Elon Musk and Tucker Carlson Don’t Understand the First Amendment(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
Elon Musk and Tucker Carlson Don’t Understand the First Amendment
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/12/elon-musk-and-tucker-carlson-dont-understand-the-first-amendment/672352/
51 comments
> Elon can start censoring Democrats and any left wing ideas and that should be ok, right?
Constitutionally, yes. (And, that’s good for him, since he has done that.)
> He can get funding from the RNC
I mean, he could, but since his resources are vastly greater than the RNCs, that would hardly make any difference one way or the other.
> work with Republicans who are not in government, and let them dictate how the platform should be run.
Coordinating with candidates would likely break federal campaign finance laws, but it wouldn’t violate Constitutional free speech protections.
> Twitter can become a right wing haven, having massive amounts of influence on the public without any challenge from the other side, and that should be perfectly fine, correct?
Well, I mean, it can try. It probably won’t be any more durably successful than all the other attempts to create right-wing social media havens, turning into a circle jerk preaching-to-the-choir zone that is unattractive to advertisers or any other mechanism of monetization, where even the right wingers lose interest because they have no one to influence.
Twitter had a right-wing bias before Musk took over. Trying to push it over into Parler/Gab/Truth Social territory is perfectly legal, but not likely to be particularly sustainable as a business (though Musk is rich enough that as long as he is willing to continue depleting the wealth he has generated from other sources to fund it, he can probably keep it going for quite a while.)
Constitutionally, yes. (And, that’s good for him, since he has done that.)
> He can get funding from the RNC
I mean, he could, but since his resources are vastly greater than the RNCs, that would hardly make any difference one way or the other.
> work with Republicans who are not in government, and let them dictate how the platform should be run.
Coordinating with candidates would likely break federal campaign finance laws, but it wouldn’t violate Constitutional free speech protections.
> Twitter can become a right wing haven, having massive amounts of influence on the public without any challenge from the other side, and that should be perfectly fine, correct?
Well, I mean, it can try. It probably won’t be any more durably successful than all the other attempts to create right-wing social media havens, turning into a circle jerk preaching-to-the-choir zone that is unattractive to advertisers or any other mechanism of monetization, where even the right wingers lose interest because they have no one to influence.
Twitter had a right-wing bias before Musk took over. Trying to push it over into Parler/Gab/Truth Social territory is perfectly legal, but not likely to be particularly sustainable as a business (though Musk is rich enough that as long as he is willing to continue depleting the wealth he has generated from other sources to fund it, he can probably keep it going for quite a while.)
Well, great. That sounds consistent. One minor point thought, political bias doesn't mean the platform leans in that direction, but rather the platform is actively pushing in that direction by censoring opinions on the opposite side. I don't think Twitter was right-leaning this way before, and I would rather it stay truly open for everyone. It's different if the platform is open, everyone has a voice, and the culture still pushes it in one or the other direction.
> political bias doesn’t mean the platform leans in that direction
That’s exactly, literally what bias means.
> but rather the platform is actively pushing in that direction
No, active agenda and bias are not the same thing.
That’s exactly, literally what bias means.
> but rather the platform is actively pushing in that direction
No, active agenda and bias are not the same thing.
> Ok... so according to this article, Elon can start censoring Democrats and any left wing ideas and that should be ok, right? That wouldn't violate free speech. He can get funding from the RNC, work with Republicans who are not in government, and let them dictate how the platform should be run. Twitter can become a right wing haven, having massive amounts of influence on the public without any challenge from the other side, and that should be perfectly fine, correct?
As far as the 1st amendment goes: correct.
As far as the 1st amendment goes: correct.
Then great, that is consistent. I just doubt that would be the case. I think the actual justification for banning one political side is not "it's a private company", but rather "it allows our side to win".
No one banned one political side except Fox News
> I think the actual justification for banning one political side is not “it’s a private company”
That wasn’t the claimed justification. (That is the reason it is not a violation of Constitutional free speech, but not the reason for the action.)
That wasn’t the claimed justification. (That is the reason it is not a violation of Constitutional free speech, but not the reason for the action.)
What’s the double standard? A private company can choose to be partisan. See Fox News or Truth Social.
So if Trump goes back on twitter, and he gains massive popularity winning the 2024 election, there is no problem right? If so, there is no double standard, but I seriously doubt those who celebrated his ban, will now be ok with his return, despite the reasoning being the same.
> So if Trump goes back on twitter, and he gains massive popularity winning the 2024 election, there is no problem right?
There may be a problem, but the problem isn’t a free speech problem.
> If so, there is no double standard, but I seriously doubt those who celebrated his ban, will now be ok with his return, despite the reasoning being the same.
The reasoning behind the ban was inciting violence. If he is returned for the same reason, that’s…problematic from the moral perspective that sees inciting violence as problematic, whereas the ban is not. That’s not a double standard.
There may be a problem, but the problem isn’t a free speech problem.
> If so, there is no double standard, but I seriously doubt those who celebrated his ban, will now be ok with his return, despite the reasoning being the same.
The reasoning behind the ban was inciting violence. If he is returned for the same reason, that’s…problematic from the moral perspective that sees inciting violence as problematic, whereas the ban is not. That’s not a double standard.
I doubt that reasoning. I'm sure there are worse cases that were not banned, but of course one side thought Trump was an existential threat, so there were more underlying reasons. I think Twitter is about to release more email threads on that specific banning next week, so we'll see the real reason they banned him.
> I doubt that reasoning.
You can doubt what you want, but you seem like a lunatic if you accuse people who don’t doubt it of having a double standard based on your fantasies of what the secret reason is and your additional fantasy that they secretly share your view of the secret reason.
You can doubt what you want, but you seem like a lunatic if you accuse people who don’t doubt it of having a double standard based on your fantasies of what the secret reason is and your additional fantasy that they secretly share your view of the secret reason.
mcrad(1)
I truly don’t understand your point. People can complain about Trump being on there. They can threaten to leave Twitter. Advertisers can pull out of Twitter. Twitter can choose to allow him to stay or ban him.
Where is there a problem here?
Where is there a problem here?
My interpretation of the article is that they're excusing direct interference by a government entity just because they're not directly in power (but obviously power is their objective). This implies that it would be justified for Trump to influence Twitter and have them ban people who speak against Trump, and this article should defend that as well. I have a feeling people would not see those two cases as equal. If they do, then great, that's consistent, but I'm pretty sure there are going to be massive protests, and that highlights the double standard.
Sure, people can leave, complain, protest etc., my point is, that is a double standard.
Sure, people can leave, complain, protest etc., my point is, that is a double standard.
They aren’t a government entity!!!
The error is to assume that Musk actually cares about the First Amendment in the first place. He doesn't.
Musk is an authoritarian at heart. What he cares most about is achieving the maximum authority with the least constraint. He will say and do anything in the pursuit of that.
In this regard, Musk and Trump are very similar people. For both of them, the First Amendment is a stage prop to be used in their pantomimes. It's not something they truly believe in, especially because people might exercise the First Amendment to criticize them.
Musk is an authoritarian at heart. What he cares most about is achieving the maximum authority with the least constraint. He will say and do anything in the pursuit of that.
In this regard, Musk and Trump are very similar people. For both of them, the First Amendment is a stage prop to be used in their pantomimes. It's not something they truly believe in, especially because people might exercise the First Amendment to criticize them.
But hallmarks of authoritarianism are censorship, centralized power, collusion of private and public sectors.
If by authoritarian you mean he is mean to crybabies in his own company, you might read up on how actual authoritarians have gained power throughout history (hint: they get the crybabies on their side)
Clearly, Musk got into the Twitter business to reduce authoritarian tendencies exhibited by former staff.
If by authoritarian you mean he is mean to crybabies in his own company, you might read up on how actual authoritarians have gained power throughout history (hint: they get the crybabies on their side)
Clearly, Musk got into the Twitter business to reduce authoritarian tendencies exhibited by former staff.
What content was Trump effective at censoring?
Protest suppression:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/trumps-gro...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/02/timeline-...
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/trumps-gro...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/02/timeline-...
Those are such great examples, and they are actual violations of the first amendment.
Curious why you didn't use 2021 articles that refute your 2020 links.
> Musk is an authoritarian at heart. What he cares most about is achieving the maximum authority with the least constraint
I'm really wanting to understand where this view comes from.
What are the specific pieces of evidence for this? Who does he want authority over? How does that help him achieve his desired outcomes?
From my position, I have no dog in the fight but from a brief assessment of his public words and actions I see someone who is fairly left-wing on economics, drug policy and the environment, and his underlying position on free speech seems congruent with those of George Orwell and John Stuart Mill, both of whom were strongly left-libertarian in their time.
What are the specific pieces of evidence that demonstrate what he really wants, and what will really benefit him personally, is to take away people's freedom and agency?
I'm really wanting to understand where this view comes from.
What are the specific pieces of evidence for this? Who does he want authority over? How does that help him achieve his desired outcomes?
From my position, I have no dog in the fight but from a brief assessment of his public words and actions I see someone who is fairly left-wing on economics, drug policy and the environment, and his underlying position on free speech seems congruent with those of George Orwell and John Stuart Mill, both of whom were strongly left-libertarian in their time.
What are the specific pieces of evidence that demonstrate what he really wants, and what will really benefit him personally, is to take away people's freedom and agency?
> I'm really wanting to understand where this view comes from.
Musk's free advice for Ukraine is to submit to Russia. Ukraine advised Musk to "fuck off": https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/04/zelenskiy-hits...
But Russia loved him for it: https://futurism.com/the-byte/russia-loves-elon-musk-now
Musk's free advice for Taiwan is to submit to China: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/oct/08/elon-musk...
Musk says China rocks and the US is full of complacency and entitlement: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/31/tesla-ceo-elon-musk-china-ro...
He ridiculously called California's covid measures fascist: https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/29/21242102/elon-musk-corona...
But had Tesla praise China's covid measures because Tesla "believed Shanghai's COVID-19 measures helped lay the foundation for the city's future development": https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-...
Musk voted for Mayra Flores, an election denier and January 6th conspiracy theorist:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1536973965394157569
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/elon-musk-drifti...
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/23/politics/mayra-flores-cap...
Musk spreads conspiracy theories himself: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/oct/30/elon-musk...
Musk fires employees when they disagree with him, publicly or privately. So much for his free speech absolutism: https://www.theverge.com/2022/11/15/23460729/elon-musk-fire-...
Then Musk had a laugh about it in public. He enjoys it: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1592569305941807104
Musk is showing you who and what he is. Believe him.
Musk's free advice for Ukraine is to submit to Russia. Ukraine advised Musk to "fuck off": https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/04/zelenskiy-hits...
But Russia loved him for it: https://futurism.com/the-byte/russia-loves-elon-musk-now
Musk's free advice for Taiwan is to submit to China: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/oct/08/elon-musk...
Musk says China rocks and the US is full of complacency and entitlement: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/31/tesla-ceo-elon-musk-china-ro...
He ridiculously called California's covid measures fascist: https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/29/21242102/elon-musk-corona...
But had Tesla praise China's covid measures because Tesla "believed Shanghai's COVID-19 measures helped lay the foundation for the city's future development": https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-...
Musk voted for Mayra Flores, an election denier and January 6th conspiracy theorist:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1536973965394157569
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/elon-musk-drifti...
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/23/politics/mayra-flores-cap...
Musk spreads conspiracy theories himself: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/oct/30/elon-musk...
Musk fires employees when they disagree with him, publicly or privately. So much for his free speech absolutism: https://www.theverge.com/2022/11/15/23460729/elon-musk-fire-...
Then Musk had a laugh about it in public. He enjoys it: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1592569305941807104
Musk is showing you who and what he is. Believe him.
> Musk's free advice for Ukraine is to submit to Russia. Ukraine advised Musk to "fuck off": https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/04/zelenskiy-hits...
This is misreporting. The person who said "fuck off" was a former politician who was recalled by the Ukrainian government. People mistake him for being an active politician because he hadn't changed his Twitter bio. And it's important to look at the reasoning for why Elon said what he did. He's certainly misguided, but the reasoning was to reduce human death, not because of authoritarianism.
> Musk's free advice for Taiwan is to submit to China: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/oct/08/elon-musk...
This was in a one-off interview and he was explicitly asked about Taiwan. And you misdescribe what he said. He did not say to submit to China.
> Musk says China rocks and the US is full of complacency and entitlement: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/31/tesla-ceo-elon-musk-china-ro...
There's nothing authoritarian about this and this is certainly an argument that can be made. I don't think China rocks, but China's work ethic is definitely better than the US.
> He ridiculously called California's covid measures fascist: https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/29/21242102/elon-musk-corona...
The important missing context is at the time Tesla was shut down with lower covid rates in the area while other car manufacturers were operating.
> But had Tesla praise China's covid measures because Tesla "believed Shanghai's COVID-19 measures helped lay the foundation for the city's future development": https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-...
At the time yes. He hasn't said as much recently.
> Musk fires employees when they disagree with him, publicly or privately. So much for his free speech absolutism: https://www.theverge.com/2022/11/15/23460729/elon-musk-fire-...
Attacking your boss in public with expletives will get you fired from any job I can think of. Nothing authoritarian here unless you want to say all bosses are authoritarians.
This is misreporting. The person who said "fuck off" was a former politician who was recalled by the Ukrainian government. People mistake him for being an active politician because he hadn't changed his Twitter bio. And it's important to look at the reasoning for why Elon said what he did. He's certainly misguided, but the reasoning was to reduce human death, not because of authoritarianism.
> Musk's free advice for Taiwan is to submit to China: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/oct/08/elon-musk...
This was in a one-off interview and he was explicitly asked about Taiwan. And you misdescribe what he said. He did not say to submit to China.
> Musk says China rocks and the US is full of complacency and entitlement: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/31/tesla-ceo-elon-musk-china-ro...
There's nothing authoritarian about this and this is certainly an argument that can be made. I don't think China rocks, but China's work ethic is definitely better than the US.
> He ridiculously called California's covid measures fascist: https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/29/21242102/elon-musk-corona...
The important missing context is at the time Tesla was shut down with lower covid rates in the area while other car manufacturers were operating.
> But had Tesla praise China's covid measures because Tesla "believed Shanghai's COVID-19 measures helped lay the foundation for the city's future development": https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-...
At the time yes. He hasn't said as much recently.
> Musk fires employees when they disagree with him, publicly or privately. So much for his free speech absolutism: https://www.theverge.com/2022/11/15/23460729/elon-musk-fire-...
Attacking your boss in public with expletives will get you fired from any job I can think of. Nothing authoritarian here unless you want to say all bosses are authoritarians.
> He's certainly misguided, but the reasoning was to reduce human death, not because of authoritarianism.
Russia has invaded Ukraine. It's irrelevant what Musk's reasoning is. He is advocating submission to Russia's war aims.
Authoritarians always trot out platitudes to justify their authoritarianism. Trump, for example, claimed he was going to "make America great again" and save America from the "LameStream Media" which is, of course, the "enemy of the American people" and so on and so forth. Trump's latest idea is to terminate the constitution, so that's nice: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/03/politics/trump-constituti...
Musk will apparently use Twitter to bring "power to the people": https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1588739131815112704
And it turns out that through Twitter he's involved in a "battle for the future of civilization". He's going to save us all: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1597405399040217088
You've bought into the pantomime.
> He did not say to submit to China.
Of course he did. What do you think a "special administrative zone" is? It's certainly not Taiwanese independence or Taiwanese sovereignty. How'd Hong Kong's "two systems, one country" work out for it? Not too good. China quickly became bored with the pretense.
> There's nothing authoritarian about this and this is certainly an argument that can be made.
Sure there is. He likes good little workers and no back talk. He likes the authority.
> The important missing context is at the time Tesla was shut down with lower covid rates in the area while other car manufacturers were operating.
Uh huh. So it's all a big conspiracy and Musk is a victim.
Authoritarians do like to portray themselves as victims. They always have to do what they do because they have been victimized and they must right the wrongs in the world. And, what's more, they're doing it for our own good.
> At the time yes. He hasn't said as much recently.
Oh, so he was only a hypocrite in the past? Well that's alright then. Hooray!
> Attacking your boss in public with expletives will get you fired from any job I can think of.
Weak and thin skinned for a self proclaimed free speech absolutist.
It's always fascinating to see people being unable to believe that Musk is what he is.
Russia has invaded Ukraine. It's irrelevant what Musk's reasoning is. He is advocating submission to Russia's war aims.
Authoritarians always trot out platitudes to justify their authoritarianism. Trump, for example, claimed he was going to "make America great again" and save America from the "LameStream Media" which is, of course, the "enemy of the American people" and so on and so forth. Trump's latest idea is to terminate the constitution, so that's nice: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/03/politics/trump-constituti...
Musk will apparently use Twitter to bring "power to the people": https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1588739131815112704
And it turns out that through Twitter he's involved in a "battle for the future of civilization". He's going to save us all: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1597405399040217088
You've bought into the pantomime.
> He did not say to submit to China.
Of course he did. What do you think a "special administrative zone" is? It's certainly not Taiwanese independence or Taiwanese sovereignty. How'd Hong Kong's "two systems, one country" work out for it? Not too good. China quickly became bored with the pretense.
> There's nothing authoritarian about this and this is certainly an argument that can be made.
Sure there is. He likes good little workers and no back talk. He likes the authority.
> The important missing context is at the time Tesla was shut down with lower covid rates in the area while other car manufacturers were operating.
Uh huh. So it's all a big conspiracy and Musk is a victim.
Authoritarians do like to portray themselves as victims. They always have to do what they do because they have been victimized and they must right the wrongs in the world. And, what's more, they're doing it for our own good.
> At the time yes. He hasn't said as much recently.
Oh, so he was only a hypocrite in the past? Well that's alright then. Hooray!
> Attacking your boss in public with expletives will get you fired from any job I can think of.
Weak and thin skinned for a self proclaimed free speech absolutist.
It's always fascinating to see people being unable to believe that Musk is what he is.
> Russia has invaded Ukraine. It's irrelevant what Musk's reasoning is. He is advocating submission to Russia's war aims.
It's very important what Musk's reasoning is. Multiple lines of reasoning can lead to similar solutions. There is not a one-to-one mapping from ideas on how to handle something and conclusions.
> Authoritarians always trot out platitudes to justify their authoritarianism. Trump, for example, claimed he was going to "make America great again" and save America from the "LameStream Media" which is, of course, the "enemy of the American people" and so on and so forth. Trump's latest idea is to terminate the constitution, so that's nice: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/03/politics/trump-constituti...
Except "make America great again" is not a "platitude", it's an explicit nationalist goal with authoritarian innuendo. Unless you can somehow make the argument that any type of pacifist or non-violent request is arguing for authoritarianism then I don't know where you can go with this.
> Of course he did. What do you think a "special administrative zone" is? It's certainly not Taiwanese independence or Taiwanese sovereignty. How'd Hong Kong's "two systems, one country" work out for it? Not too good. China quickly became bored with the pretense.
Except he explicitly called out Hong Kong as an example of what not to do in that same message.
> Sure there is. He likes good little workers and no back talk. He likes the authority.
So do most bosses at any company. They're not authoritarian. It's human nature to feel good in commanding positions. It takes a lot of effort to cultivate people who will actually challenge you as you need to go against your natural feelings.
> Uh huh. So it's all a big conspiracy and Musk is a victim.
I never said it was a conspiracy. Tesla (not Elon) _was_ a victim of the situation though.
> Authoritarians do like to portray themselves as victims. They always have to do what they do because they have been victimized and they must right the wrongs in the world. And, what's more, they're doing it for our own good.
Almost all of what Elon has historically done has not been for his own good. He has a proven track record of creating products that better the world, save government money, and push technology in the industry forward. In terms of actual good for the world he's one of the most ethical leaders out there. He specifically rails on shareholders that ruin other companies by only caring about money. He actively praises other companies in the same industry when they achieve similar things.
> Weak and thin skinned for a self proclaimed free speech absolutist.
Last I checked, that person was still on twitter and hasn't had their speech restricted. He could have banned them from Twitter too, he didn't. If you attack your boss you affect the working environment as it makes working uncomfortable. I wouldn't want to work with a co-worker who was attacking my boss in public.
> It's always fascinating to see people being unable to believe that Musk is what he is.
I find it fascinating and depressing to watch the extent that people will go to defame one of the most important people of our era because of what he and his companies have accomplished, either through jealousy or misinformation or fear.
It's very important what Musk's reasoning is. Multiple lines of reasoning can lead to similar solutions. There is not a one-to-one mapping from ideas on how to handle something and conclusions.
> Authoritarians always trot out platitudes to justify their authoritarianism. Trump, for example, claimed he was going to "make America great again" and save America from the "LameStream Media" which is, of course, the "enemy of the American people" and so on and so forth. Trump's latest idea is to terminate the constitution, so that's nice: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/03/politics/trump-constituti...
Except "make America great again" is not a "platitude", it's an explicit nationalist goal with authoritarian innuendo. Unless you can somehow make the argument that any type of pacifist or non-violent request is arguing for authoritarianism then I don't know where you can go with this.
> Of course he did. What do you think a "special administrative zone" is? It's certainly not Taiwanese independence or Taiwanese sovereignty. How'd Hong Kong's "two systems, one country" work out for it? Not too good. China quickly became bored with the pretense.
Except he explicitly called out Hong Kong as an example of what not to do in that same message.
> Sure there is. He likes good little workers and no back talk. He likes the authority.
So do most bosses at any company. They're not authoritarian. It's human nature to feel good in commanding positions. It takes a lot of effort to cultivate people who will actually challenge you as you need to go against your natural feelings.
> Uh huh. So it's all a big conspiracy and Musk is a victim.
I never said it was a conspiracy. Tesla (not Elon) _was_ a victim of the situation though.
> Authoritarians do like to portray themselves as victims. They always have to do what they do because they have been victimized and they must right the wrongs in the world. And, what's more, they're doing it for our own good.
Almost all of what Elon has historically done has not been for his own good. He has a proven track record of creating products that better the world, save government money, and push technology in the industry forward. In terms of actual good for the world he's one of the most ethical leaders out there. He specifically rails on shareholders that ruin other companies by only caring about money. He actively praises other companies in the same industry when they achieve similar things.
> Weak and thin skinned for a self proclaimed free speech absolutist.
Last I checked, that person was still on twitter and hasn't had their speech restricted. He could have banned them from Twitter too, he didn't. If you attack your boss you affect the working environment as it makes working uncomfortable. I wouldn't want to work with a co-worker who was attacking my boss in public.
> It's always fascinating to see people being unable to believe that Musk is what he is.
I find it fascinating and depressing to watch the extent that people will go to defame one of the most important people of our era because of what he and his companies have accomplished, either through jealousy or misinformation or fear.
Musk doesn't need any help from me to damage his reputation. No one is doing it to him, he does it to himself.
[deleted]
I understand you have a passionately held opinion about these matters, and it's unlikely I or anyone is likely to change your mind about much of it. But, as it's often said, you don't understand your own position thoroughly until you understand the other position thoroughly, so for the sake of you or anyone else who wants to be on solid ground, I'll put some responses.
To declare my hand somewhat, when I said I have no dog in the fight, that refers to Musk; I don't find him a particularly admirable person, or someone likely to lead bringing about the changes I want to see in the world. What I bring to this is at least a couple of decades deeply exploring the question of how every/any person can live with maximum liberty and agency, and achieve an objectively satisfying life, no matter the circumstances of their birth or other issues over which they had no control. Musk doesn't have a huge amount to offer on that topic, so I'm not here to support or adulate him, but I do care about words like "authoritarianism" being used with a reasonable level of accuracy, and I always hate seeing people being portrayed negatively on largely false grounds.
I'll note that your previous response contains a lot of just-so argumentation ("He likes good little workers and no back talk. He likes the authority"), and ad-hominem attacks/character insinuations ("It's always fascinating to see people being unable to believe that Musk is what he is"). You need to cut out these swipes if you want to be seen as an objective, good-faith debater.
To respond to your main arguments in the last comment:
- On Russia/Ukraine and China/Taiwan: He just seems to be focused on ending these conflicts with minimal bloodshed and destruction. He didn't argue for Ukraine to just submit; he said there should be an externally supervised referendum so the people in the contested regions can self-determine which country they're in and that everyone can peacefully accept the outcome. That's as anti-authoritarian as you can get. In both cases of Russia/Ukraine and China/Taiwan, he sees that the worst case scenario is utterly catastrophic (all-out global nuclear exchanges), and wants to find ways to resolve these disputes before it gets anywhere near that. As divorce negotiators will tell you, when everyone is playing an all-or-nothing battle, everyone loses, whereas if you can find a way for everyone to get 75% of what they want, a peaceful result is much more likely. It doesn't follow that his desire for peace is authoritarian; generally it's authoritarians who like endless wars. He's advocating for the most effective way to end/prevent war. You can disagree with his position, but authoritarianism is not the issue here.
- "Sure there is. He likes good little workers and no back talk. He likes the authority": You've presented no evidence for this, it's a just-so story, though a familiar one; plenty of people will similarly assert that he just wants to fill his companies with sycophants. The thing is, sycophants and "good little workers" don't get reusable rockets working reliably, nor newly developed automotive technology. The evidence I can see is that he wants highly skilled people who know their field extremely well and will just get shit done, not waste their colleagues' time and energy with endless petty drama. When people spend a lot of time stirring up drama, it's generally a pretty good sign that they're not so good at their work. So again, it's not about authoritarianism, it's about getting good work done without drama.
- On COVID lockdowns; you can disagree with his position, accuse him of playing the victim, fine, whatever. It just doesn't have much to do with authoritarianism. Clearly, the governments/bodies mandating lockdowns and vaccinations were authoritarian. You can say it was justified authoritarianism, sure. I've been fairly comfortable with the lockdowns and measures imposed where I live in Australia, which many have described as being very authoritarian. But you can't say the people arguing against lockdowns were authoritarian. Any criticism for opposing lockdowns has to use words other than "authoritarian".
That's probably enough of a reply from me; the earlier reply from someone else covered the rest.
As I said I don't expect to persuade you but if you must respond, please try to do so without ad-hom and just-so story.
I'll note that your previous response contains a lot of just-so argumentation ("He likes good little workers and no back talk. He likes the authority"), and ad-hominem attacks/character insinuations ("It's always fascinating to see people being unable to believe that Musk is what he is"). You need to cut out these swipes if you want to be seen as an objective, good-faith debater.
To respond to your main arguments in the last comment:
- On Russia/Ukraine and China/Taiwan: He just seems to be focused on ending these conflicts with minimal bloodshed and destruction. He didn't argue for Ukraine to just submit; he said there should be an externally supervised referendum so the people in the contested regions can self-determine which country they're in and that everyone can peacefully accept the outcome. That's as anti-authoritarian as you can get. In both cases of Russia/Ukraine and China/Taiwan, he sees that the worst case scenario is utterly catastrophic (all-out global nuclear exchanges), and wants to find ways to resolve these disputes before it gets anywhere near that. As divorce negotiators will tell you, when everyone is playing an all-or-nothing battle, everyone loses, whereas if you can find a way for everyone to get 75% of what they want, a peaceful result is much more likely. It doesn't follow that his desire for peace is authoritarian; generally it's authoritarians who like endless wars. He's advocating for the most effective way to end/prevent war. You can disagree with his position, but authoritarianism is not the issue here.
- "Sure there is. He likes good little workers and no back talk. He likes the authority": You've presented no evidence for this, it's a just-so story, though a familiar one; plenty of people will similarly assert that he just wants to fill his companies with sycophants. The thing is, sycophants and "good little workers" don't get reusable rockets working reliably, nor newly developed automotive technology. The evidence I can see is that he wants highly skilled people who know their field extremely well and will just get shit done, not waste their colleagues' time and energy with endless petty drama. When people spend a lot of time stirring up drama, it's generally a pretty good sign that they're not so good at their work. So again, it's not about authoritarianism, it's about getting good work done without drama.
- On COVID lockdowns; you can disagree with his position, accuse him of playing the victim, fine, whatever. It just doesn't have much to do with authoritarianism. Clearly, the governments/bodies mandating lockdowns and vaccinations were authoritarian. You can say it was justified authoritarianism, sure. I've been fairly comfortable with the lockdowns and measures imposed where I live in Australia, which many have described as being very authoritarian. But you can't say the people arguing against lockdowns were authoritarian. Any criticism for opposing lockdowns has to use words other than "authoritarian".
That's probably enough of a reply from me; the earlier reply from someone else covered the rest.
As I said I don't expect to persuade you but if you must respond, please try to do so without ad-hom and just-so story.
> Musk doesn't have a huge amount to offer on that topic, so I'm not here to support or adulate him, but I do care about words like "authoritarianism" being used with a reasonable level of accuracy, and I always hate seeing people being portrayed negatively on largely false grounds.
Then you must hate Musk. He is, after all, always willing to portray people negatively on largely false grounds. According to Musk, cave divers are pedophiles, Apple hates free speech, California is fascist, and so on and so forth.
Authoritarians have a loose association with the truth. The truth is just too inconvenient.
> He didn't argue for Ukraine to just submit; he said there should be an externally supervised referendum so the people in the contested regions can self-determine which country they're in.
Of course he did. There can't be an externally supervised referendum. They have been invaded. They are at war. Putin doesn't recognize Ukraine as a country or Ukrainians as a people. Russia doesn't do democracy. It hasn't for a long time.
> In both cases of Russia/Ukraine and China/Taiwan, he sees that the worst case scenario is utterly catastrophic (all-out global nuclear exchanges), and wants to find ways to resolve these disputes before it gets anywhere near that.
The solution in both cases is simple: Russia gets out of Ukraine and China stays out of Taiwan.
Russia and China are authoritarian regimes. They both share the attitude that big countries tell little countries what to do. Musk's advocacy of appeasement and submission to their belligerence is apology bordering on the quisling.
> You've presented no evidence for this,
Now you're just being naive. Space X is Elon and Elon is Space X. There is no in between: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/17/business/spacex-workers-e...
Musk offered up the idea of a moderation council at Twitter which sounds like a good idea: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1586059953311137792
But the reality is Musk will make moderation decisions and the council has no real power: https://www.complex.com/life/elon-musk-final-decision-twitte...
He doesn't believe in free speech, except his own speech.
> Clearly, the governments/bodies mandating lockdowns and vaccinations were authoritarian.
No, public health measures are not authoritarian. That is farcical.
Then you must hate Musk. He is, after all, always willing to portray people negatively on largely false grounds. According to Musk, cave divers are pedophiles, Apple hates free speech, California is fascist, and so on and so forth.
Authoritarians have a loose association with the truth. The truth is just too inconvenient.
> He didn't argue for Ukraine to just submit; he said there should be an externally supervised referendum so the people in the contested regions can self-determine which country they're in.
Of course he did. There can't be an externally supervised referendum. They have been invaded. They are at war. Putin doesn't recognize Ukraine as a country or Ukrainians as a people. Russia doesn't do democracy. It hasn't for a long time.
> In both cases of Russia/Ukraine and China/Taiwan, he sees that the worst case scenario is utterly catastrophic (all-out global nuclear exchanges), and wants to find ways to resolve these disputes before it gets anywhere near that.
The solution in both cases is simple: Russia gets out of Ukraine and China stays out of Taiwan.
Russia and China are authoritarian regimes. They both share the attitude that big countries tell little countries what to do. Musk's advocacy of appeasement and submission to their belligerence is apology bordering on the quisling.
> You've presented no evidence for this,
Now you're just being naive. Space X is Elon and Elon is Space X. There is no in between: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/17/business/spacex-workers-e...
Musk offered up the idea of a moderation council at Twitter which sounds like a good idea: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1586059953311137792
But the reality is Musk will make moderation decisions and the council has no real power: https://www.complex.com/life/elon-musk-final-decision-twitte...
He doesn't believe in free speech, except his own speech.
> Clearly, the governments/bodies mandating lockdowns and vaccinations were authoritarian.
No, public health measures are not authoritarian. That is farcical.
Heh, this reply is pretty-well entirely ad-hom and just-so story. Never mind!
I never did mind. The facts of the matter are the facts of the matter. It's not an "ad hominem attack" or a "just-so story" just because you don't like what's true.
Musk is what he is.
Musk is what he is.
You've presented zero facts that demonstrate Musk's authoritarianism. You've given your opinions on what positions others should have on highly complex, consequential topics like nuclear armed countries in prolonged conflict over deeply-entrenched grievances with long and complex histories. Fine, you're welcome to have opinions about those and any other issues. There's still no evidence there for Musk's authoritarianism, and you don't win arguments by dogmatically redefining words and insisting your opinions are facts. That would be, dare I say, authoritarian?
> you don't win arguments by dogmatically redefining words and insisting your opinions are facts. That would be, dare I say, authoritarian?
Musk likes to redefine words. Elon falsely claims he is a founder of Tesla: https://www.tesla.com/elon-musk
But in fact Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning were the founders of Tesla: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/06/tesla-founders-martin-eberha...
In true authoritarian fashion, Musk doesn't let facts get in the way. Here is a sycophantic interview in which Musk pathetically attempts to redefine the word "founder": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHmSrK238vI&t=2358s
So, by your own standard, we've found yet another example of Musk's authoritarianism.
Musk likes to redefine words. Elon falsely claims he is a founder of Tesla: https://www.tesla.com/elon-musk
But in fact Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning were the founders of Tesla: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/06/tesla-founders-martin-eberha...
In true authoritarian fashion, Musk doesn't let facts get in the way. Here is a sycophantic interview in which Musk pathetically attempts to redefine the word "founder": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHmSrK238vI&t=2358s
So, by your own standard, we've found yet another example of Musk's authoritarianism.
> Musk likes to redefine words. Elon falsely claims he is a founder of Tesla: https://www.tesla.com/elon-musk
By legal settlement he is the founder of Tesla, a term that is not as fixed as people believe. Early employees often haggle for founder status in startups. He joined the company as chairman from the instant of formation and contributed heavily to operations of the company, for example acting as designer of the Roadster. Read up on the early history of Tesla. He didn't just "buy the company" as I have heard claimed numerous times on the internet.
By legal settlement he is the founder of Tesla, a term that is not as fixed as people believe. Early employees often haggle for founder status in startups. He joined the company as chairman from the instant of formation and contributed heavily to operations of the company, for example acting as designer of the Roadster. Read up on the early history of Tesla. He didn't just "buy the company" as I have heard claimed numerous times on the internet.
The 14th Amendment may be more applicable. Despite what 1A states, censorship is unconstitutional, and nobody believes this baloney that the accused is innocent as long as they aren't "in the government"
> The 14th Amendment may be more applicable.
No, its not. Because Twitter also isn’t a state government, and the only thing the 14th Amendment has to do with free speech is that it is held to incorporate the same protections that the 1A provides against the federal government against the state governments.
> Despite what 1A states, censorship is unconstitutional
Private censorship is not only constitutional, it is constitutionally protected against federal and state action by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
In fact, the whole point of Constitutional freedom of expression is to protect private parties right to decide for themselves on what expression to make or relay.
No, its not. Because Twitter also isn’t a state government, and the only thing the 14th Amendment has to do with free speech is that it is held to incorporate the same protections that the 1A provides against the federal government against the state governments.
> Despite what 1A states, censorship is unconstitutional
Private censorship is not only constitutional, it is constitutionally protected against federal and state action by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
In fact, the whole point of Constitutional freedom of expression is to protect private parties right to decide for themselves on what expression to make or relay.
Twitter is a public company ok?
> Twitter is a public company ok?
(1) it is, in fact, not a public company, and
(2) it used to be a “public comoany” in the sense of “has shares traded on open stock markets rather than exclusively in individual off-market trades”, but that sense of “public” is still not a government actor covered by tbe restriction on the federal government in 1A or that on state governments in 14A. That is simply a different sense of the words “public” and “private” then is relevant here.
(1) it is, in fact, not a public company, and
(2) it used to be a “public comoany” in the sense of “has shares traded on open stock markets rather than exclusively in individual off-market trades”, but that sense of “public” is still not a government actor covered by tbe restriction on the federal government in 1A or that on state governments in 14A. That is simply a different sense of the words “public” and “private” then is relevant here.
I do believe public vs. private is relevant in terms of legal responsibility, which you any many in the tech community are dismissing.
> I do believe public vs. private is relevant in terms of legal responsibility
The kind of “public vs. private” by which Twitter was once public is relevant in terms of whether or not they are subject to, say, certain SEC regulations, which are a form of “legal responsibility”, but it is not relevant to whether or not they are legally considered to be federal or state government entities under the 1st and 14th Amendments, such that they would be restricted from the kind of content-based restrictions the government is prohibited from imposing.
The kind of “public vs. private” by which Twitter was once public is relevant in terms of whether or not they are subject to, say, certain SEC regulations, which are a form of “legal responsibility”, but it is not relevant to whether or not they are legally considered to be federal or state government entities under the 1st and 14th Amendments, such that they would be restricted from the kind of content-based restrictions the government is prohibited from imposing.
mcrad(1)
Which section of the 14th are you referring to?
I see it like this: there are two sides... the side that is ok with double standards, and the side that thinks double standards are unfair. This article is arguing in favor of double standards. It's crazy how people can argue for double standards, and still think you're on the good side.