I must say it is amusing watching the same people who cheered Twitter censorship the last few years suddenly realise why giving companies the power to sensor is a bad idea. Eventually the gun gets turned on you.
You’re confusing the U.S. Constitution with free speech. The Constitution only protects some kinds of speech, and only for American citizens. I’m not American. Most people are not American. Surely you realise there are many others countries out there, and other kinds of speech?
You say “harmful” speech has no place in the public square. Who adjudicates that? Right now it’s Elon Musk. Are you really happy with that?
What government purchased X? Surely you’re mistaking that with a private entity purchasing it. No part of X is public, it is and has always been a private site with membership requirements.
I think exceptions need to be made for obvious propaganda, disinformation, gaslighting, and hate speech. Dangerous lies and calls for violence do not need a platform, that's quite different from silencing people for merely having a different opinion.
I agree with the spirit of what you’re saying, but it seems too easy for those definitions to get spun off into just “things the majority dislikes” which isn’t great. I would hope that dangerous lies could be countered in the comments, and the platforms are then setup to always include this conversation rather than letting the first poster hog the megaphone
I used to believe the free marketplace of ideas worked this way, then the Trump years and the pandemic happened. It became clear that many people cannot and/or do not care to know the difference between evidence-based conclusions & obvious and dangerous lies.
“A lie will fly around the whole world while the truth is getting its boots on.”—Mark Twain, (possibly apocryphal but still relevant)
The "censorship" from before Musk took over was mostly banning hate speech, death threats, and calls for violence. Sometimes all three were in the same tweet.
Now it's banning union organizing and people wanting to be paid a fair wage for a day's work. Totally the same.
Most people agree with censoring hate speech and death threats. The problem is they expanded well beyond that, all while people cheered. The chants of, “it’s a private company!” were deafening. So now they can lie in the bed they made.
Now it's openly full of Nazis, because Musk unbanned them.
But you're right, it is a private company, and thus not subject to any definition of free speech.
Here's the thing. People do have free speech and can publicly say that they think the new twitter is a Nazi fulled dumpster fire run by a racist man-baby who got rich off of an Apartheid era emerald mine.
And I think you have a wrapped few of how it went down.
Pre-musk moderation was a necessary evil to combat spam, fake news and hate speech. Nobody was cheering, except when some notorious idiots got the boot. Then we were just laughing at the idiots. Fine, call it cheering if you want.
Now, we are mostly just all laughing at Musk destroying his investment.
I don’t care if he censors the UAW or whatever. Go ahead and censor everyone except dogecoin evangelists.
And yeah, people can say stupid shit I disagree with. But I reserve the right to laugh.
I'm not going to hang out in a bar that allows Nazis to hang out. You can if you like, but people are going to call you a Nazi supporter, and they will be right. If you don't allow Nazis in your bar, they can still stand outside and freeze peach as much as they want, you are not curtailing anyone's freedom. So, yes, I cheer businesses that don't allow Nazis and I am critical of businesses where the management trolls unions (and allows Nazis), and that's not hypocritical in any way because there's a difference between good things and bad things. Anyway, enjoy your Nazi bar, weirdo.
First, twitter removing a post/banning a user/enforcing a policy is free speech. The government preventing it is anti-free speech. The government cannot tell the New York Times what to publish or not to publish, and it likewise cannot force twitter to do so. I cannot force the Washington Post to publish my op-ed on how bananas should be banned because they’re phallic and make me uncomfortable. Twitter has the right to suspend the UAW account, or delete all of its posts, or whatever it wants to do.
People are upset because Elmo uses his right to suspend and so on as personal vendettas. He’s erratic, unstable, and impulsive. Again, it’s his company and it’s his right. Hell, given that he’s destroyed between 70% and 90% of a $44B company’s value by indulging in his idiotic whims, I wouldn’t expect anything different. A literal dart-throwing chimp would be a better manager. It’s obvious why Jack Dorsey got a guaranteed buyout at $54.20 when he agreed to hold onto his $1B holdings during the transition. He could now technically shut down twitter by removing up to 25% of its remaining valuation. If the Saudis got a similar deal, that’s another $1.5B. So Elmo isn’t just paying $1B per year servicing the debt he took on to stupidly buy a company in an industry he knows less than nothing about, those guaranteed buybacks are like additional loans that can be called in at any time If he did end up tanking the value of the company down into the $4B range, it is closing in on being worth less than $0.
So this is to be expected, just like him fucking with the NYT and anyone else he disagrees with is to be expected. People can still call it out as indicative of who he is.
And you know this is nothing like censoring hate speech or dangerous disinformation. You’re just making a bad faith argument.
Fucking finally. The Obama administration declined to go after Assange because they knew how bad it would look for press freedoms in the US.
If they went after Assange, they could rightly go after the New York Times as well. NYT general counsel has said as much for years. Letting the case continue as-is was setting up for long term disaster regarding press freedoms.
The Trump administration had zero qualms about killing press freedoms. I gotta be at least reasonably thankful the Biden administration is trying to find a less severe offramp for what the Trump admin started.
Whatever you think of Assange (it is perfectly valid to not like him or what he does), this case was a dangerous precedent for press freedom in the US, so having it downgraded to less severe charges would be a good thing.
There were some very deluded people during the Trump years who thought Assange would get special treatment for his vendetta against Hillary Clinton helping to get Trump elected. But you nailed it right on the head – killing press freedoms and not paying debts are even bigger parts of Donald’s brand than gaudy letters on the sides of buildings.
But don’t get it twisted. Then Secretary of State Clinton went hard against Assange, and it did look bad for press freedoms in the US. You have to remember the State Department did not take press freedom seriously at all, abusing the espionage act left and right. They put more journalists sources in prison than any other previous president. They went after journalists families, like when they detained Glenn Greenwald’s partner in Heathrow. That should always be remembered as part of Barack Obama’s legacy.
The Trump “Fake News” era was absolutely devastating to journalism, so it’s easy to see Obama’s administration through rose tinted glasses. But it’s important to remember the damage they did that contributed to where we are today.
Now now, I am not saying Obama or Biden administrations are paragons of freedom of press, but a lot of that had very little directly to do with Assange’s case.
Greenwald’s partner, for example, had far more to do with the US trying to catch Snowden. They brought down a foreign Presidents plane to try to catch Snowden, no less.
My point is simply that the Grand Jury that was impaneled to look at Assange during the Obama years chose not to prosecute because they couldn’t disentangle other media outlets. If they charged Assange, it would be open season on the New York Times, which also published the documents. I think that was a wise decision.
Now the US establishment was all too happy to smear Assange during this time, especially in regards to the Swedish case and his claims of worries of extradition, but legally, they didn’t actually pursue him, for valid reasons. Legal pursuit came during the Trump administration, which was happy to destroy the future of press freedoms tenfold.
the Grand Jury that was impaneled to look at Assange during the Obama years chose not to prosecute because they couldn’t disentangle other media outlets
You’re right, it was during the Trump administration. For some reason I thought the first indictment had been made and then sealed during Obama’s tenure. Trump’s attack was a major escalation.
I don’t see any reference to a Grand Jury in the linked article, and I can’t find anything in Google about “assange grand jury 2010”. Are you thinking about this section?
Justice officials said they looked hard at Assange but realized that they have what they described as a “New York Times problem.” If the Justice Department indicted Assange, it would also have to prosecute the New York Times and other news organizations and writers who published classified material, including The Washington Post and Britain’s Guardian newspaper.
It seems to indicate that they didn’t even bother to assemble a grand jury, which is even better for Obama.
Thanks. Yeah, I think I heard about this jury, but only that its deliberation was secret, and I never found out what was decided. When the indictment was unsealed, I assumed it was the revelation of this Jury’s decision.
Do you remember when the decision of the 2011 grand jury was revealed? If they kept it secret to scare Assange, that’s still a pretty outrageous form of press intimidation.
Almost everywhere in this country the city officials are in bed with the local police. Sometimes literally.
I live in the northwest, in a very progressive city. Quickly after the murder of George Floyd the city council tried to act like they gave a damn and claimed to have a plan on the way to prevent local police from using tear gas at protests. Then the George Floyd protests got bigger, which made city officials nervous, so they took it back, because they wanted the police to have bigger guns to protect themselves from unhappy citizens.
City officials are always way more willing to let the cops brutalize the citizens as long as it means some cops protect them from the citizens they claim to represent.
Regardless of the sourcing, it’s important to have open eyes about these things. While don’t think many outside of Lemmygrad would argue that there isn’t a clear moral difference between the defenders and aggressors in this war (and Prigozhin didn’t exactly name his organization the Wagner Group out of a deep artistic appreciation for German opera, either), Ukraine has also been willing to take help from unsavory groups, particularly in the original Azov Brigade and the RVC. I won’t condemn Ukrainian leadership for engaging in realpolitik while fighting for their nation’s right to exist, but they and their Western allies all need to be careful that fascist elements within Ukraine don’t get the opportunity to leverage the war for greater power and influence.
theintercept.com
Hot