5 ms·

>I was pretty firmly of the theory that his real motive re Twitter was basically narcissism, and I'm still not sure that's wrong. Why is it so hard to believe

>I was pretty firmly of the theory that his real motive re Twitter was basically narcissism, and I'm still not sure that's wrong. Why is it so hard to believe that Musk genuinely believes in exactly the version of "freedom of speech" that everyone in his generation grew up with, that served as the impetus for much of the internet's creation, etc.?

colinmhayes 4y ago
Well personally I don't believe that because I watched his ted talk and it didn't seem like he had spent more than a few minutes thinking through the specifics of what his implementation of free speech would mean.
- hn2017 4y ago
  Agree, he seems to lacking incredible nuance in the different levels of free speech.
p49k 4y ago
Because this viewpoint isn’t consistent with his actions; he has a long history of retaliating against anyone who criticizes him, including attacking journalists and threatening them with lawsuits as well as firing employees who raise issues within his companies.
- robswc 4y ago
  How is "retaliating against criticism" contradictory to free speech? I could certainly argue with someone on HN but also say their banning is unjust (if I felt that it was). This has been a "solved" issue for centuries. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/01/defend-say/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/01/defend-say/
  - andrewflnr 4y ago
    Your comment is baffling. You ask, 'How is "retaliating against criticism" contradictory to free speech?', then spend the rest of your comment explaining why it's good to not retaliate against criticism. Did you mean to ask and answer your own question? If that was your intent it sure wasn't clear. Do you not know what "retaliate" means, even with the context clue of threatening lawsuits against journalists? Is your first paragraph meant to be entirely causally disconnected from the rest? If so I kind of have to respect it, but it would sure help to give us some clues because that is not a conventional writing structure. What, in short, are you trying to say?
    - robswc 4y ago
      There is nothing contradictory about retaliating against criticism. >Do you not know what "retaliate" means I'm using the actual definition, which I assumed you were too? "make an attack or assault in return for a similar attack." If someone were to criticize you, you can "retaliate" while also believing said person should be kicked off the platform. I'm doing it right now. >threatening lawsuits against journalists https://www.google.com/search?q=elon+musk+threaten+lawsuit+journalist https://www.google.com/search?q=elon+musk+threaten+lawsuit+j... I can't find anything about this, except for a FastCompany article which I can't access atm because their website is down.
  - p49k 4y ago
    Retaliation with the intent to silence critics is acting to undermine free speech. He could, for example, welcome the criticism and respond with facts.
    - robswc 4y ago
      >Retaliation with the intent to silence critics which critics? When I search for this, I get this article: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/25/elon-musk-and-free-speech-track-record-not-encouraging.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/25/elon-musk-and-free-speech-tr... Which is full of honestly ridiculous examples like "he told an analyst to shut up and stop asking boneheaded questions." Or "he told his followers to edit his wikipedia page" ...? The "best" examples are of workers are are currently in litigation. Everything else, I see no reason why one couldn't support free speech on a social platform while also requiring beta testers to sign NDAs. >welcome the criticism and respond with facts Do you have examples of where/when this could have been done? At the end of the day, I feel like a lot of this just comes from the fact that when one supports free speech, it comes with a *. It's easier to say "I support free speech" vs "I support the idea people should be able to post their opinions online without being banned (this doesn't mean anyone can post live execution videos or organize crime, etc)."
rchaud 4y ago
He grew up with freedom of speech in apartheid South Africa?
- hardnose 4y ago
  I feel like this response deliberately avoids the point I was making, in favor of kicking up confusion. He grew up on the internet. At a time when everyone was turning their internet web pages black to protest censorship. At a time when "the internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it" was a slogan touted proudly by technologists and philosophers. It's not Elon Musk that changed, it seems to me. It's the cultural values on the internet that have changed, and arguably not for the better - more control, more censorship, more centralization.
  - teachrdan 4y ago
    > He grew up on the internet Elon Musk was born in 1971. He grew up on television.
    - hardnose 4y ago
      So, no thoughts on how Musk's attitude seems remarkably consistent with the speech and actions of the internet's founding minds, I take it?
esotericimpl 4y ago
[dead]
weeblewobble 4y ago
It seems like a lot of people (Rogan, the Thiel guys, Calcanis) are coming to him talking about free speech, and he kind of nods along, but I didn't really see anything that demonstrated his own passion for the topic. He seems primarily motivated by a belief that Twitter is poorly run as a business, and that it will be difficult or impossible to turn it around as a public company.
andrewflnr 4y ago
Because if that's his real motivation, it's more efficient to build a competitor. It would probably be even more efficient to put polish on existing competitors like Mastodon. Buying Twitter is one of the silliest possible approaches. Thus, skepticism.
malshe 4y ago
I wonder whether Elon supports the freedom of speech in China
deanCommie 4y ago
> "freedom of speech" that everyone in his generation grew up with, that served as the impetus for much of the internet's creation Yes, because bulletin board systems famously had no moderation whatsoever. Wait...
- hardnose 4y ago
  I don't know how much you remember about the transition from BBSes to the internet, but the heavy handed moderation of FidoNet is one of the exact reasons we all flooded into UseNet when it started to become available, and most likely a big part of why "FidoNet" is consigned to history's dustbin despite being, at one time, the most popular forum discussion system.

colinmhayes 4y ago

Well personally I don't believe that because I watched his ted talk and it didn't seem like he had spent more than a few minutes thinking through the specifics of what his implementation of free speech would mean.

hn2017 4y ago
Agree, he seems to lacking incredible nuance in the different levels of free speech.

p49k 4y ago

Because this viewpoint isn’t consistent with his actions; he has a long history of retaliating against anyone who criticizes him, including attacking journalists and threatening them with lawsuits as well as firing employees who raise issues within his companies.

robswc 4y ago
How is "retaliating against criticism" contradictory to free speech? I could certainly argue with someone on HN but also say their banning is unjust (if I felt that it was). This has been a "solved" issue for centuries. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/01/defend-say/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/01/defend-say/
- andrewflnr 4y ago
  Your comment is baffling. You ask, 'How is "retaliating against criticism" contradictory to free speech?', then spend the rest of your comment explaining why it's good to not retaliate against criticism. Did you mean to ask and answer your own question? If that was your intent it sure wasn't clear. Do you not know what "retaliate" means, even with the context clue of threatening lawsuits against journalists? Is your first paragraph meant to be entirely causally disconnected from the rest? If so I kind of have to respect it, but it would sure help to give us some clues because that is not a conventional writing structure. What, in short, are you trying to say?
  - robswc 4y ago
    There is nothing contradictory about retaliating against criticism. >Do you not know what "retaliate" means I'm using the actual definition, which I assumed you were too? "make an attack or assault in return for a similar attack." If someone were to criticize you, you can "retaliate" while also believing said person should be kicked off the platform. I'm doing it right now. >threatening lawsuits against journalists https://www.google.com/search?q=elon+musk+threaten+lawsuit+journalist https://www.google.com/search?q=elon+musk+threaten+lawsuit+j... I can't find anything about this, except for a FastCompany article which I can't access atm because their website is down.
- p49k 4y ago
  Retaliation with the intent to silence critics is acting to undermine free speech. He could, for example, welcome the criticism and respond with facts.
  - robswc 4y ago
    >Retaliation with the intent to silence critics which critics? When I search for this, I get this article: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/25/elon-musk-and-free-speech-track-record-not-encouraging.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/25/elon-musk-and-free-speech-tr... Which is full of honestly ridiculous examples like "he told an analyst to shut up and stop asking boneheaded questions." Or "he told his followers to edit his wikipedia page" ...? The "best" examples are of workers are are currently in litigation. Everything else, I see no reason why one couldn't support free speech on a social platform while also requiring beta testers to sign NDAs. >welcome the criticism and respond with facts Do you have examples of where/when this could have been done? At the end of the day, I feel like a lot of this just comes from the fact that when one supports free speech, it comes with a *. It's easier to say "I support free speech" vs "I support the idea people should be able to post their opinions online without being banned (this doesn't mean anyone can post live execution videos or organize crime, etc)."

rchaud 4y ago

He grew up with freedom of speech in apartheid South Africa?

hardnose 4y ago
I feel like this response deliberately avoids the point I was making, in favor of kicking up confusion. He grew up on the internet. At a time when everyone was turning their internet web pages black to protest censorship. At a time when "the internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it" was a slogan touted proudly by technologists and philosophers. It's not Elon Musk that changed, it seems to me. It's the cultural values on the internet that have changed, and arguably not for the better - more control, more censorship, more centralization.
- teachrdan 4y ago
  > He grew up on the internet Elon Musk was born in 1971. He grew up on television.
  - hardnose 4y ago
    So, no thoughts on how Musk's attitude seems remarkably consistent with the speech and actions of the internet's founding minds, I take it?

esotericimpl 4y ago

[dead]

weeblewobble 4y ago

It seems like a lot of people (Rogan, the Thiel guys, Calcanis) are coming to him talking about free speech, and he kind of nods along, but I didn't really see anything that demonstrated his own passion for the topic. He seems primarily motivated by a belief that Twitter is poorly run as a business, and that it will be difficult or impossible to turn it around as a public company.

andrewflnr 4y ago

Because if that's his real motivation, it's more efficient to build a competitor. It would probably be even more efficient to put polish on existing competitors like Mastodon. Buying Twitter is one of the silliest possible approaches. Thus, skepticism.

malshe 4y ago

I wonder whether Elon supports the freedom of speech in China

deanCommie 4y ago

> "freedom of speech" that everyone in his generation grew up with, that served as the impetus for much of the internet's creation Yes, because bulletin board systems famously had no moderation whatsoever. Wait...

hardnose 4y ago
I don't know how much you remember about the transition from BBSes to the internet, but the heavy handed moderation of FidoNet is one of the exact reasons we all flooded into UseNet when it started to become available, and most likely a big part of why "FidoNet" is consigned to history's dustbin despite being, at one time, the most popular forum discussion system.