Elon Musk and Absolute 'Free Speech'

Elon Musk just formally purchased Twitter in order to reestablish a non-censored forum. However, some fear reasonably that IF anyone ‘owns’ a private forum set up specificallly for the public, IF their private interests about those speaking out permits them to censor AT ALL, such attempts will backfire.

I’ve spent a lot of efforts to argue FOR just such non-censorship based upon a comparison to malls as defined to BE ‘forums’ for public business venues that specifically RELY on the public to exist. That is, I believe that ANY forum that permits censorship to any degree risks the capacity of the private forum owners to be able to affect another person’s reputation with potential violation against them regardless of any apparent ‘good’ intent.

I invite Lausten here to this given I mentioned before how this gets done in some of the science forums that I’ve tried to participate in. The recent issue that I raised about Steady State discussions being tampered with (censored) is a case in point.

My basic argument is this: IF any site has the ‘right’ to alter content of its guests, the guests then also should not be HELD ACCOUNTABLE for whatever content they may say because one can simply assert that the site itself ‘owns’ the views being espoused. So I agree tentatively to Elon’s purchase in light of this. What IS concerning is IF Elon is nevertheless still able to moderate to any capacity.

Note that I was one of those first to demand that Trump be ‘censored’ on Twitter during the Captial ‘riots’. However, I only argued for this as a temporary condition under the circumstances. I still received a lot of fire for merely expecting that given many argue for the ‘absolute’ freedom that Elon Musk is arguing for. i am not sure that even the temporary censorship SHOULD have occurred but felt it was necessary at the time considering ‘misinformation’ that some can tend to be gullible too.

But this too relates to how I’ve argued about science (as an ‘institute’) tends to support censorship on the basis of ‘practicalities’. How can you have an ‘open’ system of debate when the politics of it tend to favor the extremes, right? But is there not still some way to provide non-censorship without being overruled by those manipulating it to serve nefarious ends?

Yes, but you would not allow people to defecate in the public spaces, would you?

Moderation and censorship on the social net are necessary. The issue is that the limits differ in each country.

For instance, in Europe, calls to hate, racist propaganda are forbidden. A network which does not censor such calls will be condemned.

Other example, laws about the protection of the private life vary from country to country. Rules and moderation are necessary.

And when there are rules, they must be implemented.

Free speech does interest me, but I don’t have a definite set of rules to implement it. Musk is using his wealth to say what he wants. He lied about how much taxes he pays, using a simple lie of omission, and people bought it. I take less popular positions, like I think people should be able to speak out about abortion and differences in “races”. I don’t like the way we have made certain words taboo in all situations.

Bottom line, you can say whatever you want, but you are not free from consequences, and others are free to not listen and to exclude you from any private platform they might control. People get confused about this, to the extreme of thinking facebook is public in the same sense that the radio waves are public.

There’s just too much wrong here for me to unpack it.

** Money don’t talk it screams!**

Bob Dylan - Nobel Laureate

Although there things get dicey - is Twitter a private platform or has it evolved into a public utility - which carries certain responsibilities (to the public) with it.

How many remember the TV fairness doctrine - and what was so wrong with that - except it stood in the way of massive brainwashing.

These days seems like easily over half of our population has seeming totally lost its Reality Mooring, and the brainwasher are having a field day with people fears, greed and emotions?

We’re really seeing the FEAR card being played heavily in elections.

Build That Wall and “Stop Death from flowing across the border”
(yes, that phrase is actually used)

China, China, China

… though, oddly, the GOPers aren’t pumping up the fear on Russia

Found an interesting article - that I need to finish reading - about Fear used in political campaigns
I was particularly thinking of Hillary’s “Red Phone” ad.

I’m assuming you don’t mean that malls shouldn’t have bathrooms, right?

The mall comparison was about arguing that EVEN THOUGH one ‘owns’ a public forum such ‘ownership’ is a privilege provided by the very public the mall is intentionally designed and licenced for. As such, they REQUIRE respecting the guests as though in ANY ‘public’ space apart from one’s “private property” as EQUALS.

The argument I made comparing malls to any public forum like this one is that IF the site expresses some ‘right’ to moderate by editing, deleting, or other possible moderations that ALTER the material of another, they are claiming ownership power over the thoughts of its guests if ever required to go to court for say trying to reduce terrorism. That is, you can’t even have an appropriate ‘trust’ regarding who says what should anyone’s works be understood as potentially violating external behaviors or laws.

I say that IF one’s business requires the public, they have to give up the extreme degree of rights of ownership that non-public ownership provides by NOT altering content against the guest arbitrarily or they should not be permitted public access at all! They should not utilize intentional means to harm their guests’ reputation, steal their ideas, or other potential devious means, and so I’m against those sites that have them.

I missed this but think my last post before may have sufficed to explain.

HOWEVER, the reason for absolute non-censorship can be understood in light of how information gets ‘censored’ by Russia (and their news they can keep from us) in this recent war against Ukraine. There is an information barrier specifically to (what we believe) is Russia censoring their own public’s capacity to hear outside news.

If a platform like Twitter were not to censor, their credibility to attract even the ‘enemies’ of freedom can be presented in a SHARED forum. The enemy you know is better than the enemy you don’t and such access can help determine what and why others believe the way they do and to determine what can be done to compete rationally rather than threaten those who don’t BELIEVE in some institutional authority. Such arrogance wouldn’t help make others LIKE these authorities better but be even MORE concerned about its credibility.

There ARE other means to encourage others to recognize “misinformation” rather than out-and-out alterations, deletions, or editing. Treating the audience as so ‘dumb’ or gullible as to NEED a matriarchal censor doesn’t make them MORE willing to hear why they are so ‘wrong’ but fosters justified anger towards those believing the censorship is warranted at all and contributes to why we have wars and amplified counter-censorship as extreme as Russia is doing ‘for’ its own citizens.

The same rationale is true of science (the institution) too and why I opened this thread. If it is alright for them to censor what someone says, they EARN a reputation of reasonable doubt as to whether the institute can remain extant as a shareable public platform. If it’s not ‘shareable’, it is being politically hypocritical against virtue of science in general (the study, not the offending institutes censoring outsiders). That is, the censorship BY the ‘authority’ class within institutes or science forums suffice to make a bad name for science in general.

I agree with your logic but for one major difference. Civilized people are generally peace-loving and unarmed, whereas ignorant people are war-like and possess arsenals of the most deadly weapons they could find.

Situation in Ukraine illustrates the dilemma. In war, truth is the first victim.

Russian propaganda is full of fake news, Ukraine 's government being misrepresented as a bunch of Nazi , mass killing Russian speakers who are just waiting to be freed !

Many ultra right people propagate this news.

Should they be censored?

What are you talking about? Should they be censored? They are censored by the fact that data has been kept from American’s who care. Russian State TV has been shut down in America.

Try this for example. Google – “Russia spying on US”. And you will get 60 million hits of Russia spying on America. Now type “US spying on Russia”. And you will get a 20 million hits of Russia spying on America. You better check your facts platform. Trash in equals trash out. Is the Google just broken or being controlled?

And you are going to have the audacity to blame Americans for propagating the news after being shut out of facts. Or is you line of thought that the ultra right are not not responding to mind control like the left.

This thread is about freedom of speech and its limits. I am merely giving an exemple and asking a question for which i have no answer.

Almost a cut and paste of an earlier post. Conspiracy theory with no evidence. Assuming that if the news doesn’t match your preconceieved notion, then it’s wrong. Maybe it’s you.

I don’t understand the debate. Of course there is and must be restriction of speech.

a) I cannot threaten you with physical violence,
b) I cannot libel or slander you with false speech
c) I cannot make false advertisement of a product
d) I cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theatre when there is no fire.

There are definitive moral if not legal restrictions on “false speech”.

“To thine own self be true” is a line from Hamlet, spoken by the character Polonius . As his last piece of advice to his son Laertes, he says, "This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man."

Interestingly, Trump broke all those taboos and that resulted in a “speech free for all”

1 Like

Says the MAGA dude.

MAGA man.

That was a question. Do you have the ability to answer the question? Do you know anything about the subject matter. Yes, it is an earlier post that went a step further and provided more facts. The debate here is that Russian propaganda is full of fake news. But how would we know that if the Russian News is forbidden here. The fact is that the Russian News called out Putin on the Nazi viewpoint. But they brought forth another viewpoint that Ukraine was pushing the goals of NATO. Your viewpoint that every viewpoint you don’t agree with is a conspiracy theory and my viewpoint are preconceived notions are just misinformation on your part.

Your example was using Russian propaganda. Which is really just US propaganda viewpoint on Russian propaganda. I agree that we need freedom of speech. The news has yet to cover the native people in Eastern Ukraine and their relationship with Ukraine and how their rights have been crushed. Russia TV was covering that issue and got blocked from US coverage.

You can find it if you want. Private companies have chosen not to broadcast it. That’s different from a state sponsored ban. Discuss facts Mike.

Yet they are fighting for their city and against Russia, currently. Interesting, what you are saying.

1 Like

One issue is that it is not always easy to know which is a fake news or a legitimate debate.

In the beginnings of Covid epidemic, to tell that, may be, the virus escaped from a Chinese laboratory was looked upon as a conspiracy theory.

Right now, it is seen as a serious possibility.

Should the promotors of this idea should have been censored 2 years ago ?