X is a better experience for me now, than it was before Elon's takeover. If I don't want to see something, I don't look at. If I don't want to allow someone to interact with me, I block them. If I believe something is bullshit/a lie, I participate in the community notes.
I don't need a nanny to pre-chew my information for me.
I may be wrong on the finances then, as I had read on how Twitter was sinking in debt and Elon didn't know how bad it was, hence the firing. I thought most of the money came as investments from companies/people.
Re: GFY: I think it will play out well in the long term, because he verbalized people's real sentiments, and companies will advertise where people are/browse. Twitter's organic traffic is now off the charts afaik.
> how Twitter was sinking in debt and Elon didn't know how bad it was
Twitter was a public company back then, meaning their finances (till the company was taken private) were publicly disclosed. That information was accessible to Elon Musk, anyone working for him, and even regular investors such as myself.
> I may be wrong on the finances then, as I had read on how Twitter was sinking in debt and Elon didn't know how bad it was, hence the firing. I thought most of the money came as investments from companies/people.
Where on earth did you read that? Like, I mean, (a) it’s not correct (it has a lot of debt now due to debt taken out as part of the leveraged buyout, but it didn’t before) and (b) it _could not be correct_; Twitter was a public company! Musk absolutely knew its financial situation before the takeover, or at least had no excuse for not knowing it. Anyone could just look that up; it’s part and parcel of being a public company. Is there some sort of Musk fanfiction financial news website that publishes this stuff or something?
Anyway, wherever you read that, I would be _extremely_ sceptical of anything else it writes, if I were you.
I don't think you need leaked documents to put this together. The story doesn't inform about anything really.
Musk was clear from the beginning but how he wants Twitter to be different. It was obvious that it would have to involve reduction or elimination of moderation powers and that as a result certain accounts would not be deleted out otherwise would be. In fact he reinstated certain accounts that had been banned.
FYI, "hate" means anything the author of the article disagrees with.
Before Elon Musk took over Twitter, the anti-white bias was well documented. If you posted "I hate white people," that was OK. If you posted "I hate black people," that violated the rules.
Now the rules are less biased, though there is still an anti-white-straight-Christian-conservative-male bias.
This is exactly the problem. Have /you/ contemplated what would happen if you applied that reasoning to any other group (e.g. Jews, Blacks, Oracle employees)?
Anybody who derives their identity from their nomenclature quadruple of skin-color-religion-politics-sex sucks.
Don’t have a problem with white people, Christians, conservatives (the old kind who put America first and didn’t want to reduce the rights of others) and men. Combine all those? Clearly a stunted individual that’s deeply disliked and they know it. Like what kind of man is so lacking in self-assured manliness that they need to include "male" in their identifier? What type of Christian needs to shout loudly near the temple about their faith? Etc.
Have you ever met anybody reasonable who described themselves as a name quad that includes their skin color, sex, politics and religion? I haven’t. I keep trying to come up with a name quad that wouldn't sound super annoying in a hypothetical Twitter bio and I can't find a single combination that doesn't sound like a crazy person.
If you feel justified in actively disliking all members of a particular demographic group because of the beliefs or actions of other members of the demographic, you're either racist or, if that demographic happens not to align with race, merely morally equivalent.
Good for Elon, at least he has the courage to stand by his beliefs and ideals enough to actually try allowing as much free speech as possible.
We'll see how well it works out long term. My personal experience with Twitter hasn't changed significantly since Elon took over.
I think rather than having opaque moderation, Community Notes / Birdwatch does a much better job at calling out bad posts. Rather than trying to sweep bad content under the rug, we confront it and call out any inaccuracies. The real power of Community Notes is that anyone can get called out. Even Elon's own posts have gotten Community Notes a couple times.
I'm not the parent poster. But someone can appreciate aspects of Musk's business decisions while simultaneously agreeing with you that there are counterexamples and may dislike those. I don't understand why that would be difficult to reconcile. Real life is cloudy and murky, and that doesn't mean people can't acknowledge the times someone gets it right.
The comment I replied to stated that Elon is courageously adhering to his principles of free speech, but the examples I have provided directly contradict that sentiment.
It's clear that Elon is ok with repeatedly disregarding his stated principles if it suits his personal or political agenda. As the owner of Twitter, that's entirely his prerogative, but I don't see how one can reconcile his stated values with his actual behavior.
I think the OC might win this on a technicality which is that he said 'his principles of free speech' instead of just 'principles of free speech'. That 'his' qualifier indicates the specific principles belonging to Elon Musk which evidence proves to be along the lines of 'allowing speech I like, censoring speech I don't like'.
My understanding was that the GP poster was making the point that Musk is allowing free speech even when he knows that people will criticize him when people post the kind of things that's mentioned in the article (the potential blowback of which is probably why you don't see these kind of decisions on most social media sites anymore). Wasn't that what GP was saying was courageous? I agree that it's not courageous to limit speech in some of the examples you posted. Probably at least some would make the case that he's courageous in general when it comes to free speech on Twitter and that he's also a flawed human being.
The OP stated that Elon is courageous for "allowing as much free speech as possible". However, Elon's actions contradict this sentiment because he is unilaterally censoring speech he personally dislikes.
> Probably at least some would make the case that he's courageous in general when it comes to free speech on Twitter and that he's also a flawed human being.
It seems to me, at best, one could argue he is courageous for not letting the opinions of his critics guide his actions, however, the way he is behaving clearly contradicts the sentiment of "free speech".
With respect to "free speech" it would appear he is the opposite of courageous since he frequently uses his authority to violate that stated principle (or he's not being truthful about his principles with respect to free speech)
Since we're splitting hairs now, GP said "try allowing as much free speech as possible." You've pointed out some times he's failed. That doesn't contradict whether GP thinks he's trying.
It's not splitting hairs, it's the literal words they wrote that I explicitly quoted in my original reply.
> You've pointed out some times he's failed. That doesn't contradict whether GP thinks he's trying.
Elon didn't simply "fail", like an honest person earnestly working hard to adhere to the values they proclaim loudly, rather he has repeatedly used his unique authority as the owner of Twitter to censor speech in a way nobody else could - it's not a one-off mistake, it's a deliberate pattern of behavior that flies directly in the face of his stated intentions for the platform, which was the clarion call he shouted from the rooftops in has campaign to take over Twitter.
> I don't see how one can reconcile his stated values with his actual behavior.
I have walked this earth for nearly 6 decades. I can probably count on one hand with fingers left over the number of people who I have met in all that time who lives up to that standard.
I include myself and my saintly mother among those people who missed the mark.
> Everybody is a hypocrite to some degree or another
So what? If we grant that everyone is a hypocrite, are we to then conclude that all critiques of hypocrisy are unfounded or unworthy? If that's not what you're saying, then what is your criteria for excusing hypocrisy vs condemning it?
I just find it ironic that a bunch of folks who occasionally act like assholes online are critical of someone who occasionally acts like an asshole online.
Huh? What does that have to do with the topic we're discussing?
Do you have an explanation for why you believe critiques of hypocrisy should be dismissed? I'm getting the sense that you're just personally a fan of Elon, which is fine, but not really a substantive contribution to the discussion.
If you knew a pastor who was having an affair on his wife would you accept a sermon from him condemning the adultery of another…even if everything he said was true? Or perhaps would you tune out that message because you can’t get past the noise from his hypocrisy on the subject?
It’s just hard to hear anything worthwhile due to all the noise.
If the pastor initiated a loud campaign openly castigating the previous pastor for his egregious acts of infidelity, and proclaimed that under his stewardship of the church he would foster a renewed culture of unmitigated faithfulness, then, after taking over the church, immediately started leveraging his position of authority to sleep with a variety parishioners, I think most people would react strongly to that brazen level of hypocrisy.
Specifically, what? The thing that lost him remaining advertisers was "replacement theory" a conspiracy theory about Jews replacing white people in the US with immigrants. Elon tweeted it was "the truth."
I dare you to find an "uncomfortable narrative smashing truth" in that.
We've banned this account for using HN primarily for ideological battle. That's not allowed here. Regardless of what you're battling for or against, it's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
53 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 124 ms ] threadI don't need a nanny to pre-chew my information for me.
(The revenue story isn't helped by the fact that Elon literally told his advertisers to GFY.)
Re: GFY: I think it will play out well in the long term, because he verbalized people's real sentiments, and companies will advertise where people are/browse. Twitter's organic traffic is now off the charts afaik.
Twitter was a public company back then, meaning their finances (till the company was taken private) were publicly disclosed. That information was accessible to Elon Musk, anyone working for him, and even regular investors such as myself.
Where on earth did you read that? Like, I mean, (a) it’s not correct (it has a lot of debt now due to debt taken out as part of the leveraged buyout, but it didn’t before) and (b) it _could not be correct_; Twitter was a public company! Musk absolutely knew its financial situation before the takeover, or at least had no excuse for not knowing it. Anyone could just look that up; it’s part and parcel of being a public company. Is there some sort of Musk fanfiction financial news website that publishes this stuff or something?
Anyway, wherever you read that, I would be _extremely_ sceptical of anything else it writes, if I were you.
Musk was clear from the beginning but how he wants Twitter to be different. It was obvious that it would have to involve reduction or elimination of moderation powers and that as a result certain accounts would not be deleted out otherwise would be. In fact he reinstated certain accounts that had been banned.
Before Elon Musk took over Twitter, the anti-white bias was well documented. If you posted "I hate white people," that was OK. If you posted "I hate black people," that violated the rules.
Now the rules are less biased, though there is still an anti-white-straight-Christian-conservative-male bias.
Don’t have a problem with white people, Christians, conservatives (the old kind who put America first and didn’t want to reduce the rights of others) and men. Combine all those? Clearly a stunted individual that’s deeply disliked and they know it. Like what kind of man is so lacking in self-assured manliness that they need to include "male" in their identifier? What type of Christian needs to shout loudly near the temple about their faith? Etc.
Have you ever met anybody reasonable who described themselves as a name quad that includes their skin color, sex, politics and religion? I haven’t. I keep trying to come up with a name quad that wouldn't sound super annoying in a hypothetical Twitter bio and I can't find a single combination that doesn't sound like a crazy person.
We'll see how well it works out long term. My personal experience with Twitter hasn't changed significantly since Elon took over.
I think rather than having opaque moderation, Community Notes / Birdwatch does a much better job at calling out bad posts. Rather than trying to sweep bad content under the rug, we confront it and call out any inaccuracies. The real power of Community Notes is that anyone can get called out. Even Elon's own posts have gotten Community Notes a couple times.
And promptly pointed out how community notes are being gamed when this happens.
Call me crazy but I don’t think the guy who routinely converses with Nazis will be applying his “free speech absolutist” ideals uniformly.
Elon routinely converses with Nazis? Which ones?
I see this sentiment a lot, but how do you reconcile that with his explicitly anti-free speech behavior.
Censoring links for people he doesn't like
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33991136
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35565359
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34035149
Censoring links to competitor websites
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35482222
Banning ads that disagree with his personal politics
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36916334
and many other examples.
He backed down after some very prominent people made it clear that this was a laughably poor move.
It's clear that Elon is ok with repeatedly disregarding his stated principles if it suits his personal or political agenda. As the owner of Twitter, that's entirely his prerogative, but I don't see how one can reconcile his stated values with his actual behavior.
> Probably at least some would make the case that he's courageous in general when it comes to free speech on Twitter and that he's also a flawed human being.
It seems to me, at best, one could argue he is courageous for not letting the opinions of his critics guide his actions, however, the way he is behaving clearly contradicts the sentiment of "free speech".
With respect to "free speech" it would appear he is the opposite of courageous since he frequently uses his authority to violate that stated principle (or he's not being truthful about his principles with respect to free speech)
> You've pointed out some times he's failed. That doesn't contradict whether GP thinks he's trying.
Elon didn't simply "fail", like an honest person earnestly working hard to adhere to the values they proclaim loudly, rather he has repeatedly used his unique authority as the owner of Twitter to censor speech in a way nobody else could - it's not a one-off mistake, it's a deliberate pattern of behavior that flies directly in the face of his stated intentions for the platform, which was the clarion call he shouted from the rooftops in has campaign to take over Twitter.
I have walked this earth for nearly 6 decades. I can probably count on one hand with fingers left over the number of people who I have met in all that time who lives up to that standard.
I include myself and my saintly mother among those people who missed the mark.
Everybody is a hypocrite to some degree or another. People pointing out that speck of sawdust in Elon’s eye is ignoring the plank in their own eye.
So what? If we grant that everyone is a hypocrite, are we to then conclude that all critiques of hypocrisy are unfounded or unworthy? If that's not what you're saying, then what is your criteria for excusing hypocrisy vs condemning it?
Do you have an explanation for why you believe critiques of hypocrisy should be dismissed? I'm getting the sense that you're just personally a fan of Elon, which is fine, but not really a substantive contribution to the discussion.
It’s just hard to hear anything worthwhile due to all the noise.
Part of our analytic challenge is properly placing responsibility.
Alas, their is much power to be gained in designating and nurturing grievances.
Cue the whining from “free speech absolutists” who think free speech is them speaking and nothing more.
I dare you to find an "uncomfortable narrative smashing truth" in that.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html