10 ms·

This is not exactly free speech issue, because Twitter does not ban based on political preferences/opinions. This is dishonest competition (all other major com

This is not exactly free speech issue, because Twitter does not ban based on political preferences/opinions. This is dishonest competition (all other major companies do the same but not as blunt: Facebook, Google, Amazon for example). Twitter could be an exception. But it won't.

dawnbreez 4y ago
> because Twitter does not ban based on political preferences/opinions. Because the journalists Musk banned were definitely not banned for their opinions on Musk? I'm going to preempt the 'harassment' argument--the photo Musk posted, when he was claiming that the journalists caused him to be stalked, was found to have been taken an hour after Musk's jet took off and nowhere near any airport.
- asteroidbelt 4y ago
  > were definitely not banned for their opinions on Musk? They banned because they shared his jet location. > he was claiming that the journalists caused him to be stalked Did he claim that specifically? I'm not sure. But if he did, these claims are probably incorrect. But that does not cancel the fact that journalists were posting jet location after he asked (via twitter policies) not to.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    > They banned because they shared his jet location. This is false in some cases.
  - orwin 4y ago
    One of the journalist didn't even talked about Elonjet, but posted an article about Tesla with data from an insider btw. This claim just fell apart for me when I learned that, do you still believe it's true?
    - asteroidbelt 4y ago
      Can you name the journalists please and some proofs of your accusations? If true, this is serious, but I cannot take it at face value.
      - ceejayoz 4y ago
        Taylor Lorenz was suspended for “prior doxxing” (i.e. before the policy change, and why now?) immediately after asking Musk for comment on a story about his allegation that @elonjet was responsible for a stalking incident. https://variety.com/2022/digital/news/elon-musk-bans-washington-post-taylor-lorenz-1235464419/ https://variety.com/2022/digital/news/elon-musk-bans-washing...
        asteroidbelt 4y ago
        I'm not sure that is true. And she is unsuspended already. Here's her explanation why https://twitter.com/TaylorLorenz/status/1604559889585410048 https://twitter.com/TaylorLorenz/status/1604559889585410048 Here's Musk explanation: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1604482428281753601 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1604482428281753601 (Sorry, could not post earlier, massively downvoted, so HN prohibits me from posting replies.)
        ceejayoz 4y ago
        > I'm not sure that is true. It's at the very least Musk's explanation. Lorenz's tweet with her offsite links predates the new policy; if they're related, the policy was a retroactive explanation similar to how they made up the "no real-time location" policy after banning @elonjet. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11550753/Taylor-Lorenz-suspended-Twitter-just-tweeting-Elon-Musk-seeking-comment-story.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11550753/Taylor-Lor... has a screenshot of her Tweeting him asking for comment on a story that came out today, https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/12/18/details-of-musk-stalking-incident/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/12/18/details.... That, IMO, is the most likely explanation for the action. > And she is unsuspended already. Yes, he's gotten a lot of backlash today.
joshfraser 4y ago
It's both.
mind-blight 4y ago
It's very likely an antitrust issue. This is a significant policy shift meant to stifle a competitor through market dominance rather than competition. I'd be surprised if the consumer protection bureau doesn't start an investigation
- Spooky23 4y ago
  This guy sold “full self driving, someday” for $10,000 for years with no delivery. He doesn’t give a shit about consumer protection agencies.
rocket_surgeron 4y ago
You are correct in that this is not a free speech issue. Private organizations can control what is said on their platform. You are 100% incorrect in that free speech is not, has never been, and will never be limited to political preferences/opinions. Commercial, frivolous, inconsequential, satirical, and all other forms of free and independent thought are "speech". "Drink more Ovaltine" is speech the same way "slavery is bad" is speech. These two disparate utterances are equally important and protected as "speech". "I like big butts and I cannot lie" is speech as important as a treatise on political theory. The comment you replied to lampoons Musk's "free speech absolutist" schtick. A nuance you have failed to appreciate. What hasn't been noted here, yet, as far as I can tell, is that the EU prohibits this type of behavior (banning mentions of competitors) and it will be interesting to see how they respond. But that's an antitrust matter, not free speech.
- easygenes 4y ago
  Well, in the context of Musk's entire public premise for buying Twitter being to provide an at-scale safe haven for online free speech, it absolutely is a free speech issue.
cristoperb 4y ago
> This is not exactly free speech issue, because Twitter does not ban based on political preferences/opinions. Maybe not as much before Musk, but it does now: https://theintercept.com/2022/11/29/elon-musk-twitter-andy-ngo-antifascist/ https://theintercept.com/2022/11/29/elon-musk-twitter-andy-n...
- asteroidbelt 4y ago
  The article is propaganda junk. Did not read every accusation from it, but it mention for example, Andy Ngo and VPS_Report. Here is the tweet about both of them: https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1594550575383072770 https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1594550575383072770 I must say, VPS_Report is an evil person. I don't know if he deserves his right to speech after he posted his threats, but I won't miss him on Twitter. Andy Ngo is fine. You may disagree with him, but he only does journalist work.
  - orwin 4y ago
    I thought @chadloder was a really insightful account with tons of resources for Osint and infosec. I don't get why it's banned, is it because he found some jan6 protestors who weren't caught by the police yet with his tools? And, I mean, crimethinc, really? You cannot do mellower on the anarchist side. I don't think they even defend the second amendment. It's clearly political.
    - asteroidbelt 4y ago
      chadloder seems like a decent person. I'd like to know what Elon or Twitter has on him. Musk promised that everyone will get explanation why they were banned. I'm waiting for it. > It's clearly political. It may be personal, but I doubt it is political. It just happens that people who attack Elon are on the left, and people who were banned by previous administration and unbanned now are on the right, so it looks political. Of course, Twitter moderation should not be based on personal preferences of Elon.
timeon 4y ago
> all other major companies do the same but not as blunt: Facebook, Google, Amazon for example I do not think this is true. At least not in this scale. You can post on FB about Twitter or Mastodon. You can search on Google about DuckDuckGo[0] or OpenStreetMap and so on. [0] Even first suggestion for me when I enter the 'd' char.
- asteroidbelt 4y ago
  > You can post on FB about Twitter or Mastodon Because people do not threaten FB to leave to Mastodon. But you can't link (maybe you can now, but some time ago you couldn't) to Telegram inside Whatsapp, because Facebook considered Telegram a competitor. > You can search on Google about DuckDuckGo Again, because Google does not consider DDG a competitor. But a while ago (long before the war when everybody were at peace), Russia was the only country where Google Chrome did not offer the choice of search engine. Because Russia was the only country where Google was not the leading search engine. There's famous commit in Chromium repository which explicitly excludes Russia.
- berniedurfee 4y ago
  I believe I’ve seen DDG ads on Google as well.
JohnTHaller 4y ago
Elon Musk killed Twitter Spaces because he was mad at being called out over lying about why he banned journalists: https://twitter.com/ForeverEversley/status/1603612770892918784 https://twitter.com/ForeverEversley/status/16036127708929187...
yellowapple 4y ago
> This is not exactly free speech issue, because Twitter does not ban based on political preferences/opinions. Freedom of speech encompasses far more than just "political preferences/opinions". > This is dishonest competition (all other major companies do the same but not as blunt: Facebook, Google, Amazon for example). 1. I know of exactly zero other social media platforms that ban the mere mention of other social media platforms. 2. Precisely none of those companies are owned entirely by individuals claiming to be "free speech absolutists". 3. Mastodon is not a company, major or otherwise. It's a "competitor" to Twitter in the same sense that me raising chickens in my backyard makes me a "competitor" to Tyson or Foster Farms.
- asteroidbelt 4y ago
  > I know of exactly zero other social media platforms that ban the mere mention of other social media platforms WhatsApp banned links to Telegram. Facebook ranks links to Twitter/YouTube lower than content without such links. > Precisely none of those companies are owned entirely by individuals claiming to be "free speech absolutists" Either Elon Musk is no longer "free speech absolutist" or does not consider Twitter policy must match his personal preferences. > Mastodon is not a company, major or otherwise Competition may be not only for money, but also competition for users. It is quite possible that critical number of users will leave Twitter for Mastodon.
  - yellowapple 4y ago
    > WhatsApp banned links to Telegram. > Facebook ranks links to Twitter/YouTube lower than content without such links. Right, links, not "mere mentions". > Either Elon Musk is no longer "free speech absolutist" or does not consider Twitter policy must match his personal preferences. Very likely the former - or more accurately, he wasn't ever a "free speech absolutist" in the first place, but dishonestly claimed to be one. The latter is obviously a possibility, though it would go against the whole ostensible point of him buying Twitter in the first place. > It is quite possible that critical number of users will leave Twitter for Mastodon. It is also quite possible that a critical number of chicken eaters will stop buying frozen chicken strips in favor of raising chickens themselves or getting chicken meat from neighbors who do so. That doesn't make backyard chicken farmers Tyson/Foster competitors in any meaningful sense.
jesboat 4y ago
> This is dishonest competition (all other major companies do the same but not as blunt: Facebook, Google, Amazon for example). Twitter could be an exception. But it won't. During the #deletefacebook movement, Facebook didn't ban links to or discussion of competitors.
- asteroidbelt 4y ago
  Perhaps because not a lot of people posted links to their new profiles on Facebook and Facebook did not consider that a threat. But Facebook bans links to Telegram in WhatsApp. Also Facebook ranks posts with links to Twitter (or YouTube) lower than other posts.

dawnbreez 4y ago

> because Twitter does not ban based on political preferences/opinions. Because the journalists Musk banned were definitely not banned for their opinions on Musk? I'm going to preempt the 'harassment' argument--the photo Musk posted, when he was claiming that the journalists caused him to be stalked, was found to have been taken an hour after Musk's jet took off and nowhere near any airport.

asteroidbelt 4y ago
> were definitely not banned for their opinions on Musk? They banned because they shared his jet location. > he was claiming that the journalists caused him to be stalked Did he claim that specifically? I'm not sure. But if he did, these claims are probably incorrect. But that does not cancel the fact that journalists were posting jet location after he asked (via twitter policies) not to.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > They banned because they shared his jet location. This is false in some cases.
- orwin 4y ago
  One of the journalist didn't even talked about Elonjet, but posted an article about Tesla with data from an insider btw. This claim just fell apart for me when I learned that, do you still believe it's true?
  - asteroidbelt 4y ago
    Can you name the journalists please and some proofs of your accusations? If true, this is serious, but I cannot take it at face value.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      Taylor Lorenz was suspended for “prior doxxing” (i.e. before the policy change, and why now?) immediately after asking Musk for comment on a story about his allegation that @elonjet was responsible for a stalking incident. https://variety.com/2022/digital/news/elon-musk-bans-washington-post-taylor-lorenz-1235464419/ https://variety.com/2022/digital/news/elon-musk-bans-washing...
      - asteroidbelt 4y ago
        I'm not sure that is true. And she is unsuspended already. Here's her explanation why https://twitter.com/TaylorLorenz/status/1604559889585410048 https://twitter.com/TaylorLorenz/status/1604559889585410048 Here's Musk explanation: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1604482428281753601 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1604482428281753601 (Sorry, could not post earlier, massively downvoted, so HN prohibits me from posting replies.)
        ceejayoz 4y ago
        > I'm not sure that is true. It's at the very least Musk's explanation. Lorenz's tweet with her offsite links predates the new policy; if they're related, the policy was a retroactive explanation similar to how they made up the "no real-time location" policy after banning @elonjet. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11550753/Taylor-Lorenz-suspended-Twitter-just-tweeting-Elon-Musk-seeking-comment-story.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11550753/Taylor-Lor... has a screenshot of her Tweeting him asking for comment on a story that came out today, https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/12/18/details-of-musk-stalking-incident/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/12/18/details.... That, IMO, is the most likely explanation for the action. > And she is unsuspended already. Yes, he's gotten a lot of backlash today.

joshfraser 4y ago

It's both.

mind-blight 4y ago

It's very likely an antitrust issue. This is a significant policy shift meant to stifle a competitor through market dominance rather than competition. I'd be surprised if the consumer protection bureau doesn't start an investigation

Spooky23 4y ago
This guy sold “full self driving, someday” for $10,000 for years with no delivery. He doesn’t give a shit about consumer protection agencies.

rocket_surgeron 4y ago

You are correct in that this is not a free speech issue. Private organizations can control what is said on their platform. You are 100% incorrect in that free speech is not, has never been, and will never be limited to political preferences/opinions. Commercial, frivolous, inconsequential, satirical, and all other forms of free and independent thought are "speech". "Drink more Ovaltine" is speech the same way "slavery is bad" is speech. These two disparate utterances are equally important and protected as "speech". "I like big butts and I cannot lie" is speech as important as a treatise on political theory. The comment you replied to lampoons Musk's "free speech absolutist" schtick. A nuance you have failed to appreciate. What hasn't been noted here, yet, as far as I can tell, is that the EU prohibits this type of behavior (banning mentions of competitors) and it will be interesting to see how they respond. But that's an antitrust matter, not free speech.

easygenes 4y ago
Well, in the context of Musk's entire public premise for buying Twitter being to provide an at-scale safe haven for online free speech, it absolutely is a free speech issue.

cristoperb 4y ago

> This is not exactly free speech issue, because Twitter does not ban based on political preferences/opinions. Maybe not as much before Musk, but it does now: https://theintercept.com/2022/11/29/elon-musk-twitter-andy-ngo-antifascist/ https://theintercept.com/2022/11/29/elon-musk-twitter-andy-n...

asteroidbelt 4y ago
The article is propaganda junk. Did not read every accusation from it, but it mention for example, Andy Ngo and VPS_Report. Here is the tweet about both of them: https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1594550575383072770 https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1594550575383072770 I must say, VPS_Report is an evil person. I don't know if he deserves his right to speech after he posted his threats, but I won't miss him on Twitter. Andy Ngo is fine. You may disagree with him, but he only does journalist work.
- orwin 4y ago
  I thought @chadloder was a really insightful account with tons of resources for Osint and infosec. I don't get why it's banned, is it because he found some jan6 protestors who weren't caught by the police yet with his tools? And, I mean, crimethinc, really? You cannot do mellower on the anarchist side. I don't think they even defend the second amendment. It's clearly political.
  - asteroidbelt 4y ago
    chadloder seems like a decent person. I'd like to know what Elon or Twitter has on him. Musk promised that everyone will get explanation why they were banned. I'm waiting for it. > It's clearly political. It may be personal, but I doubt it is political. It just happens that people who attack Elon are on the left, and people who were banned by previous administration and unbanned now are on the right, so it looks political. Of course, Twitter moderation should not be based on personal preferences of Elon.

timeon 4y ago

> all other major companies do the same but not as blunt: Facebook, Google, Amazon for example I do not think this is true. At least not in this scale. You can post on FB about Twitter or Mastodon. You can search on Google about DuckDuckGo[0] or OpenStreetMap and so on. [0] Even first suggestion for me when I enter the 'd' char.

asteroidbelt 4y ago
> You can post on FB about Twitter or Mastodon Because people do not threaten FB to leave to Mastodon. But you can't link (maybe you can now, but some time ago you couldn't) to Telegram inside Whatsapp, because Facebook considered Telegram a competitor. > You can search on Google about DuckDuckGo Again, because Google does not consider DDG a competitor. But a while ago (long before the war when everybody were at peace), Russia was the only country where Google Chrome did not offer the choice of search engine. Because Russia was the only country where Google was not the leading search engine. There's famous commit in Chromium repository which explicitly excludes Russia.
berniedurfee 4y ago
I believe I’ve seen DDG ads on Google as well.

JohnTHaller 4y ago

Elon Musk killed Twitter Spaces because he was mad at being called out over lying about why he banned journalists: https://twitter.com/ForeverEversley/status/1603612770892918784 https://twitter.com/ForeverEversley/status/16036127708929187...

yellowapple 4y ago

> This is not exactly free speech issue, because Twitter does not ban based on political preferences/opinions. Freedom of speech encompasses far more than just "political preferences/opinions". > This is dishonest competition (all other major companies do the same but not as blunt: Facebook, Google, Amazon for example). 1. I know of exactly zero other social media platforms that ban the mere mention of other social media platforms. 2. Precisely none of those companies are owned entirely by individuals claiming to be "free speech absolutists". 3. Mastodon is not a company, major or otherwise. It's a "competitor" to Twitter in the same sense that me raising chickens in my backyard makes me a "competitor" to Tyson or Foster Farms.

asteroidbelt 4y ago
> I know of exactly zero other social media platforms that ban the mere mention of other social media platforms WhatsApp banned links to Telegram. Facebook ranks links to Twitter/YouTube lower than content without such links. > Precisely none of those companies are owned entirely by individuals claiming to be "free speech absolutists" Either Elon Musk is no longer "free speech absolutist" or does not consider Twitter policy must match his personal preferences. > Mastodon is not a company, major or otherwise Competition may be not only for money, but also competition for users. It is quite possible that critical number of users will leave Twitter for Mastodon.
- yellowapple 4y ago
  > WhatsApp banned links to Telegram. > Facebook ranks links to Twitter/YouTube lower than content without such links. Right, links, not "mere mentions". > Either Elon Musk is no longer "free speech absolutist" or does not consider Twitter policy must match his personal preferences. Very likely the former - or more accurately, he wasn't ever a "free speech absolutist" in the first place, but dishonestly claimed to be one. The latter is obviously a possibility, though it would go against the whole ostensible point of him buying Twitter in the first place. > It is quite possible that critical number of users will leave Twitter for Mastodon. It is also quite possible that a critical number of chicken eaters will stop buying frozen chicken strips in favor of raising chickens themselves or getting chicken meat from neighbors who do so. That doesn't make backyard chicken farmers Tyson/Foster competitors in any meaningful sense.

jesboat 4y ago

> This is dishonest competition (all other major companies do the same but not as blunt: Facebook, Google, Amazon for example). Twitter could be an exception. But it won't. During the #deletefacebook movement, Facebook didn't ban links to or discussion of competitors.

asteroidbelt 4y ago
Perhaps because not a lot of people posted links to their new profiles on Facebook and Facebook did not consider that a threat. But Facebook bans links to Telegram in WhatsApp. Also Facebook ranks posts with links to Twitter (or YouTube) lower than other posts.