I’m not spreading misinformation, I just don’t know the legal precedents here.
And yet, that's the vast majority of political posts that's been moderated by Twitter. And yes, they have in a small number of cases got it wrong.
So? This isn't a court of law.
And yet your first instinct was to defend blatant government retribution for political speech.
You could claim that. (You'd be factually wrong.) But that doesn't change the fact that Desantis and the Florida GOP passed a law as retribution for Disney making a political statement.
I disagree. Defending Desantis is an attack on free speech. And attacking Twitter's right to moderate speech on it's own platform is an attack on free speech. To be clear, I support your right to make those arguments.
Yes it does. Clearly, at least the entire apple app ecosystem is speaking very loudly this is the direction they want, not whatever direction you’re spinning.
How do we know there have been “a small number of cases that got it wrong?” Unless you can show figures that quantify it, it’s a tough claim to back up. The fact is we don’t know how many have been gotten wrong. What we do know is that they’ve blown some incredibly important cases at crucial time for our country.
This is just argumentative for no reason.
I defended the right of the gov’t to take away the special governing status of Disney— I didn’t actually defend retribution. I may be wrong on the legal precedent but doesn’t mean I condone it.
Oh, I would be? Show me where it says in the bill that students can’t “say gay.”
And I support your right to make these arguments. Legally, you are currently correct about Twitter, in that they currently do have the legal right to censor anything they want. But the point is, they should act responsibly, as they have become the “de facto town square.” And if they don’t, Section 230 should be stripped from them or legislation ought to be passed (and I hate gov’t regulation mind you, so I don’t like this idea) that provides guard rails for free speech on this platform according to the 1st Amendment. What I love about Musk buying it and attempting this privately is that we may not need the gov’t regulation at all.
I believe that social media giants such as Facebook and Twitter have gotten so important to the public debate that they either need to act responsibly according to the Constitution and the 1st Amendment, or they need to be regulated to do so— the emphasis should be on free speech for the people.
www.bloomberg.com
www.bloomberg.com
popular.info
Who are you convincing? The masses have spoken, they aren’t listening to what you have to sayGreat thread of many examples where Elon doesn't give a lick about "free speech"
1. There's the time he called Vernon Unsworth, the man who helped rescue 12 boys trapped in a mine in Thailand, a “pedo guy” and paid $50,000 to an investigator to dig up Unsworth’s life. Why? Because Unsworth called his failed attempt help the boys himself a “PR stunt.”
2. Then there's the story of John Bernal, who was fired six days after posting a YouTube video of a Tesla accident.
Tesla fired an employee after he posted driverless tech reviews on YouTube
John Bernal was a Tesla employee who showed FSD Beta to the world on his YouTube channel, AI Addict. He was fired in February.www.cnbc.com
3. Then, there's Martin Tripp, a technician at a Tesla plant in Nevada who blew the whistle on the company. Musk allegedly hired people to hack and spy on Tripp after he cast doubts on Tesla’s environmental credentials.
What Happened When Elon Musk Set Out to Destroy a Junior Engineer
It started with a Twitter meltdown and ended with a fake mass shooter. A former security manager says Tesla also spied and spread misinformation.
4. Musk also is anti free-speech when it comes to labor organizing. Tesla worker Richard Ortiz was fired for trying to organize with the United Auto Workers, a move that was declared illegal by a labor board.
Tesla employee’s firing and Elon Musk tweet on union were illegal, labor board rules. (Published 2021)
The board required that Tesla reinstate the employee and that Mr. Musk delete the tweet. It also required that the company amend its confidentiality agreement.www.nytimes.com
5. Then there's the time Tesla asked China to censor comments that were critical of the company.
Tesla’s Fall From Grace in China Shows Perils of Betting on Beijing
Elon Musk won advantages unheard of for Western businesses. Then came the reality check.
6. There's also the time Musk tried to out an anonymous Tesla critic, and skeptical investor who goes by "Montana Skeptic" to their employer.
Musk is a "free speech absolutist" except when he's not
Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, bought Twitter yesterday for about $44 billion. "Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy," Musk said in a press release announcing the deal.
7. He also has tried to use Twitter itself to suppress worker speech and organizing, a move deemed illegal by the NLRB.
TESLA, INC. | National Labor Relations Board
www.nlrb.gov
These are just a few examples, we're sure to see many more soon as he takes over Twitter. His free speech bravado is just a mask to hide the ways he suppresses speech that goes against his interests. More below.
Elon Musk actually has a very questionable record on free speech | Joshua Potash
Behind the fan base and the funny persona is a billionaire who isn’t afraid to weaponize his wealth against people who provoke his irewww.independent.co.uk
Because we've seen what people have complained about. Look at this thread, for example.
We certainly don't know that.
You were deflecting from a simple question for no reason.
You defended an action deliberately and openly for the purpose of retribution for political speech.
Even your own quote itself refutes your point. See bold.
That's not true. It gives parents the right to sue over anything they perceive to be about sexual orientation and gender for students of any age that parents deem inappropriate. Which chills speech on anything related to deliberately vague definitions of those topics in order to avoid lawsuits that schools and teachers can't afford.
So you are for government regulation of and retribution for free speech. Again.
Oh, look. You lied. Why am I not surprised.
Gotta be careful with that pinky when zipping up that suit.
No, I didn't. From the bill (emphasis mine):
Freedom of Speech ≠ 1st Amendment of the US Constitution (if that's what you're referring to).
"Fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and the economy that rose to prominence in early 20th-century Europe"
and that legal right comes from the 1st amendment.
The 1st amendment protections for speech only restrict the government, so you are arguing for removing 1st amendment protections from a company.
Even my technologically inept mom has found alternative platforms that all the people kicked off Twitter and YouTube are on now.
“I hate the idea of gov’t regulation,” they said, as the repeatedly called for government regulation.
The poster you are quoting said FoS clause, which is clearly referring to the clause in the first amendment that has the words ”freedom of speech” in it.
I understand your point. I just didn't consider that necessary to the point that I was refuting. Which was the claim that it only applied to K-3. Being that the part of my quote that you bolded and called a lie was "any age".
But, the person YOU quoted said K-3, which then you said was untrue
Hardly comprehensive.
Yes, we actually do. Hunter Biden NY Post story. Need we go through that again?
Not true. I just said that the state of FL appeared to have the right to take away their self-governing status. I never got into whether I think DeSantis should be doing that or not. But as a customer of Disney, I also don’t think Disney should be taking a woke position on the law at all, even though they have a right to.
How does it refute it exactly? Be specific.
That’s what the critics say. But as a parent, I would want to be notified about emotional distress my children are going through. So if that “chills speech” between school staff, counselors and kids, so be it. My rights as a parent. If a kid is at danger from a parent, there are allowances for that in bill, which is entirely reasonable.
Nope, I’m for parental rights and free speech. But I can tell you desperately want me to be. 😄
It is untrue that in only applies to K-3. As the quote that you and I discussed said. There's an "OR" after the part about K-3.
So you can point to the K-3 and pretend like the rest doesn't exist. Like the poster did earlier.
