any reason at all.
2. People have the right to criticize them for their moderation decisions, though if they criticize it on freedom-of-speech grounds, they're stupid.

But there has been an actual freedom-of-speech issue raised here, which is Musk filing a BS lawsuit to try to silence Media Matters and state AGs expressing support for that effort. And supporters of that effort are objectively opposed to freedom of speech.

 

[djacobox372]

I think the consistent pro-free-speech position is:

1. Twitter has the right to ban anyone they want for any reason at all.
2. People have the right to criticize them for their moderation decisions, though if they criticize it on freedom-of-speech grounds, they're stupid.

But there has been an actual freedom-of-speech issue raised here, which is Musk filing a BS lawsuit to try to silence Media Matters and state AGs expressing support for that effort. And supporters of that effort are objectively opposed to freedom of speech.

Libel isn't covered by freedom of speech in civil court. You know this. If MM made false statements that caused harm Elon has the right to sue for damages. Not sure if he has a case or not, but whatever... the courts will figure out and they can counter-sue if they like.

I agree with the other two points; however, since this country has decided it prudent to delegate public discourse to private companies, I would like to see regulation that extends actual free-speech protection to these services... that way the company can't be "blamed" for the content on their site.... companies may still choose not to advertise, but it wouldn't be combined with a political hit piece against those they don't like, as people like Musk and Zuckerberg wouldn't be the arbitrators of what's said and not said on their platforms. The fact that we've given this power to these billionaire jerks is a huge problem.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Libel isn't covered by freedom of speech in civil court. You know this. If MM made false statements that caused harm Elon has the right to sue for damages. Not sure if he has a case or not, but whatever... the courts will figure out and they can counter-sue if they like.

First, there is no libel. Musk acknowledges that the screenshots are real. The claim, which is ridiculous, is fraud. And second, you know that rich people abuse these types of suits to try to silence people. That's the actual biggest threat to freedom of speech that we face in the real world, and it's compounded here with gov't actors getting involved, and potentially with partisan decisions on courts. I don't see how this is so easily dismissed if someone really believes in freedom of speech as a principle, rather than just a tool.

I agree with the other two points; however, since this country has decided it prudent to delegate public discourse to private companies, I would like to see regulation that extends actual free-speech protection to these services... that way the company can't be "blamed" for the content on their site.... companies may still choose not to advertise, but it wouldn't be combined with a political hit piece against those they don't like, as people like Musk and Zuckerberg wouldn't be the arbitrators of what's said and not said on their platforms. The fact that we've given this power to these billionaire jerks is a huge problem.

That would be another major attack on freedom of speech. There's no website now that has anything close to a monopoly on Internet content. I don't see any way it would be constitutional for the gov't to force sites to modify their moderation policies.

 

[Andy Capp]

First, there is no libel. Musk acknowledges that the screenshots are real. The claim, which is ridiculous, is fraud. And second, you know that rich people abuse these types of suits to try to silence people. That's the actual biggest threat to freedom of speech that we face in the real world, and it's compounded here with gov't actors getting involved, and potentially with partisan decisions on courts. I don't see how this is so easily dismissed if someone really believes in freedom of speech as a principle, rather than just a tool.



That would be another major attack on freedom of speech. There's no website now that has anything close to a monopoly on Internet content. I don't see any way it would be constitutional for the gov't to force sites to modify their moderation policies.

Re: the bold, don't know if the pun is intentional but I, for one, give it 4 stars.

 

[evansusmc2]

Nobody is under the delusion that Elon Musk reads any of this... just like nobody from Disney reads sherdog meltdowns each time they cast a black person.

But you are defending a billionaire from criticism for no other reason than being a simp.

Elon Musk is a dumbass, every decision he's made since buying Twitter has only solidified that point

Here lies skold and his (her?) last post. For over 8 years skold used the luxury of anonymity to post all kinds of opinions passed off as facts in order to stink up the forum and push the leftist agenda to insane boundaries and beyond. I was hoping to see skold hang on til at least the 2024 elections.

R.I.P. dude (chick?)