demos
Legend
Posts: 9,214
|
Post by demos on Sept 6, 2024 15:55:32 GMT
Even if? The links you provided stated as much. No if. Yes, that is objectively the case. I don't know if you spend much of any time on any of the other major social media platforms, including YouTube or others, but they are massively self censored and target wrong speak like daring to speak out against climate change alarmism, transgenderism, etc... if you are not politically correct/woke enough you get shut down. Guns? Shut down. Gun store? Shut down. Businesses destroyed by Facebook as they have shut them down after years of building an online presence. Never mind their voluntary cooperation with the FBI and our own government administration on shutting down speech and accounts. He has also stated several times now that he will do what he can up to the law and then do what he can to oppose the law. You expecting Musk to break the law when he doesn't, doesn't mean he isn't clearly a champion for free speech. It's not objectively an uncensored platform, because there's censorship on it, and you even admit that there's more occurring than before.
If he's not willing to defy the government, then he's not really the free speech absolutist he claims to be. Which is the point I made earlier. He's not a Durov or an Assange. He isn't willing to pay that price.
And you basically answered the question. If the U.S. passes stricter social media laws, he's not going to break the law. He's going to go along with it just as he has everywhere else and impose censorship, because it's not a principled commitment to freedom.
|
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Sept 6, 2024 17:29:20 GMT
Not only is Musk willing to bend his knee to governmental censorship demands, he is also known to censor things that no government cares about but which run afoul of his personal politics or ego.
|
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Sept 6, 2024 18:06:57 GMT
You would therefore support a local mafia that asks small business owners to pay them for "protection money". If the FBI tells Zuckerberg that the Hunter Biden shit was Russian disinformation, and Diane Feinstein had a few years before that threatened your companies around cleaning up disinformation, then the not-so-subtle implication is clear. Go ahead and call me an authoritarian when you support a government threatening a company about free speech on their platform. Strawman. False equivalency. The local mafia would enforce their 'request' with force. The FBI already works with all the major corporations of the country. It's called INFRAGARD, and it is a mutual relationship, where corporations leverage the expertise of the FBI to protect themselves from cyberattacks and other threats, and the FBI uses the corporations for situational awareness, best practices, etc. It's a relationship between the two sides, developed over decades, and it protects you EVERY SINGLE DAY, but all you can see is Big Brother. Your ignorance of how your country ACTUALLY works, is why you hold your positions. If I thought for a second that the FBI was acting in any type of authoritarian fashion, I would be against it completely. But I've yet to see that. If you want me to see things as you do, just show me where the FBI FORCED a company to do something. Tell me what the consequence was if they didn't comply. Stop getting your news from pulp fiction magazines, and start learning. Freon I can't think of any FBI scandals or illegal activities in its history. I'm trying, but I'm coming up empty on it. I suppose they really just have "mutual relationships" with companies. Equal partners and stuff. Like when they told Zuckerberg that the Hunter Biden stuff was Russian. Zuckerberg could have just said "no", and the FBI would have been like "that's ok buddy." That's how things work. Zuckerberg saying that the government's "pressure" (his word) was wrong, but as equal partners I'm sure he could have just pressured the FBI right back at them, right? So naive. Like a child. Or a paid establishment shill. And the White House isn't ashamed of it. They defend it still. Even when we know that what they told Zuckerberg was a lie. |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Sept 6, 2024 18:08:36 GMT
...someone neglected to take you out. |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,214
|
Post by demos on Sept 6, 2024 18:30:23 GMT
I can't think of any FBI scandals or illegal activities in its history. I'm trying, but I'm coming up empty on it. Lulz |
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on Sept 6, 2024 18:53:32 GMT
Not only is Musk willing to bend his knee to governmental censorship demands, he is also known to censor things that no government cares about but which run afoul of his personal politics or ego. They are not demands, they are laws. He has no choice. It is comply or be shut down. |
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on Sept 6, 2024 19:02:51 GMT
Even if? The links you provided stated as much. No if. Yes, that is objectively the case. I don't know if you spend much of any time on any of the other major social media platforms, including YouTube or others, but they are massively self censored and target wrong speak like daring to speak out against climate change alarmism, transgenderism, etc... if you are not politically correct/woke enough you get shut down. Guns? Shut down. Gun store? Shut down. Businesses destroyed by Facebook as they have shut them down after years of building an online presence. Never mind their voluntary cooperation with the FBI and our own government administration on shutting down speech and accounts. He has also stated several times now that he will do what he can up to the law and then do what he can to oppose the law. You expecting Musk to break the law when he doesn't, doesn't mean he isn't clearly a champion for free speech. It's not objectively an uncensored platform, because there's censorship on it, and you even admit that there's more occurring than before.
If he's not willing to defy the government, then he's not really the free speech absolutist he claims to be. Which is the point I made earlier. He's not a Durov or an Assange. He isn't willing to pay that price.
And you basically answered the question. If the U.S. passes stricter social media laws, he's not going to break the law. He's going to go along with it just as he has everywhere else and impose censorship, because it's not a principled commitment to freedom.
I never claimed it was completely uncensored. The "more" that is occurring is contributed to the fact that other countries have passed more laws on speech and regulations. There is no defy the government... there is only be shut down or comply. Your position is absurd after all, expecting it to be some 100% or nothing, cut your nose off to spite your face silliness rather than simply acknowledge his efforts to promote and champion free speech. Even your position on the law is absurd nonsense, people have many principles but must operate within the law and work to change the law. But sure, I guess unless Musk is out calling for a Revolution to overthrow the government and leading the charge to Washington DC, gunning down as many Law Enforcement as he can on the way to glory... oh well, I guess he isn't really principled after all. I mean, are you saying 100% of your principles currently align with the laws of the government today and everything they are doing? Because, with your new logic, unless you are willing to fight and die against the government for them to bring change, I guess you are not really principled after all. |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,214
|
Post by demos on Sept 6, 2024 19:14:29 GMT
I never claimed it was completely uncensored. You didn't qualify it either. What is India or Turkey going to do to Musk? Shut Twitter down? Weren't you just saying he's not affected by the bottom line, pointing to him losing advertisers? So, why would he be in such a hurry to comply?
My position is that Musk is not some champion of free speech, because he's not.
Nonsense is it? So, during the civil rights era, you would've advised against sit-ins and other actions which violated segregationist laws? What about women in Iran defying their government and being imprisoned for it?
|
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Sept 6, 2024 19:48:41 GMT
Not only is Musk willing to bend his knee to governmental censorship demands, he is also known to censor things that no government cares about but which run afoul of his personal politics or ego. They are not demands, they are laws. He has no choice. It is comply or be shut down. From the post you quoted "he is also known to censor things that no government cares about but which run afoul of his personal politics or ego." |
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on Sept 6, 2024 20:28:20 GMT
I never claimed it was completely uncensored. You didn't qualify it either. What is India or Turkey going to do to Musk? Shut Twitter down? Weren't you just saying he's not affected by the bottom line, pointing to him losing advertisers? So, why would he be in such a hurry to comply?
My position is that Musk is not some champion of free speech, because he's not.
Nonsense is it? So, during the civil rights era, you would've advised against sit-ins and other actions which violated segregationist laws? What about women in Iran defying their government and being imprisoned for it?
Its not what they will do to Musk, but they will simply shut X down in their respective countries. There is no hurry to comply... its just what these countries demand. The choice is, completely silence X or do what you can to combat the censorship mandated. You have to play by the rules while you fight to change them or oppose them. This isn't a civil disobedience issue. What do you want Musk to do? The options are, he complies or X is shut down. I am not here claiming Musk is an absolutist and I think from the context of all his comments he doesn't think he is either, he called himself one before, but that is not what I am claiming. So... your big evidence for him not championing free speech is to cite an example where he championed free speech? Brilliant. |
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on Sept 6, 2024 20:28:57 GMT
They are not demands, they are laws. He has no choice. It is comply or be shut down. From the post you quoted "he is also known to censor things that no government cares about but which run afoul of his personal politics or ego." Give me an example. |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Sept 6, 2024 20:42:07 GMT
Strawman. False equivalency. The local mafia would enforce their 'request' with force. The FBI already works with all the major corporations of the country. It's called INFRAGARD, and it is a mutual relationship, where corporations leverage the expertise of the FBI to protect themselves from cyberattacks and other threats, and the FBI uses the corporations for situational awareness, best practices, etc. It's a relationship between the two sides, developed over decades, and it protects you EVERY SINGLE DAY, but all you can see is Big Brother. Your ignorance of how your country ACTUALLY works, is why you hold your positions. If I thought for a second that the FBI was acting in any type of authoritarian fashion, I would be against it completely. But I've yet to see that. If you want me to see things as you do, just show me where the FBI FORCED a company to do something. Tell me what the consequence was if they didn't comply. Stop getting your news from pulp fiction magazines, and start learning. Freon I can't think of any FBI scandals or illegal activities in its history. I'm trying, but I'm coming up empty on it. I suppose they really just have "mutual relationships" with companies. Equal partners and stuff. Like when they told Zuckerberg that the Hunter Biden stuff was Russian. Zuckerberg could have just said "no", and the FBI would have been like "that's ok buddy." That's how things work. Zuckerberg saying that the government's "pressure" (his word) was wrong, but as equal partners I'm sure he could have just pressured the FBI right back at them, right? So naive. Like a child. Or a paid establishment shill. And the White House isn't ashamed of it. They defend it still. Even when we know that what they told Zuckerberg was a lie.I'm sure all that conjecture you just spewed, could-of-this, would-of-that, is evidence in your propaganda-saturated mind, but to me, it's all conspiracy theory. I live in the REAL world, where we work together with the FBI to get shit done. I have friends I went to school with, doing government work that protects you and your family every single day, and you would burn them at a stake for it. People like you, who take, take, take, and don't show an ounce of appreciation, disgust me. Freon |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,214
|
Post by demos on Sept 6, 2024 20:46:07 GMT
Its not what they will do to Musk, but they will simply shut X down in their respective countries. There is no hurry to comply... its just what these countries demand. The choice is, completely silence X or do what you can to combat the censorship mandated. So, let them shut it down. Why be complicit in their censorship?
No, you don't.
So, let them shut it down. Why is he complying with their requests? Let them seize assets. The fight in Brazil could become a civil disobedience issue.
He previously said he wouldn't comply with demands about Starlink except at the point of gun. But he caved without that happening. Just had to threaten his wallet.
No one said you were. Musk said he was.
That's the point. His supposed commitment to free speech is hollow. He talks a good game until the rubber hits to road.
Do you not see the similarity between that comment and Brazil? He said he wouldn't comply except at the point of gun. All Brazil had to do was threaten to seize some assets.
|
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Sept 6, 2024 21:19:26 GMT
I can't think of any FBI scandals or illegal activities in its history. I'm trying, but I'm coming up empty on it. I suppose they really just have "mutual relationships" with companies. Equal partners and stuff. Like when they told Zuckerberg that the Hunter Biden stuff was Russian. Zuckerberg could have just said "no", and the FBI would have been like "that's ok buddy." That's how things work. Zuckerberg saying that the government's "pressure" (his word) was wrong, but as equal partners I'm sure he could have just pressured the FBI right back at them, right? So naive. Like a child. Or a paid establishment shill. And the White House isn't ashamed of it. They defend it still. Even when we know that what they told Zuckerberg was a lie.I'm sure all that conjecture you just spewed, could-of-this, would-of-that, is evidence in your propaganda-saturated mind, but to me, it's all conspiracy theory. I live in the REAL world, where we work together with the FBI to get shit done. I have friends I went to school with, doing government work that protects you and your family every single day, and you would burn them at a stake for it. People like you, who take, take, take, and don't show an ounce of appreciation, disgust me. Freon Oh I didn’t know you have friends doing government work that keeps me safe every day. My bad. |
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on Sept 6, 2024 21:20:54 GMT
Its not what they will do to Musk, but they will simply shut X down in their respective countries. There is no hurry to comply... its just what these countries demand. The choice is, completely silence X or do what you can to combat the censorship mandated. So, let them shut it down. Why be complicit in their censorship?
No, you don't.
So, let them shut it down. Why is he complying with their requests? Let them seize assets. The fight in Brazil could become a civil disobedience issue.
He previously said he wouldn't comply with demands about Starlink except at the point of gun. But he caved without that happening. Just had to threaten his wallet.
No one said you were. Musk said he was.
That's the point. His supposed commitment to free speech is hollow. He talks a good game until the rubber hits to road.
Do you not see the similarity between that comment and Brazil? He said he wouldn't comply except at the point of gun. All Brazil had to do was threaten to seize some assets.
Like I said, it is absurd to demand he cut his nose of to spite his face. Is it better to have most of X to give people as much free speech as you can... or none? Yes, you do in fact play by the rules while you fight to change them. You are arguing this absurdly as if he must be 100% or you see nothing at all. Brazil did in fact threaten him at gun point, you of all people know that is how government enforces its laws. You think they were going to seize his property there with foam swords or something? Yes, there is a huge difference, he was asked to censor Russian media... he was not commanded to do so by laws. Hence the figure of speech of at gun point. |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Sept 6, 2024 21:22:15 GMT
I'm sure all that conjecture you just spewed, could-of-this, would-of-that, is evidence in your propaganda-saturated mind, but to me, it's all conspiracy theory. I live in the REAL world, where we work together with the FBI to get shit done. I have friends I went to school with, doing government work that protects you and your family every single day, and you would burn them at a stake for it. People like you, who take, take, take, and don't show an ounce of appreciation, disgust me. Freon Oh I didn’t know you have friends doing government work that keeps me safe every day. My bad. The list of things you don't know is MASSIVE. I'm encouraged by your acknowledgement that you are ignorant in this area. Have a great day! Freon |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,214
|
Post by demos on Sept 6, 2024 21:28:19 GMT
Like I said, it is absurd to demand he cut his nose of to spite his face. Is it better to have most of X to give people as much free speech as you can... or none? Cutting off his nose how? As much free speech as possible? He's being complicit in governments shutting down the press and any political opposition. Free speech isn't supposed to be limited to talking about Taylor Swift or whatever's happening in Bollywood. Free speech is necessary to challenge the government. He has been complicit in shutting that down.
The only absurdity is you repeating this stupid crap over and over despite example after example of people not doing that.
He would've lost some assets in Brazil. He could've fought the issue in court. He could've been a champion of free speech by standing up to them on this issue. But he didn't. His life wasn't at stake. He wasn't going to jail over this. It would've cost him some money; that's all it took to make him back down - a threat to his wallet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fiddler on Sept 6, 2024 22:23:47 GMT
I'll just leave this right here .. .
X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, suspended a number of high-profile journalists Tuesday, including Steven Zetti of the Texas Observer and Ken Klippenstein of the Intercept. The pages for each of the suspended accounts offers no explanation for their removal and does not say if the suspensions are temporary or permanent bans. Each page carries a short message that “X suspends accounts which violate the X rules.”
Champion of Free Speech .. LOL .. .
|
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Sept 6, 2024 22:33:48 GMT
Oh I didn’t know you have friends doing government work that keeps me safe every day. My bad. The list of things you don't know is MASSIVE. No shit, genius. |
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on Sept 7, 2024 5:17:21 GMT
Like I said, it is absurd to demand he cut his nose of to spite his face. Is it better to have most of X to give people as much free speech as you can... or none? Cutting off his nose how? As much free speech as possible? He's being complicit in governments shutting down the press and any political opposition. Free speech isn't supposed to be limited to talking about Taylor Swift or whatever's happening in Bollywood. Free speech is necessary to challenge the government. He has been complicit in shutting that down.
The only absurdity is you repeating this stupid crap over and over despite example after example of people not doing that.
He would've lost some assets in Brazil. He could've fought the issue in court. He could've been a champion of free speech by standing up to them on this issue. But he didn't. His life wasn't at stake. He wasn't going to jail over this. It would've cost him some money; that's all it took to make him back down - a threat to his wallet.
How? As in you expect him to sacrifice all of X and Space X Internet. Your use of the word complicit is just a continuation of the absurd. Being compelled by government force does not make one complicit in it. Yes, your arguments here are stupid crap. He did fight them in the courts, he did initially resist. He did stand up to them... It was not a threat to his wallet, it was the confiscation of all infrastructure of Space X. He is pulling all his people out now, he is advising against travel there. You act like he just went along with all this with no fuss. You wildly mischaracterize him and his actions while woefully downplay what he is up against. Real easy for you to sit here on a forum demanding so much of him and ignoring everything else he does. He does far more for free speech than you ever have or will. |
|
