Elon Musk

[BillyStubbsTears]

Anyone not very, very worried about this headcase taking over Twitter is really not paying attention.

He's said he wants to have unrestricted free speech on Twitter.

He's owned Twitter for 72 hours.

In that time, a far right terrorist broke into the house of Nancy Pelosi with a hammer, and assaulted her 85 year old husband.

Musk's idea of supporting free speech on this issue has been not to encourage some introspection on the right of American politics on how it has got to this point.

It's been to push a batshit conspiracy from the far right that Pelosi's husband was actually hurt in a tiff with a left wing gay lover.

THE biggest medium of exchanges of ideas and opinions that humanity has ever produced. Now owned by a conspiracy theorist.

God help us.

[tyke1962]

Lula just nudges ahead in Brazil , tight mind , one percent lead with 70% of the votes counted .

[tyke1962]

Lula wins an astonishing victory in Brazil .

[Metalmicky]

Just watched the Bolsonaro docs on BBC........ he's a bit out of the box and slightly unhinged..... very glad Luna won and let's hope the destruction of the Amazon is halted and reversed

[ncRover]

How is Elon Musk a conspiracy theorist?

And where have you got it from that it was a politically motivated attack?

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Ex-girlfriend-of-suspect-in-Paul-Pelosi-attack-17545968.php

[BillyStubbsTears]

How is Elon Musk a conspiracy theorist?

And where have you got it from that it was a politically motivated attack?

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Ex-girlfriend-of-suspect-in-Paul-Pelosi-attack-17545968.php

He tweeted, linking to a far right conspiracy theorist spreading a batshit conspiracy that Pelosi's husband was attacked by a jilted left wing gay lover.

The man is playing silly f**kers with no thought for the responsibility he has. At least that's a kind interpretation of what he did. The less kind one is that he knows damn f**king well what he is doing - letting every conspiracy theorist off the leash.

Either way, it is massively dangerous. 

[ncRover]

How is Elon Musk a conspiracy theorist?

And where have you got it from that it was a politically motivated attack?

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Ex-girlfriend-of-suspect-in-Paul-Pelosi-attack-17545968.php

He tweeted, linking to a far right conspiracy theorist spreading a batshit conspiracy that Pelosi's husband was attacked by a jilted left wing gay lover.

The man is playing silly f**kers with no thought for the responsibility he has. At least that's a kind interpretation of what he did. The less kind one is that he knows damn f**king well what he is doing - letting every conspiracy theorist off the leash.

Either way, it is massively dangerous.

What actually happened then? What was the motive? Any evidence as of yet?

Any dangerous speech that incites violence / hate speech gets you arrested. Apart from that, who gets to decide what “acceptable” speech is?

The selected articles for the trending page on Twitter have been left wing / progressive talking points for years now. You’d be a free speech absolutist if the political / cultural zeitgeist was overwhelmingly right wing and suppressed free speech that wasn’t deemed “acceptable”.

Not a right v left issue for me anyway just an example.

More censorship breeds more suspicion.

[belton rover]

How is Elon Musk a conspiracy theorist?

And where have you got it from that it was a politically motivated attack?

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Ex-girlfriend-of-suspect-in-Paul-Pelosi-attack-17545968.php

He tweeted, linking to a far right conspiracy theorist spreading a batshit conspiracy that Pelosi's husband was attacked by a jilted left wing gay lover.

The man is playing silly f**kers with no thought for the responsibility he has. At least that's a kind interpretation of what he did. The less kind one is that he knows damn f**king well what he is doing - letting every conspiracy theorist off the leash.

Either way, it is massively dangerous. 

Talking about conspiracy theories…

[BillyStubbsTears]

The person who was arrested for stoving Mr Pelosi's head in has a record of posting far right nut case conspiracy shit. There is zero evidence that he is gay or had ever met Pelosi before.

Musk tweeted an article by a far right conspiracist claiming, with zero evidence that the attacker was a left wing gay lover of Pelosi's.

I know how classroom Libertarian theory works. But in the real world, when you wash your hands of the truth and allow everyone to have their say, what happens is that the truth gets washed away. And real people get really hurt.

Because this isn't a game or a student debating issue. It's about how we hold onto objective truth.

And the egomaniac owner of Twitter seems oblivious to that. And more than oblivious - actively pushing utter, utter shite that tries to blow smoke over a real issue where someone was out to kill a senior politician.

[ncRover]

The person who was arrested for stoving Mr Pelosi's head in has a record of posting far right nut case conspiracy shit. There is zero evidence that he is gay or had ever met Pelosi before.

Musk tweeted an article by a far right conspiracist claiming, with zero evidence that the attacker was a left wing gay lover of Pelosi's.

I know how classroom Libertarian theory works. But in the real world, when you wash your hands of the truth and allow everyone to have their say, what happens is that the truth gets washed away. And real people get really hurt.

Because this isn't a game or a student debating issue. It's about how we hold onto objective truth.

And the egomaniac owner of Twitter seems oblivious to that. And more than oblivious - actively pushing utter, utter shite that tries to blow smoke over a real issue where someone was out to kill a senior politician.

So the court of BST concludes that a psychotic maniac attempted murder because Elon Musk bought Twitter. There will be some batshit crazy forums out there to influence him instead if this was politically motivated.

You would have believed Jussie Smollett’s story at first, but I wouldn’t take that right away from you. Because eventually, the truth comes out as it will in this instance.

And not all conspiracy theory is right-wing.

A lot of media outlets pushed that Trump 2016 election / brexit result was Russian collusion for example.

[BillyStubbsTears]

No Nc. I didn't conclude that. And I don't know how you reached the conclusion that I did.

My point was that Musk is prepared to dive into a very serious issue, pushing a clearly and unarguably wrong conspiracy theory, peddled by someone who wanted to deflect the blame from where it belonged. It gave massive publicity to that wrong conspiracy. That means there will be hundreds of thousands of people who will take away from this affair the belief that Pelosi didn't have his skull fractured by a far right head case who was trying to kill his wife.

I thought the problem with that was very obvious, but clearly I was wrong.

[phil old leake]

This has nothing to do with Musk in real terms. There will always be idiots that that crave attention by making inaccurate and controversial statements expecting people to believe them. ( look at some of the posters on this forum). 
If it wasn’t twitter it would be some other outlet. It’s always been the case it’s just easier to do these days with people being obsessed with twitter and Facebook and others. 

[BillyStubbsTears]

Phil

It's about Musk giving credence to that sort of conspiracy rubbish. If he was sensible he wouldn't have done that. If he was really responsible he'd have said it was bullshit. Instead, in many people's eyes, he gave it credence. .
That, coming from the man who now owns the biggest public debating system in human history is irresponsible at best. If it is an indicator of how he is going to run Twitter, it is very frightening.

[ncRover]

We enjoy the freedom and prosperity of western civilisation because of a belief in free speech.

Ideas are debated, the best ones rise to the top and we progress.

If a conspiracy theory is so wild, let it out in the open so that everyone can see how silly it is.

No society is, or ever will be absolutely perfect, but you have to be careful what you wish for.

[Not Now Kato]

We enjoy the freedom and prosperity of western civilisation because of a belief in free speech.

Ideas are debated, the best ones rise to the top and we progress.

If a conspiracy theory is so wild, let it out in the open so that everyone can see how silly it is.

No society is, or ever will be absolutely perfect, but you have to be careful what you wish for.

Sadly, too many people believe the misinformation they read, and act on it - you only have to look at Brexit for an example!
 
But Musk agrees with you so you must be right....
 
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/twitter-restricts-access-content-enforcement-tools-1234622010/
 
Debate and free, (truthful), speech are absolutely fine; lies and deliberate misinformation are not!

[BillyStubbsTears]

We enjoy the freedom and prosperity of western civilisation because of a belief in free speech.

Ideas are debated, the best ones rise to the top and we progress.

If a conspiracy theory is so wild, let it out in the open so that everyone can see how silly it is.

No society is, or ever will be absolutely perfect, but you have to be careful what you wish for.

Sadly, too many people believe the misinformation they read, and act on it - you only have to look at Brexit for an example!
 
But Musk agrees with you so you must be right....
 
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/twitter-restricts-access-content-enforcement-tools-1234622010/
 
Debate and free, (truthful), speech are absolutely fine; lies and deliberate misinformation are not!

Absolutely bang on the head.

 This isn't about suppressing genuine debate. It's about how you support the concept of Objective Truth, in an era where it is under deliberate and concerted attack from both far right domestic activists (and it IS predominantly  a far right thing, before the squeals of "bias!" come in) and even moreso, from Russian state security who have been trying to destroy the concept of Objective Truth in social media as a matter of foreign policy.

If you lose any concept of what is true and what isn't, you cannot have a debate on which ideas are best. Because everyone can retreat to their own universe where they can be surrounded by facts (sic) that tell them they are right. That is why the undermining of Objective Truth, and the deliberate spreading of falsehood on a scale never before seen is THE biggest threat to humanity. You cannot tackle any problem if you don't tackle that one. Which is why someone as powerful as Musk f**king about spreading a malicious and deliberate lie, and  bragging about de-censoring Twitter is SO dangerous.

[SydneyRover]

the people that barred trump have been fired of course, not sure if separate from or along with the board but it's a disturbing thought that this nutjob may have a hand in elevating the other nutjob back into power.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Trump is a perfect case in point.

There wasn't a "debate" to be had about whether the election was "stolen".

Trump lied about it. Flat out.

Protecting Trump's "right" to say what he wanted on social media leads directly to millions of people believing that lie, and thousands breaking into Congress to stage a coup.

As I keep saying, this isn't some school debating club issue. It's about how you steer democratic systems through a minefield of deliberate action aimed at f**king people's minds through industrial scale lying.

[Not Now Kato]

Seems Musk deliberately wants the spread of misinformation....
 
https://aaronrupar.substack.com/p/elon-musk-twitter-free-speech-paul-pelosi
 
This is one very dangerous individual

[belton rover]

The problem is subjectivity. Of course there are extremes where it’s difficult to defend (Trump included) but where is the line drawn? Too many people want voices shut down because they don’t like what they hear, not necessarily because it is lies and deliberate  misinformation.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Have a look at this thread.

Should the person the thread is about be allowed to say what they want on Twitter?

https://mobile.twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1587372892286763009

[TommyC]

I think the problem with objective truth is that there is very little in the universe that can categorically be proven to be 100% established fact. Our understanding of the world around us is constantly evolving and it would be breathtakingly naive to assume that we have even scratched the surface of everything there is to know. Our knowledge and understanding in the field of science for example is in itself a process of constant exploration, research and evolving ideas, to the extent that I personally find the concept of "established scientific fact" something of a contradiction in terms, particularly in reference to green issues.  Once upon a time people thought the earth was flat didn't they? On that basis. who are you, I or anyone else to decide what is or is not to be tolerated in the media? Yes some people are more able than others to apply some critical thinking to what they're told, to cut through the crap and the cranks and the conspiracy theories and come to an informed and reasoned conclusion of their own and some people aren't quite so good at it. That's life! Some people are gullible, some people less so. BST's answer is as always for the state to legislate for the lowest common denominator rather than allow individualism.

George Orwell said the following in his introduction to Animal Farm in 1945 when commenting on the freedom of the press:

"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas of which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is “not done” to say it… Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the high-brow periodicals.”

I believe that comment is as true today as it was in 1945 when he first wrote it. I'd far rather a world where people can make up their own minds as to what they believe to be true and what isn't instead of a socialist utopia where everyone is told what is true and what isn't. Big state/big brother socialism versus libertarianism again. The latter scares the hell out of people like BST. 

[BillyStubbsTears]

Tommy.

This isn't a "all one way or all the other" thing. Nothing ever is, although many people like to portray differences of opinion like that because it's easy.

In the real world there are hard decisions to be taken, none of which will result in a perfect outcome. What we should always be striving for is a sensible balance.

Go back to my OP. Was it sensible or reasonable for a man in Musk's position to be pushing patently wrong conspiracies? Given that someone had just had his skull broken by a crazed far-right headcase who wanted to kill the third most prominent Democratic politician in the USA, was it reasonable for the new owner of Twitter to be supporting a lie?

There IS sch a thing as Objective Truth by the way.

Donny Rovers are in L2.
Putin has invaded Ukraine.
Donald Trump incited a coup attempt.
Jair Bolsonaro has just been beaten in an election.

You won't find many people question the first one.
A few will question the second.
Millions don't agree with the final two, but they are true, nonetheless.

[ncRover]

Have a look at this thread.

Should the person the thread is about be allowed to say what they want on Twitter?

https://mobile.twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1587372892286763009

Yes.

People on Twitter can say / have said with authority:

- A man can become a woman / vice versa and influence young impressionable children to follow suit.

- Masks stop the spread of covid.

- Vaccine stops transmission.

- Trump election was Russian meddling

- Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian disinfo

- Brexit result was Russian meddling

- There is a conservative government conspiracy to deliberately let the NHS fail.

I’m guessing you have less of an issue with these falsehoods though.

Say what you like just don’t try to force other people what to think or there will be a backlash and a proliferation of more conspiracy theories. Because people wouldn’t trust politicians / mainstream media even more.

[Ldr]

Tommy.

This isn't a "all one way or all the other" thing. Nothing ever is, although many people like to portray differences of opinion like that because it's easy.

In the real world there are hard decisions to be taken, none of which will result in a perfect outcome. What we should always be striving for is a sensible balance.

Go back to my OP. Was it sensible or reasonable for a man in Musk's position to be pushing patently wrong conspiracies? Given that someone had just had his skull broken by a crazed far-right headcase who wanted to kill the third most prominent Democratic politician in the USA, was it reasonable for the new owner of Twitter to be supporting a lie?

There IS sch a thing as Objective Truth by the way.

Donny Rovers are in L2.
Putin has invaded Ukraine.
Donald Trump incited a coup attempt.
Jair Bolsonaro has just been beaten in an election.

You won't find many people question the first one.
A few will question the second.
Millions don't agree with the final two, but they are true, nonetheless.

This is where linguistics can be a nightmare. No, Putin did not invade Ukraine, I’m pretty sure the Ukrainian armed forces could deal with one man. Russian armed forces who’s commander in chief is Putin have invaded Ukraine. Kinda backs up your point though. You made a state mate there which isn’t correct though we all know what you meant

[BillyStubbsTears]

Nc.

You're struggling here.

Every single one of those cases you give are ones where there is nuanced evidence. That has to be judged and honest people can have genuine differences of opinion and reach different conclusions. Yes I probably have a different opinion than you on every one of those issues, but, if you argue your case with evidence, I'll respect that.

The example I gave was not someone's opinion. It was an out and out lie.

Do you honestly not see the difference?

[ncRover]

Nc.

You're struggling here.

Every single one of those cases you give are ones where there is nuanced evidence. That has to be judged and honest people can have genuine differences of opinion and reach different conclusions. Yes I probably have a different opinion than you on every one of those issues, but, if you argue your case with evidence, I'll respect that.

The example I gave was not someone's opinion. It was an out and out lie.

Do you honestly not see the difference?

People have been banned / shadow banned for expressing “unacceptable views” on the first 3 points.

Objective Truth may seem very clear within a thought bubble / echo chamber but as TommyC nicely put, it isn’t. I used those examples to try to challenge your thoughts.

You can’t police everybody’s thoughts and remove every lie on Twitter and I don’t have the urge to myself. It’s just not physically possible either. Musk has said he’ll get rid of every bit on Twitter though. How he will, I don’t know.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Nc

Can you give me an example of someone being banned for expressing "unacceptable views"? As opposed to people being banned for abuse or threats?

Regarding Objective Truth. Do you agree that the example I posted is a flat out lie, passed off as a truth? Someone claiming that he has evidence that Truss texted "Done it" to Blinken minutes after the Russian pipeline was blown up and that he knows this because he has seen the hacked messages from Truss's phone. A lie, agreed?

Do you agree that the stuff that Musk pushed about the Pelosi assassination attempt was a lie?

Only, for me, this elephant needs to be eaten one slice at a time. You take the position that it's too hard to tell truth from lies, you have given up the fight. For me, you start by identifying clear and unarguable falsehood, and you ban those who propagate them.

If that's too difficult to swallow, imagine you owned a newspaper. Imagine you had clear evidence that one of your journalists was regularly lying in print. Would you sack her?

[belton rover]

This forum is a perfect example of people being incapable of reading things objectively.

[Bristol Red Rover]

The BBC spreads a lot of bat shit crazy stuff. As does most media. As does most education. So long as its in line with the opinion of Disgruntled of Denaby, its all good.