Elon Musk bought Twitter.

[JM2K6]

It's not aimed at the far left - sorry, but progressive means something and it doesn't mean far left

While I generally find debates about definitions to be rather pointless, I am curious as to how you'd define "progressive" as opposed to "far left"

(Which I always found to be a somewhat obnoxious and self-congratulatory term tbh, even when I was one)

Progressives are people who campaign for societal reform for the betterment of the "ordinary" person as the primary focus. The far left are extremists who would seek to completely replace or tear down our existing mode of society - the existing democratic process (we're not talking the difference between FPTP and PR here), capitalism itself - and replace it with something like anarchy or communism. You'd also probably have to acknowledge that, being extremists who are on the fringe, they are also likely to be violent and be seen to be fighting against everything that represents the status quo, which in their eyes is... everyone else. Which is why their favourite target is centrists, and their second favourite target is leftists who fail the purity test.

Like, you can be socialists in the UK Labour party, seek to improve society for the working class etc, try and counter the effects of unfettered late-stage capitalism, and campaign for a fairer system for all (as opposed to individualism and libertarianism) while working under the confines of neoliberalism - all comfortably left wing and progressive aims - and still be a mile away from the far left. In the same way that there's many obviously deeply conservative people who are not far right.

It's doubly weird when it comes to American politics, seeing as how the dominant "progressive" party is still at best majority centrist in approach and leadership, and beholden to corporate America in many ways, which just makes it even more ridiculous when people like Biden and Actual Cop Harris are accused of being far left.

[notfatcat]

Interesting theory you have there. Sadly lacking evidence. Luckily, not planet rugby's rules allow for making sh*t up in their free speech policy.

Yeah, to be fair I should have countered your own evidence. Oh hang on...

Hunter Bidens laptop? Oh please..

What about it?

[Fonz]

Lol, no. The far left frequently does not do that, in fact. As you probably would've noticed if you'd spent much time on Twitter around them... they hate the Dems almost as much as they hate anything else - the perennial weakness of the left. Just look at the election Trump won.

The far right gets behind the Republicans because the current Republicans have courted them and essentially been subverted by them in many ways - going back to the insanity of the Tea Party. The same has not happened to the Democrats, who are currently led by a centrist and have not had a left wing leader for a very long time.

This is one of those things both sides say though. Each believes they're let down by infighting while the other side marches in lockstep come rain, sleet, or snow. And also that their side is feckless in power while the other are prudent political operators getting the change they want. Etc etc.

I'm not sure who's more right tbh. And of course it gets more complicated if we get into the weeds of what is the left, what is the right, and so on.

Believe me though, there are loads of right-wingers that are the same as the lefties you describe. This is where that most cringeworthy of terms, cuck or cuckservative, came from.

[Fonz]

It's not aimed at the far left - sorry, but progressive means something and it doesn't mean far left

While I generally find debates about definitions to be rather pointless, I am curious as to how you'd define "progressive" as opposed to "far left"

(Which I always found to be a somewhat obnoxious and self-congratulatory term tbh, even when I was one)

Progressives are people who campaign for societal reform for the betterment of the "ordinary" person as the primary focus. The far left are extremists who would seek to completely replace or tear down our existing mode of society - the existing democratic process (we're not talking the difference between FPTP and PR here), capitalism itself - and replace it with something like anarchy or communism. You'd also probably have to acknowledge that, being extremists who are on the fringe, they are also likely to be violent and be seen to be fighting against everything that represents the status quo, which in their eyes is... everyone else. Which is why their favourite target is centrists, and their second favourite target is leftists who fail the purity test.

Like, you can be socialists in the UK Labour party, seek to improve society for the working class etc, try and counter the effects of unfettered late-stage capitalism, and campaign for a fairer system for all (as opposed to individualism and libertarianism) while working under the confines of neoliberalism - all comfortably left wing and progressive aims - and still be a mile away from the far left. In the same way that there's many obviously deeply conservative people who are not far right.

It's doubly weird when it comes to American politics, seeing as how the dominant "progressive" party is still at best majority centrist in approach and leadership, and beholden to corporate America in many ways, which just makes it even more ridiculous when people like Biden and Actual Cop Harris are accused of being far left.

Very nice, thank you.

[JM2K6]

While I generally find debates about definitions to be rather pointless, I am curious as to how you'd define "progressive" as opposed to "far left"

(Which I always found to be a somewhat obnoxious and self-congratulatory term tbh, even when I was one)

Progressives are people who campaign for societal reform for the betterment of the "ordinary" person as the primary focus. The far left are extremists who would seek to completely replace or tear down our existing mode of society - the existing democratic process (we're not talking the difference between FPTP and PR here), capitalism itself - and replace it with something like anarchy or communism. You'd also probably have to acknowledge that, being extremists who are on the fringe, they are also likely to be violent and be seen to be fighting against everything that represents the status quo, which in their eyes is... everyone else. Which is why their favourite target is centrists, and their second favourite target is leftists who fail the purity test.

Like, you can be socialists in the UK Labour party, seek to improve society for the working class etc, try and counter the effects of unfettered late-stage capitalism, and campaign for a fairer system for all (as opposed to individualism and libertarianism) while working under the confines of neoliberalism - all comfortably left wing and progressive aims - and still be a mile away from the far left. In the same way that there's many obviously deeply conservative people who are not far right.

It's doubly weird when it comes to American politics, seeing as how the dominant "progressive" party is still at best majority centrist in approach and leadership, and beholden to corporate America in many ways, which just makes it even more ridiculous when people like Biden and Actual Cop Harris are accused of being far left.

Very nice, thank you.

Also wanted to add that it can be difficult in democracies that are essentially a two horse race every time to recognise and differentiate clearly between these groups. In the UK and the US, our political systems mean that the "left" party by default has to make concessions to the process in order to actually get any power at all and enact change (something that quite a few don't seem to understand) while at the same time basically ensuring that those who support the party from a more left wing / socialist perspective are pretty much doomed to disappointment unless that power can be gained, held on to, and then reinforced by popular left wing policies. The history of both countries suggests otherwise.

Actual left wing parties and genuine leftists, along with genuine far left groups, are far more politically visible (and viable) in other societies because of the difference in the political system. Same is true for the right, which is why it's always been a little bit disingenuous to point to the existence of far right groups in stable European countries having some seats in a different political system, because that's just how it works.

I can't remember us ever having a Melenchon, let alone a Maduro. Jeremy Corbyn was regularly called a communist and slated as being far left, but he's a largely bog standard left winger with some curious/damaging positions on certain topics who spent a career opposing his own party and never quite coming to terms with the reality of the British electoral system. His policies certainly weren't anything particularly hair raising, it's just that no one trusted him to deliver them and some of them were just dumb ideas.

I think both the US and the UK are badly served by their respective political systems, though aside from the two horse race side off things they're really quite different. Anyway that's another thread entirely...

[JM2K6]

Lol, no. The far left frequently does not do that, in fact. As you probably would've noticed if you'd spent much time on Twitter around them... they hate the Dems almost as much as they hate anything else - the perennial weakness of the left. Just look at the election Trump won.

The far right gets behind the Republicans because the current Republicans have courted them and essentially been subverted by them in many ways - going back to the insanity of the Tea Party. The same has not happened to the Democrats, who are currently led by a centrist and have not had a left wing leader for a very long time.

This is one of those things both sides say though. Each believes they're let down by infighting while the other side marches in lockstep come rain, sleet, or snow. And also that their side is feckless in power while the other are prudent political operators getting the change they want. Etc etc.

I'm not sure who's more right tbh. And of course it gets more complicated if we get into the weeds of what is the left, what is the right, and so on.

Believe me though, there are loads of right-wingers that are the same as the lefties you describe. This is where that most cringeworthy of terms, cuck or cuckservative, came from.

I don't think it's wrong to say that the conservatives in both the UK and US are far more likely to be party over personal beliefs when the time comes to vote or to get behind a leader. There's probably been some studies on this but it does seem to hold true as a general rule. Certainly we've seen evidence under both Trump and Johnson that the respective right wing parties will accept pretty much anything as long as it keeps them in power; I'm not sure the same can be said of the Labour party or the Democrats.

The cuckservative thing doesn't necessarily counter this, because it essentially ends with vast numbers of Republican senators and Congress critters swearing fealty to and kowtowing to a person they very clearly despise and fully understand how shitty he is, because that's how they keep their jobs. The number of them willing to stand up against it is very low indeed.

[Torquemada 1420]

By closing it?

That would work, but I doubt Musks pent 44 billion to do that. BUT it would be an icnredible troll.

I heard Musk says he will have the algorithm open source. That will help as people can examine and we can be informed how Twitter amplifies some voices and acts as an addicting agent. Another good idea would be to relase all their priors oen and how the techs changed them over the years for examination and what their impact was.

Maybe he will go radical and not have an algorithm determine what is worthy of our attention.

Ooh. God forbid it simply be chronological!

I use this for FB
https://www.fbpurity.com/

and it's amusing to see the war ongoing between FB trying to sidestep the script's blocking all of FB's sh*te. This week, FB managed to get sponsored ads back in again, but it won't last, thankfully.

[Slick]

Big (realistic) improvement for me would be to crack down on bots somehow.

Yep. Shit like this is causing much of the strife on twatter.

I'm amazed at how so many people have such exact views.....

Well, to be fair, I think we can all agree he is one of the best Prime Ministers in the UK right now.

[eldanielfire]

Yep. Shit like this is causing much of the strife on twatter.

I'm amazed at how so many people have such exact views.....

Well, to be fair, I think we can all agree he is one of the best Prime Ministers in the UK right now.

When looking at the whole field I find it is still debatable.

[petej]

I'm amazed at how so many people have such exact views.....

Well, to be fair, I think we can all agree he is one of the best Prime Ministers in the UK right now.

When looking at the whole field I find it is still debatable.

I've seen many Twitter posts along lines of:
I think he is doing a great job considering he had had to deal with covid and now Ukraine. People should get off his back and appreciate how fortunate we are. Go Boris!!!!
So very popular with the public and twitter posters with lots of numbers.

[Tichtheid]

[Gumboot]

[Guy Smiley]

[SaintK]

Brilliant

[ia801310]

Progressives are throwing their toys out of the pram as people will be allowed to "say what they want" on twitter.

Progressives believe in diversity of everything except for diversity of opinion.

Once the takeover is complete I will be joining twitter.

[Tichtheid]

Progressives are throwing their toys out of the pram as people will be allowed to "say what they want" on twitter.

Progressives believe in diversity of everything except for diversity of opinion.

Once the takeover is complete I will be joining twitter.

to be honest, you can post pretty much anything you like as things stand, just abide by the laws of the land, the high profile people who have been suspended didn't do that.

[JM2K6]

excellent parody

[eldanielfire]

Lol, no. The far left frequently does not do that, in fact. As you probably would've noticed if you'd spent much time on Twitter around them... they hate the Dems almost as much as they hate anything else - the perennial weakness of the left. Just look at the election Trump won.

The far right gets behind the Republicans because the current Republicans have courted them and essentially been subverted by them in many ways - going back to the insanity of the Tea Party. The same has not happened to the Democrats, who are currently led by a centrist and have not had a left wing leader for a very long time.

This is one of those things both sides say though. Each believes they're let down by infighting while the other side marches in lockstep come rain, sleet, or snow. And also that their side is feckless in power while the other are prudent political operators getting the change they want. Etc etc.

I'm not sure who's more right tbh. And of course it gets more complicated if we get into the weeds of what is the left, what is the right, and so on.

Believe me though, there are loads of right-wingers that are the same as the lefties you describe. This is where that most cringeworthy of terms, cuck or cuckservative, came from.

Yeah, right or left, this image here sums up the cringe hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness of both sides, on Twitter in particular:



A statistic I recall is the issue with conservatives moaning about twitter is that they aren't even the group most likely to be attacked by the dominate voice of progressive activists or banned by the platform, it's actually classic liberals.

[Tichtheid]

I'm intrigued, what do people want to say on Twitter that they can't say now?

[MungoMan]

I'm intrigued, what do people want to say on Twitter that they can't say now?

All the stuff that would get them soooooo cancelled they wouldn't even be able to duck down to the shops. Apparently.

[JM2K6]

Yeah, right or left, this image here sums up the cringe hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness of both sides, on Twitter in particular:

That... that's not hypocritical. It's two entirely different things.

One is talking about a billionaire suing major corporations under the first amendment for banning him from their applications for breaking their ToS, which is (as mentioned) not a first amendment issue and it's something they're entirely within their rights to do, and that Trump is a moron for thinking it's a first amendment issue.

The second is talking about how Twitter is essentially the only game in town for consumers, so there's no real alternative for individual consumers who are unhappy with Twitter to get the same service elsewhere, which is nothing to do with censorship, bannings, or the first amendment.

Those are not the same thing from different sides. They are two completely separate things.

[eldanielfire]

Yeah, right or left, this image here sums up the cringe hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness of both sides, on Twitter in particular:

That... that's not hypocritical. It's two entirely different things.

One is talking about a billionaire suing major corporations under the first amendment for banning him from their applications for breaking their ToS, which is (as mentioned) not a first amendment issue and it's something they're entirely within their rights to do, and that Trump is a moron for thinking it's a first amendment issue.

The second is talking about how Twitter is essentially the only game in town for consumers, so there's no real alternative for individual consumers who are unhappy with Twitter to get the same service elsewhere, which is nothing to do with censorship, bannings, or the first amendment.

Those are not the same thing from different sides. They are two completely separate things.

You appear to have missed the forest for the trees. In one he's criticising someone for not being on twitter, in the other for a different group of people, he's complaining that it's unfair that people may not be on Twitter .

It's not as if he doesn't have form for contradictory bad takes on Musk, like this recent article where he claims Musk's stated free speech aims is just like Putin, who supresses free speech in his country.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... et-twitter

[JM2K6]

Yeah, right or left, this image here sums up the cringe hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness of both sides, on Twitter in particular:

That... that's not hypocritical. It's two entirely different things.

One is talking about a billionaire suing major corporations under the first amendment for banning him from their applications for breaking their ToS, which is (as mentioned) not a first amendment issue and it's something they're entirely within their rights to do, and that Trump is a moron for thinking it's a first amendment issue.

The second is talking about how Twitter is essentially the only game in town for consumers, so there's no real alternative for individual consumers who are unhappy with Twitter to get the same service elsewhere, which is nothing to do with censorship, bannings, or the first amendment.

Those are not the same thing from different sides. They are two completely separate things.

You appear to have missed the forest for the trees. In one he's criticising someone for not being on twitter, in the other for a different group of people, he's complaining that it's unfair that people may not be on Twitter .

It's not as if he doesn't have form for contradictory bad takes on Musk, like this recent article where he claims Musk's stated free speech aims is just like Putin, who supresses free speech in his country.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... et-twitter

What on earth? He's not criticising someone for not being on Twitter, that's an insane reading of that tweet. He's criticising Trump for thinking that the first amendment applies to Twitter et al and for suing them for banning him.

I'm sure he does have bad takes, I don't really give a shit about him, but your own take is bizarre

[eldanielfire]

That... that's not hypocritical. It's two entirely different things.

One is talking about a billionaire suing major corporations under the first amendment for banning him from their applications for breaking their ToS, which is (as mentioned) not a first amendment issue and it's something they're entirely within their rights to do, and that Trump is a moron for thinking it's a first amendment issue.

The second is talking about how Twitter is essentially the only game in town for consumers, so there's no real alternative for individual consumers who are unhappy with Twitter to get the same service elsewhere, which is nothing to do with censorship, bannings, or the first amendment.

Those are not the same thing from different sides. They are two completely separate things.

You appear to have missed the forest for the trees. In one he's criticising someone for not being on twitter, in the other for a different group of people, he's complaining that it's unfair that people may not be on Twitter .

It's not as if he doesn't have form for contradictory bad takes on Musk, like this recent article where he claims Musk's stated free speech aims is just like Putin, who supresses free speech in his country.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... et-twitter

What on earth? He's not criticising someone for not being on Twitter, that's an insane reading of that tweet. He's criticising Trump for thinking that the first amendment applies to Twitter et al and for suing them for banning him.

I'm sure he does have bad takes, I don't really give a shit about him, but your own take is bizarre

Forest for trees again? Both are about people being on or off Twitter. The slant and direction of criticism is vastly different. One is in defence of what Twitter being private. One attack Twitter and the laws that let it be private. Much a mirror of numerous conservative takes in the opposite direction when the fled it and celebrate Musk taking over.

[JM2K6]

You appear to have missed the forest for the trees. In one he's criticising someone for not being on twitter, in the other for a different group of people, he's complaining that it's unfair that people may not be on Twitter .

It's not as if he doesn't have form for contradictory bad takes on Musk, like this recent article where he claims Musk's stated free speech aims is just like Putin, who supresses free speech in his country.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... et-twitter

What on earth? He's not criticising someone for not being on Twitter, that's an insane reading of that tweet. He's criticising Trump for thinking that the first amendment applies to Twitter et al and for suing them for banning him.

I'm sure he does have bad takes, I don't really give a shit about him, but your own take is bizarre

Forest for trees again? Both are about people being on or off Twitter. The slant and direction of criticism is vastly different. One is in defence of what Twitter being private. One attack Twitter and the laws that let it be private. Much a mirror of numerous conservative takes in the opposite direction when the fled it and celebrate Musk taking over.

Pointing out that suing corporations for violating the first amendment is stupid because the first amendment doesn't apply to them in this case is not a defence of Twitter's private ownership, it's an attack on Trump and statement of fact about the limitations of the US constitution.

Pointing out that Twitter users who might not like what Musk may change Twitter into don't actually have a genuine alternative to move to (a suggestion apparently made by Musk) and bemoaning how the free market is largely just consolidating where the big money is might not be a great take, but it's not contradicting the first one at all. And hey, he's not wrong here either - there really isn't a viable alternative currently, which matters to people who have more skin in the game than just using it as an opinion pulpit.

So essentially he's being criticised for... saying something factual about the first amendment, and raising entirely reasonable concerns about the future for users if Twitter changes substantially.

What gets me is I'm near certain you could've found actually contradictory tweets from high profile people on Twitter where they literally flip flop on the freedom of speech issue depending on whether it's their side winning or losing, but instead we get this...

[Guy Smiley]

You've completely missed the trees trying to see the forest here, EDF.

Absolutely. JMK is spot on. Two totally different issues.


It raises an interesting question though. Musk is described as the world's biggest troll, who just bought the troll kingdom. How is he going to cope with laws targetting the publishing of hate speech and the rest?

A reminder... this is the guy who was miffed the Thailand cave rescue team didn't accept his ridiculous submarine offer so he labelled one of the team leaders a pedo out of spite, later calling it a joke.

[Gumboot]

A reminder... this is the guy who was miffed the Thailand cave rescue team didn't accept his ridiculous submarine offer so he labelled one of the team leaders a pedo out of spite, later calling it a joke.

Yeah, coz that's about the funniest thing you could ever call somebody. Nice one, Elon.

[eldanielfire]

You've completely missed the trees trying to see the forest here, EDF.

Absolutely. JMK is spot on. Two totally different issues.


It raises an interesting question though. Musk is described as the world's biggest troll, who just bought the troll kingdom. How is he going to cope with laws targetting the publishing of hate speech and the rest?

A reminder... this is the guy who was miffed the Thailand cave rescue team didn't accept his ridiculous submarine offer so he labelled one of the team leaders a pedo out of spite, later calling it a joke.

Yesterday Musk trolled the Washington post. I don't think his piss taking was hate speech in any way. Though he's already said free speech is what's written in law. Targeted harrassment and hate speech are often not allowed in law.

However his getting away with calling someone a peado was totally bullshit, he said it out of spite/anger/hurt ego as you said and should have apologised.

[I like neeps]

You've completely missed the trees trying to see the forest here, EDF.

Absolutely. JMK is spot on. Two totally different issues.


It raises an interesting question though. Musk is described as the world's biggest troll, who just bought the troll kingdom. How is he going to cope with laws targetting the publishing of hate speech and the rest?

A reminder... this is the guy who was miffed the Thailand cave rescue team didn't accept his ridiculous submarine offer so he labelled one of the team leaders a pedo out of spite, later calling it a joke.

Yesterday Musk trolled the Washington post. I don't think his piss taking was hate speech in any way. Though he's already said free speech is what's written in law. Targeted harrassment and hate speech are often not allowed in law.

However his getting away with calling someone a peado was totally bullshit, he said it out of spite/anger/hurt ego as you said and should have apologised.

Well for some reason people take him at his work, when looking at the evidence Musk is no fan of free speech:

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/25/elon-mu ... aging.html

If the speech is in any way pro union or critical of Tesla he's suspiciously anti the idea. Wouldn't surprise me if algos were created that suppressed critical Tesla tweets or pro union tweets.

He wants to control information. This is no different to Bezos buying the WaPo.

[robmatic]

Yesterday Musk trolled the Washington post. I don't think his piss taking was hate speech in any way. Though he's already said free speech is what's written in law. Targeted harrassment and hate speech are often not allowed in law.

Also worth noting that in many of the countries around the world where Twitter operates, the law around speech is quite restrictive so by necessity Musk - the principled free speech warrior - will be engaging in a lot of censorship.

[eldanielfire]

Yesterday Musk trolled the Washington post. I don't think his piss taking was hate speech in any way. Though he's already said free speech is what's written in law. Targeted harrassment and hate speech are often not allowed in law.

Also worth noting that in many of the countries around the world where Twitter operates, the law around speech is quite restrictive so by necessity Musk - the principled free speech warrior - will be engaging in a lot of censorship.

Not sure that's free speech then.

[Paddington Bear]

Yesterday Musk trolled the Washington post. I don't think his piss taking was hate speech in any way. Though he's already said free speech is what's written in law. Targeted harrassment and hate speech are often not allowed in law.

Also worth noting that in many of the countries around the world where Twitter operates, the law around speech is quite restrictive so by necessity Musk - the principled free speech warrior - will be engaging in a lot of censorship.

Including here, where contrary to the belief of much of the political class there is no first amendment.

[laurent]

Yesterday Musk trolled the Washington post. I don't think his piss taking was hate speech in any way. Though he's already said free speech is what's written in law. Targeted harrassment and hate speech are often not allowed in law.

Also worth noting that in many of the countries around the world where Twitter operates, the law around speech is quite restrictive so by necessity Musk - the principled free speech warrior - will be engaging in a lot of censorship.

Not sure that's free speech then.

You are not free to slander/spread hatred/bully ... It's fine.

[eldanielfire]

Also worth noting that in many of the countries around the world where Twitter operates, the law around speech is quite restrictive so by necessity Musk - the principled free speech warrior - will be engaging in a lot of censorship.

Not sure that's free speech then.

You are not free to slander/spread hatred/bully ... It's fine.

But those aren't part of free speech. Free speech has never been defined as being about saying anything you like. It seems to be the most common assumption about ti and it is wrong.

[I like neeps]

Not sure that's free speech then.

You are not free to slander/spread hatred/bully ... It's fine.

But those aren't part of free speech. Free speech has never been defined as being about saying anything you like. It seems to be the most common assumption about ti and it is wrong.

Free Speech has never been defined in terms of a private platform firstly. And different governments have laws and what is or is not considered slander/hatred/bullying etc secondly. It's a totally nebulous concept.

[laurent]

You are not free to slander/spread hatred/bully ... It's fine.

But those aren't part of free speech. Free speech has never been defined as being about saying anything you like. It seems to be the most common assumption about ti and it is wrong.

Free Speech has never been defined in terms of a private platform firstly. And different governments have laws and what is or is not considered slander/hatred/bullying etc secondly. It's a totally nebulous concept.

Just a quick thing Musk has already started a bullying campaign against Twitter Employees...
His views on free speech are not clear ... he just wants to be able to say what he wants regardless of terms & conditions or the law.

[I like neeps]

But those aren't part of free speech. Free speech has never been defined as being about saying anything you like. It seems to be the most common assumption about ti and it is wrong.

Free Speech has never been defined in terms of a private platform firstly. And different governments have laws and what is or is not considered slander/hatred/bullying etc secondly. It's a totally nebulous concept.

Just a quick thing Musk has already started a bullying campaign against Twitter Employees...
His views on free speech are not clear ... he just wants to be able to say what he wants regardless of terms & conditions or the law.

I appreciate Musk has attempted to silence criticism of Tesla numerous times before and agree he is not a big believer in free speech at all. He wants to control speech, hence his bid for twitter. Which is fine, if you own a private platform you control the speech on said platform.

[eldanielfire]

But those aren't part of free speech. Free speech has never been defined as being about saying anything you like. It seems to be the most common assumption about ti and it is wrong.

Free Speech has never been defined in terms of a private platform firstly. And different governments have laws and what is or is not considered slander/hatred/bullying etc secondly. It's a totally nebulous concept.

Just a quick thing Musk has already started a bullying campaign against Twitter Employees...
His views on free speech are not clear ... he just wants to be able to say what he wants regardless of terms & conditions or the law.

Has he? I know a few employees who ahve clashed with him has claimed he is, when he replied to some tweets about them.

[laurent]

Free Speech has never been defined in terms of a private platform firstly. And different governments have laws and what is or is not considered slander/hatred/bullying etc secondly. It's a totally nebulous concept.

Just a quick thing Musk has already started a bullying campaign against Twitter Employees...
His views on free speech are not clear ... he just wants to be able to say what he wants regardless of terms & conditions or the law.

Has he? I know a few employees who ahve clashed with him has claimed he is, when he replied to some tweets about them.

Made it to Le Monde Newspaper already...
https://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2 ... 08996.html

[ia801310]

This 100%