Mr. Free Speech is at it again:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/05/tech/...uit/index.html
Printable View
Mr. Free Speech is at it again:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/05/tech/...uit/index.html
It's usually revealing when someone blames bigotry on the people being targeted by the bigots.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...witter/675235/
I liked most of that article by Yair Rosenberg in the Atlantic and think it sums up the situation pretty well.
Ironically, I don't think Musk has really strong opinions about Jews, which is surprising given his actions in boosting accounts that violently threaten and dehumanize Jews. The people he civilly discusses ADL overreach with, by coincidence, also happen to call Jews rats, think the Holocaust was a hoax, and make veiled references about harming us, but in exactly the same way they claim we weren't harmed. He simply does not care that they believe these things as they are not minor insults to him, but potential major threats to people who are not him.
I think this guy is pathologically self-centered, unable to be thoughtful about any really complex subject, and vindictive towards anyone he thinks has interfered with his interests or wounded his ego. He developed this "absolute free speech" idea out of convenience because it meant he could selectively boost people who, like himself, have been dismissed by experts and not recognized sufficiently for their genius. That would be anti-vaxxers, antisemites, homophobes, racists and other conspiracy theorists. That would also be election deniers, who, while their claims were being carefully refuted, and dismissed in court, were still drumming up support by the millions in terms of belief.
He says he's going to sue the ADL for 20 billion dollars. Hundreds of thousands of people think that he can not only succeed by showing that their claims are not true when they patently are, but that they also made such false statements with the knowledge they were false. It is delusional. He has people whose entire accounts are dedicated to curating pictures of Jewish noses talking about how he's going to sue a Jewish Civil Rights organization for lying about their antisemitism. Have they forgotten what he has to prove?
I think the amount of damage he can do on antisemitism is going to be self-limiting (wishful thinking but I also think so). The amount of damage he can do to the discourse has not and may not reach Fox News level proportions, but it's pretty clear he's a dangerous guy in the long run.
Anyhow, it's worth pointing out that absolute free speech would include disagreeing with bigots and advocating that brands should not want to associate themselves with them. Unless the idea is to support unrestrained speech for people preaching hatred and careful moderation for the responses.
He sabotaged a Ukrainian attack on Russia:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/07/polit...ink/index.html
If the claim in the article is correct it implies that Starlink is eavesdropping on communications over its network. Wouldn't that be illegal in most countries?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzcarraldo
It seems contradictory for Musk to complain about being dragged into the war and then take upon himself to second-guess Ukraine's decisions.
I'm surprised their isn't some defence power the US military could use to order Starlink to maintain these communications. That would solve the perception issue for Musk because the matter would be out of his hands.
He does what he wants. He contradicts himself often. But he has ties to both Putin and China.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
Sounds exactly like another guy we've discussed a lot here. I think it's a moot point whether such people are really bigots or they just cosy up to bigots because they have a pathological need to get uncritical praise from somewhere and spite those on the other side who've criticised them. Morally, there is no difference if the effect is the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
I think that's probably right. If you look at his account and who he is cosying up to, I think it explains a lot about his decisions with respect to Ukraine as well. But he has at times parroted views we hear from the far-right, which is that we should let Putin do what he wants. He is pretty close to an antivaxxer as well. Wanted Dr. Peter Hotez to debate RFK Jr. on the issue of vaccines on Joe Rogan show. Thought covid would disappear in less than a month in mid march 2020 (like another person weve discussed).Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
The one silver lining of his threat to sue the ADL is that it implies twitter is struggling financially. If he thinks adl hit him for 20 billion dollars....then the dumbass has disappeared at least 20 billion dollars into twitter to improve his online relationship with kimdotcom, catturd, ummm Chaya Raichik of Libs of Tik Tok (a pathological hater of lgbt), and a diverse cast of toxic, hateful people.
This was discussed on last night's BBC-2 Newsnight programme, where David Frum argued that in effect, a US citizen was making decisions that would normally be made by the US Govt and it it might make more sense to nationalize Starlink. A defence expert pointed out the US military does not have the capacity to launch the hundreds of small satellites that are used for the global internet; another that the US military was well aware of the contracts that Musk/Starlink had signed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzcarraldo
If there are military and technological complications -should any company owned by an individual have so much power -but what if only such a person can do it?- the political and moral questions cast doubt on the statements Musk has made to justify his decisions. After all, if a Chinese tech billionaire had similar power, the US and quite other countries would be 'concerned' or 'terrified' depending on the rhetoric.
The moral problem is that by not doing something, in this case enabling the Ukraine military to destroy a substantial part of the Russian fleet, Musk enabled them to maintain their campaign in the Ukraine which kills men, women and children; destroys their homes, their schools, their hospitals, their businesses -all of which are violations of International Law. This might not make Musk a war criminal, but he appears to be an accessory to Mass Murder.
The political problem is that I don't think the US Govt knows what to do. It has become dependent on private individuals for defence procurement, and one must accept that it is quite jejune for Musk to claim, as quoted in Martina Hyde's article
"that Starlink was “so people can watch Netflix and chill and get online for school and do good peaceful things, not drone strikes”"
because, as she carries on
"You’re in this war because you’re literally a defence contractor".
And then Elon Musk said there’ll be no more war – not via his satellite. Aren’t we lucky to have the world in his hands? | Marina Hyde | The Guardian
Musk is not just the 'Edgelord', but here I think on the edge, but I don't know what of. The US Govt in theory ought to be able to hold an American citizen to account for a military incident that involved one of the USA's allies, but risks getting involved in an argument about the State and the Free Economy, about the rights of individual entrepreneurs to do what they do, but also surely, an argument or a debate about the extent to which any private individual shouold be able to go when it comes to military affairs.
Would Musk prevent Starlink from helping the US military if it was involved in Mexico? At what point does Musk's involvement in military affairs, put him on the same level as those other private armies, be it Wagner in Russia, the Cheetahs of the Revolution in Iran, or the Proud Boys, Boogaloo Bois, the Oathkeepers and the III Percenters (currently embedded in US Law Enforcement) in the USA?
Something it appears must be done. But other than Frum's argument to take Starlink into State ownership -and that creates another agenda, as in, should the Federal Govt have ownership of the technology that you use to browse the internet and post on Hungangels?- what is the argument? After all, the same technology used to generate nuclear power can be used as nuclear weapons; the Internet can expand freedom, or be used to limit it.
I don't think we can expect much coherence from 'Phoney Stark', as Hyde observes
"It’s not that Musk doesn’t have a consistent worldview so much as he doesn’t even have consistency" --and that is a whole other problem in itself.
Shareholder revolt?
Twitter is no longer a publicly-listed company since Musk acquired it. Apparently he owns 79% of the shares, so there can't be a shareholder revolt. The advantage of being a private company is that you aren't subject to the accountability requirements that apply to a public company.
In WWII the US government was able to direct the private sector to support the war effort, so there should be no question that it can be done. Perhaps the legal constraint is that the US is not currently in a declared war, and for obvious reasons wants to avoid this.
There is definitely a huge problem with a single individual being the monopoly provider of an essential public service, which is the situation in Ukraine since the war knocked out their communications system. This would not apply to, say, a war in Mexico because the US military would have other communications options and wouldn't depend on Starlink. Taking control of Starlink would not mean the US government controlling the internet because in the US and most of the world it is just one of many internet service providers.
The normal solution to this problem would be to either nationalise the monopoly provider or regulate it. The US did order the breakup of the AT&T telecom monopoly in the 1980s, so there is a history of doing such things. Obviously, there is a question as to what the current Supreme Court would allow.
I doubt the Biden administration will have the appetite to try and take control of Starlink because it won't want a huge furore about 'socialism'. But what the anti-government zealots usually ignore is that the benefits of free enterprise depend on competition. A private monopolist is potentially just as autocratic as big government - in fact, probably worse because governments are usually more able to be constrained and held accountable.
Another point to note is that companies would normally be very reluctant to refuse national security-related requests, for fear of being seen as unpatriotic. For instance, the IT companies went along with the security agencies' requests to monitor communications after 9/11, even though the legality was dubious. The attitude of many Republicans toward Ukraine has probably encouraged Musk to think he can get away with this.
All good points above, but I was thinking of the shareholders in Starlink not X.
Starlink is not a public company either. It's a division of SpaceX, in which Musk holds a controlling interest.
https://www.starlinkhardware.com/who-owns-starlink/
Evidently I was not aware of this. Ah well, I guess he will either survive or melt down. What to make of a man who wanted to name one his children X, and has named another Tau Techno Mechanicus, assuming it is a human child and not an Android. Any wonder why one of his children grew up, changed gender and name?Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
Interesting article on the Musk biography that contained the above revelation.
https://www.vox.com/culture/23872485...ography-review
"Things that are in Musk’s nature according to Isaacson: the desire for total control; obsession; resistance to rules and regulations; insensitivity; a love of drama and chaos and urgency.
Things that are not in Musk’s nature according to Isaacson: deference; empathy; restraint; the ability to collaborate; the instinct to think about how the things he says impact the people around him; doting on his children; vacations."
One illustrative example is that Tesla factories have an injury rate that is 30% higher than the rest of the industry, apparently because Musk refuses to follow standard industry safety practices. The man is a sociopath.
He's a "disruptor."
In a negative sense, perhaps. I am not sure he has been an innovator in business practice, more a 'destroyer' of regulations and that is not the same thing. A lot of the time his focus is on cutting costs, rather than improving the efficiency of the business.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzcarraldo
The link offers a positive view of 'Disruptive Change' in business and industry, with some good examples, although it seems to me that it is a transfer of Kuhn's concept(s) of the Paradigm Shift from science to commerce.
Disruptive Change: Definition, Examples and How To Manage | Indeed.com
Latest thought bubble by the genius - charge people a monthly fee to use Twitter. If this happens I suspect it might be the final nail in the coffin. The business model for social media has been to attract an audience with a free platform and then charge businesses to target ads at them.
https://techcrunch.com/2023/09/18/el...e-its-service/
What bullshit:
It's the easy way for him to stop losing money since he's scared off advertisers by being an asshole.Quote:
“It’s the only way I can think of to combat vast armies of bots,” explained Musk. “Because a bot costs a fraction of a penny — call it a tenth of a penny — but even if it has to pay…a few dollars or something, the effective cost of bots is very high,” he said. Plus, every time a bot creator wanted to make another bot, they would need another new payment method.
Yes and this is a worse idea even though his ad revenue is way down. I think he must not care about the money in twitter at all. He is using it as a personal microphone, using it to promote his idea of free speech however inconsistent, and to promote people he likes. It's the dumbest personal crusade I've ever seen. It really must be the only way he can feel any self-esteem.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
I almost left when he limited dms to 100 a day. Two things that would make me delete my account for sure. Requiring me to pay. Requiring me to submit any personal or financial information to him.
His most recent tweet was that Russell Brand is not evil. I can't imagine tweeting something like that. If you aren't sure about the charges (I think they're very likely true), say you'd like to see him have his day in court or something like that. But I don't see how you can just dismiss charges like this without knowing anything more. Advertisers don't like apologists for rape.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzcarraldo
It's not likely to work because a fall in users will result in even less advertising revenue. Trying to make this up by increasing charges would just create a vicious circle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzcarraldo
The thing that sustains Twitter is that size creates its own inertia. Most people have kept posting there, despite their reservations, because that's where the audience is. People keep using it because its free, convenient and lots of people they are interested in are on there. But if you do enough to disrupt that equilibrium you can create a downward spiral.
And all this because he refuses to honestly address the fundamental issue of why advertising has fallen so much.
I've mentioned that I'm in a group chat of about 50 people with similar politics on twitter. Everyone agrees they want an alternative and about every week someone finds a site and distributes links to create a username at the new site. The problem is that the other site, as you indicate, may not have generated enough traffic to catch on. Or sometimes the features on the other site make it much less fun. Sometimes the new site has decent features but is confusing as hell to use and a lot of people give up.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
Without an alternative, it's hard to create a red line to leave bc most people consider only whether they'd rather post on twitter or not.
There is the issue of why advertising has fallen off and I think Elon is just so muddled in his thinking on this. No electronic app that allows millions of people to hear what "catturd" says can be analogous to the public square. Because in the public square people are limited in their reach by how hard it is to generate an audience and the logistics of getting lots of people to congregate and listen to you.
I don't see how a right to speak without being thrown in jail or being liable to suit can be equivalent to a right to be broadcasted.
Now Musk can use phrases like "we said freedom of speech not freedom of reach" but this is sophistry. If you limit someone's reach so that nobody sees them, you have prevented them from speaking, which is a broadcaster's or private forum owner's right. If you allow someone to develop a fanbase of millions while saying things that aren't true and that cause public harm, you are not like the government official who decides not to prosecute such a person. That person has a constitutional guarantee not to be prosecuted. They had no legal right to be on Elon's forum or to have Elon permit them to be broadcasted to millions.
Boycotts against Elon and his dumb idea are perfectly just. That guy can fuck himself with a cactus......
The Hard Times is a satire site that mostly does music-related stuff, but not always:
https://thehardtimes.net/lists/50-bo...han-elon-musk/
Well put. Elon is a real disappointment.
He's at it again.
Elon Musk tweeted his fervent agreement with an antisemitic statement on Wednesday night.
A tweet posted by @breakingbaht on Wednesday night read: “Jewish communties [sic] have been pushing the exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them.”
The billionaire owner and CTO of X, formerly Twitter, responded the same evening: “You have said the actual truth.” In another reply, he wrote: “I am deeply offended by ADL’s messaging and any other groups who push de facto anti-white racism or anti-Asian racism or racism of any kind.”
https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...itic-tweet-adl
So what he actually objects to is the political activism of the Anti-Defamation League, and he could have said so without blundering into a rhetorical flourish which suggests he reacts to situations emotionally, rather than with a sober and critical mind. I don't suppose being opposed to the ADL is by definition anti-Semitic, though I don't doubt some who do, are. This language oozing out the the latest chapter in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is soaked in ignorance and prejudice of a kind I had hoped we would never see or hear again.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
If it further damages the X brand, I wonder if it will survive another year.
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.
He does say what he wants to say. But no one is obligated to pay for advertising on his site.Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonBad
And which side "clearly dominates the media's voice" depends on which media you follow.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonBad
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.
What both "major" sides forget about free speech is the followingQuote:
Originally Posted by BostonBad
-The right to disagree.
Both major sides would rather silence then allow someone to disagree......
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonBad
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?
Have you ever read any of BostonBad's posts?Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
I'm suprised he actually managed to post something without mentioning his pet fixation.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzcarraldo
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.
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