Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Elon Musk Completes $44 Billion Twitter Takeover, Fires Top Executives, and Makes Himself CEO
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Oh, so because someone decided they liked another political party, you know hate and despise them? Weird.
Weird, cause policing speech has led to war and worldwide unrest in every country. Including our own. Are we more peaceful? Nope.
Time for change.
What's weird about it? Both things are true. Government censorship, propaganda and misinformation have all lead to war. Again, the world isn't black and white.
A good point! Thank you.
I’d like to add, when we are talking in the context for a platform like Twitter, it engages in over-moderation.
If I want to say the vaccine is bad based off my experience, it should be allowed.
Banning one side of the aisle (including the president) should not be allowed.
Suppressing bad news that might hurt vested business interest or a certain political party should not be allowed.
None of these are foreign influence or propaganda, it’s the thought of the people.
This is why Elon bought Twitter, this is why he’s voting Republican.
Policing speech —> war
Not policing speech —> war
It’s almost as if the policing speech thing is a red herring.
I certainly disagree with all of your additions. Twitter is famously under-moderated. It's a cesspool for spam, bots, harassment, misinformation, doxxing, hate speech, direct threats, etc. Musk has pointed this out himself.
As far as targeting conservatives, you are simply engaging in selection bias and other fallacies. If you don't believe that the former president should have been banned from Twitter for using the platform to incite an insurrection by promoting disinformation and propaganda, then we can't have a reasonable conversation.
Again, it's not black and white. It's a false dichotomy. The choice isn't censorship or nothing. Society has long accepted reasonable moderation. Newspapers and journalism being the primary example.
We just have new problems these days as social platforms such as Twitter and Facebook have upended the paradigm by promoting engagement over trust on a massive scale.
On the contrary, allow people to deeply believe in lies will result in violence. Jan 6th is already a testament to that so your argument is working against you on this point.
On the bolded part, free speech is a freedom to speak truth, not lie. That's why we have laws handling lies but in this age that information traveling in a second these laws doesn't work fast enough. Human has ability to adapt so we need to adapt to the time we're living in. If we don't & simply fixate on ideology (an extreme one at that if we believe we have a right to lie) without considering reality of the age we're in, that's extremism.
And really, no one "take away" words. That's also too extreme a view and uncalled for. I emphasize again: Not everything is a shade of grey. There's plenty of things we know to be truth. I'm talking about THAT.
Last edited:
You are getting this completely wrong. You're utterly muddled about how any of this works. The main mistake you keep making is thinking that most well meaning people just agree with you on what things are lies and what things are truth. This is the fundamental issue with your position, because there really are people who think the complete opposite things you do, and they could be just as likely to claim that what you're saying are lies that need to be silenced in order to prevent violence.
See how this works? If you let the war of ideas fight itself out, there can be progress, albeit ugly progress. If you claim unique right to decide what gets censored, and think it's OK to force that on to people you disagree with - then people who disagree with you are just going to claim unique right to decide what gets censored, and think it's OK to force that on you. In that scenario, there can only be violence.
If you think January 6 was bad (and as far as violence and death goes, that was actually very tame), you would be horrified to find out what happens when the government decides for everyone else what is truth. That's when millions of people die. It has happened before, and will sadly almost certainly happen again. But as long as people like you are kept from taking away free speech, it's unlikely to happen in the west.
Again, this is NOT what I said. Perhaps reading carefully about what I said first? You seem to have a misplaced fear about speech that if you can't lie then you don't have free speech. That simply is not a purpose of free speech.
But AFAIK Elon Musk hasn't re-instituted Donald Trump to Twitter yet. So I'm glad that he's agreeing with me, at the moment at least.
Last edited:
The trick here is that you don't know what is a truth and what is a lie. What you think is a truth is a half truth at the very best or most likely even a lie. You need as much info as possible(even if it will hurt your best interests) to deal with the situation of "not knowing".
This is a perfect example of a half truth because you are assuming that Trump wants to come back to Twitter.
Way to ignore almost everything I said.
You keep claiming this divine right to decide what is lies and what is truth. For you to make the claim that lies aren't free speech, by definition it means someone (you in this case) is deciding what things are lies and what things are truth in the first place. Without someone deciding this, your claim makes no sense and could never be implemented in reality.
Whoever gets to decide what is truth, becomes the government, because they have total power. This isn't complicated stuff.
Last edited by a moderator:
Precisely, and his point falls apart almost immediately because he is already asserting very politically motivated opinions that half the people are going to disagree with straight away.
"If you don't believe the thing I believe, there can be no discussion."
If things ever escalate to large scale political violence in America, it's this exact sort of thing that will be the cause of it. If there can be no discussion, but two huge groups of people still disagree, then what?
And that's a serious question that I want you to answer. Then what?
That quote isn't what I said. I made a specific point that you tried to turn into something general. If you can't acknowledge that the table is table, than a discussion based on the fact of the table is pointless. A shared reality is the basis of rational conversation.
A more accurate version of your quote would be:
"In you don't believe in reality, there can be no rational discussion."
I disagree. I believe misinformation and propaganda are the most likely causes of political violence as we just saw on Jan 6 and in Ukraine.
That's an easy one. Find someone else to talk to. There are plenty of rational people with a diversity of views.
Last edited:
It's exactly what you said. Equating your political views to "a table is a table" and declaring there can be no discussion is what you did. And you're proving my point by using current hot button issues that people disagree about like "January 6", or Trump being banned from Twitter.
Here's a thought experiment: The things you're saying are misinformation and propaganda and causing violence. Are you going to now silence yourself for the greater good, or should I, who is deeply concerned with violence and misinformation, try to have this platform and other platforms censor your views?
Just not on any mainstream platforms where the censors align to your political views.
Last edited by a moderator:
No it's not. If it was exactly what I said, you would have quoted me instead of making up your own quote. Again, I was making a specific statement about the specific claims posted and my willingness to continue the specific conversation. I was NOT saying no one should.
There's a perfect example. You consider calling Jan 6 an insurrection a political view. It's not. Multiple people pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy. They believed that delaying the certification of the election from Jan 6 would make the certification illegal. That was their admitted goal.
DocumentCloud
I will concede that whether the lies and misinformation that 45 promoted that led to those actions should have gotten 45 banned from Twitter is an opinion. I just believe that it is a reasonable opinion based on the facts.
Last edited:
Uhhhhhh no?
If you want to say "I had a bad reaction to the vaccine, it was unpleasant," tweet away to your heart's content.
If you want to say "I had a bad reaction to the vaccine, therefore the vaccine is bad," then you should probably seek out some decent non-anecdotal evidence to back up that conclusion, or just don't post it.
I wouldn't be surprised if there is half truth and half lies in all of this. I know over on Reddit, and most likely other platforms as well, they hate for Elon is deep, so everything that is being done is being blown out of proportion. Just like the email above.
Uhhhhhh yes? Just because someone probably shouldn't post something, doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to post it. You're free to point out how stupid something is, but it shouldn't be against the rules to post a wrong opinion.
If we want to build healthy communities with little misinformation, which most of us do, then we don't want that kind of post.
He can go start his own community if he wants, no one wants to stop anyone doing that. But if we want to minimize the damage of misinformation in the world, we can do so by not platforming it in the first place.
And more long-term, we could do with working on the education system to make sure people grow up with clear critical thinking skills and understanding of the scientific method. But if course, as soon as you start teaching kids how to think, you get people complaining that they're being taught what to think, and then it turns into a political debate and no progress is made and another generation misses out.