She made her name doxxing people (LibsofTikTok being one of the more egregious examples). California has a law against doxxing.
I personally think it's stupid, but my opinion doesn't matter. I do see the irony though with how vocal the ban complaints are now that the other side is getting the same treatment. I just think it won't matter. Nobody is going to self-reflect and suddenly understand why it was wrong then if its wrong now. So then all you do is end up playing in the mud with the other pigs. It's short sighted.
Sounds like that's the claimed justification, but the reality is what she says in her substack, he got mad at her and then looked for a reason/justification to punish her.
He just torched even more good will imo and actually allowed her to seem righteous. I guess some time has allowed him to realize this was idiotic. What a stupid unforced error on Musk's part.
I could see the good will argument as it relates to a real journalist, but I don't think anybody takes Taylor Lorenz seriously, do they? She's appears to just be a doxxer and social media outrage peddler.
This is the argument conservatives have been making for years. They were told to build their own platform if they didn't like it, so the irony couldn't be thicker.
They doxx people all the time, just the other day they posted someones place of work and address*. Elon seems fine with it, he unbanned them and interacts with the account.
Sure but that’s not the point. Phony Stark acquired Twitter because he had concerns about erosion of free speech on the platform, and yet he is doing (and has done) more to erode free speech on the platform in the last month than has happened in the prior decade.
Rather ironic for a self-professed “free speech absolutist”.
He's allowed to be ironic. Before he bought it nobody seemed to care about "free speech" on Twitter. Journalists and sitting presidents were banned and people cheered. Why the sudden concern now? Just because people you like are getting banned?
I've been consistent. I support a private company's right to do business with whoever they want, and not with anybody they don't. It doesn't change just because they ban people I agree with.
Of course he is, just like he doesn’t have to worry about the First Amendment. But again that’s not the point. I can only explain this to you; I can’t understand it for you.
Do you actually know the person in question or did you just kneejerk response assuming that they're complaining about free speech?
The point isn't Musk's right to ban whoever he wants. It's the hypocrisy he demonstrated, and the people that got suckered into his false promise of complete freedom of speech. I can point to threads from just a few weeks ago where people were cheering because Twitter under Musk would finally be free*.
Not trying to single this specific user out; I've seen many people exhibit this change in attitude over the past weeks as Elon's taken control, and I'm not sure what to make of it.
Although I think it is rude and slightly creepy to delve into random users' history like this, thanks for bringing it up.
I sincerely believed that de-factor monopolies (like Twitter) hold a special responsibility to act neutrally, even if the law doesn't compel them to. However, slowly the point that everyone on hn and elsewhere was making, became more and more compelling to me. [0]
Compelling a private (non-government owned) enterprise using violent means, to alter their speech or affect their business decisions just doesn't seem like it belongs in a civilized, free society. I don't know if you omitted them on purpose, or just missed them, but my comments have gradually started leaning more and more towards "build your own Twitter if you don't like its policies".
So, I assert that my position is consistent with my beliefs, and my beliefs are informed by sound reasoning. On the other hand, many people who helped me form my conviction seem to have given up their own. They seem to think that private property ownership is meaningless and Twitter in Elon Musk's hands is a tool that is destroying democracy.
I don't understand this. He did exactly what people told him (he bought his own Twitter). If you do not like it, you are free to build your own. Or buy it from him. I am sure he will be ready to accept a good $1B discount and sell it for $43B cash.
[0] I find it funny that my comments arguing exactly the opposite viewpoints on the same issue have been downvoted. Does that suggest a hidden bias in the common crowd on hn?
32 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 68.9 ms ] threadI personally think it's stupid, but my opinion doesn't matter. I do see the irony though with how vocal the ban complaints are now that the other side is getting the same treatment. I just think it won't matter. Nobody is going to self-reflect and suddenly understand why it was wrong then if its wrong now. So then all you do is end up playing in the mud with the other pigs. It's short sighted.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1604482428281753601
He just torched even more good will imo and actually allowed her to seem righteous. I guess some time has allowed him to realize this was idiotic. What a stupid unforced error on Musk's part.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/elon-musk-suspends-insiders-li...
https://twitter.com/williamlegate/status/1603667771916795907...
HN mod bias is thick. Fortunately many of the users are able to think for themselves and can see through the rot.
Rather ironic for a self-professed “free speech absolutist”.
I've been consistent. I support a private company's right to do business with whoever they want, and not with anybody they don't. It doesn't change just because they ban people I agree with.
The point isn't Musk's right to ban whoever he wants. It's the hypocrisy he demonstrated, and the people that got suckered into his false promise of complete freedom of speech. I can point to threads from just a few weeks ago where people were cheering because Twitter under Musk would finally be free*.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25956093
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25954524
Not trying to single this specific user out; I've seen many people exhibit this change in attitude over the past weeks as Elon's taken control, and I'm not sure what to make of it.
I sincerely believed that de-factor monopolies (like Twitter) hold a special responsibility to act neutrally, even if the law doesn't compel them to. However, slowly the point that everyone on hn and elsewhere was making, became more and more compelling to me. [0]
Compelling a private (non-government owned) enterprise using violent means, to alter their speech or affect their business decisions just doesn't seem like it belongs in a civilized, free society. I don't know if you omitted them on purpose, or just missed them, but my comments have gradually started leaning more and more towards "build your own Twitter if you don't like its policies".
So, I assert that my position is consistent with my beliefs, and my beliefs are informed by sound reasoning. On the other hand, many people who helped me form my conviction seem to have given up their own. They seem to think that private property ownership is meaningless and Twitter in Elon Musk's hands is a tool that is destroying democracy.
I don't understand this. He did exactly what people told him (he bought his own Twitter). If you do not like it, you are free to build your own. Or buy it from him. I am sure he will be ready to accept a good $1B discount and sell it for $43B cash.
[0] I find it funny that my comments arguing exactly the opposite viewpoints on the same issue have been downvoted. Does that suggest a hidden bias in the common crowd on hn?