African Musk: Not a Fragrance

[Stavros]

I say let Musk say what he wants to say and let people post what they post, unless it's advocating violence.

The problem is not so much one of free speech, but the kind of speech that is being permitted and then endorsed. It is bad enough to give a platform to an ideology that has slaughtered millions -they did it in the 1930s-40s, they can do it again- Musk's inept response was to endorse the view and by doing so undermine the faith others have in his platform.

Violence was, and remains the ultimate expression of anti-Semitism, indeed of most hate speech, be it against the Jews, Muslims or Transgendered people. There is no innocence in hating men in frocks, it is just one step away from a punch in the face, or a bullet in the gut. Responsible owners of public platforms take steps to prevent such expression, not endorse it.

There are plenty of other ways and places where this sickening stuff can be read online. X doesn't need to mark the spot.

[MrFanti]

A lot of people are a fan of Musk's approach to free speech, in particular people under 30. The current global issue which brought about the current debate has no "good side" or "bad side."

But one side clearly dominates the media's voice and how each side is presented to the public. We are told one side is bad, which why people are boycotting Starbucks and McDonald's.

Each side is genetically similar and speak a similar language. This is a family fight. They have been screwing each other over for 3000 years, and some peace talks and a few bombs won't fix it.

I say let Musk say what he wants to say and let people post what they post, unless it's advocating violence.

What both "major" sides forget about free speech is the following
-The right to disagree.

Both major sides would rather silence then allow someone to disagree......

[filghy2]

I say let Musk say what he wants to say and let people post what they post, unless it's advocating violence.

He can say what he wants, but he must also accept that there are consequences, which he obviously has trouble doing. Since when does free speech mean that nobody can criticise what you say or choose to take their business elsewhere?

Musk is not just an individual; he's also the owner of a major social media platform. The problem since he took over Twitter is that Musk the opinionated, impulsive individual has completely taken over from Musk the businessman. The inevitable outcome is that the business fails.

When influential people endorse views like "Jews have been pushing diabolical hatred against whites" that does encourage violence in some people. Are you seriously suggesting that should be accepted as a reasonable viewpoint?

[Fitzcarraldo]

Are you seriously suggesting that should be accepted as a reasonable viewpoint?

Have you ever read any of BostonBad's posts?

[filghy2]

Have you ever read any of BostonBad's posts?

I'm suprised he actually managed to post something without mentioning his pet fixation.

[filghy2]

The man has interesting ideas about how to win back disatisfied clients.
"If someone is going to blackmail me with money, go fuck yourself."
https://www.businessinsider.com/elon...-summit2023-11

If you think that changing course for financial reasons would be responding to blackmail then what are you doing running a profit-making business? How does he think capitalism works?

[Fitzcarraldo]

The man has interesting ideas about how to win back disatisfied clients.
"If someone is going to blackmail me with money, go fuck yourself."
https://www.businessinsider.com/elon...-summit2023-11

If you think that changing course for financial reasons would be responding to blackmail then what are you doing running a profit-making business? How does he think capitalism works?

And he really hasn't addressed his antisemitism.

[filghy2]

And he really hasn't addressed his antisemitism.

He did try to walk back his previous comment, but then he undermines it by lashing out like this. I don't know whether he is really antisemitic, or just a manchild who can't control his impulses to lash out at critics in the nastiest terms he can think of. But I'm not sure how much the distinction matters if the effect is to promote antisemitic memes.

There are still some people who think this may be part of some brilliant strategy to destroy Twitter/X as it was and create something else from it. It's hard to see what brilliant strategy would require first burning through a $44bn investment. His recent behaviour suggests he's probably given up on trying to salvage Twitter/X and is mainly interested in casting the blame on 'woke' corporations.

[Fitzcarraldo]

https://www.engadget.com/tesla-knew-...184957494.html

[Stavros]

On the one hand, if it is safe and works, it would be a phenomenal transformation for people affected; on the other hand can we trust technology to do good things when the potential for its abuse cannot be dismissed? If the implants work, why limit their use for quadriplegics?

"Elon Musk, Neuralink’s billionaire founder, said the first human received an implant from the brain-chip startup on Sunday and is recovering well, in a post on Twitter/X on Monday.The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had given the company clearance last year to conduct its first trial to test its implant on humans.
...The study will assess the functionality of the interface, which enables people with quadriplegia, or paralysis of all four limbs, to control devices with their thoughts, according to the company’s website."
Elon Musk says Neuralink has implanted first brain chip in a human | Elon Musk | The Guardian