The vibe I am getting here is that if somebody enables people who criticize government decisions and policies in a way that the government considers "dangerous", he's an evil idiot and doesn't understand what "free speech" is and something "needs to be done" about him. But if somebody publishes his political opponent's home address, phone number, SSN and other details who have absolutely no bearing to any political discussion, but may seriously jeopardize their personal safety in an environment where trying to shoot a presidential candidates is becoming a routine event - then in the name of free speech this must be allowed to be published, no restrictions.
I think people that take such position care very little about free speech and a lot about hurting people who have different politics than they do. And they are part of what is wrong with the politics today.
No, the issue people are having is musk claims he has to allow nazis, transphobes, homophobes, racism, sexism, fake pornography of people, etc because otherwise it would be censorious and an attack on free speech.
But things that attack or are damaging to him or his beliefs are frequently censored.
The issue is not what he chooses to censor or not censor. The issue is that he claims that the reason he chooses not to censor horrific abuse and attacks on minorities is because he’s a free speech absolutist and all censorship is bad.
He hides behind the claim of the sanctity of free speech as the justification for what he allows, publishes, and promotes, when he very clearly holds, and enforces, no such belief.
Posts like this that claim that people are just disagreeing about politics, when the political viewpoint on one side is that the other side has no right to exist are entirely demonstrative of people who are so bigoted that they don’t see their own bigotry as that, because it could only be bigotry if the targets of their bullshit were people, which to them they aren’t.
> he has to allow <all the people you disagree with and despise> because otherwise it would be censorious and an attack on free speech
Yes. Because all these people, however unpleasant their speech may be for you or me, have the same right to speak their mind on the questions of public importance as you and me. Yes, even racists.
However, publishing somebody's private information that can easily lead to deadly attack on him or his family is in entirely different class of speech. It does not contribute to any public discussion or does anything positive, just endangers people and enables violence. It is not severe enough to make the law involved, but it is going far enough that restricting it on social media is summarily a positive thing.
The owner of the social media platform has to draw the line, which speech is allowed on the platform and which is not. Some would draw it on "anything legal is allowed". Some would even do "anything is allowed" but those will find themselves in trouble with the law pretty quickly. Some would say "some legal speech - like porn - is not allowed", or "some legal speech - like revealing private information of public figures and their relatives - is not allowed", etc. These are valid choices (as it is valid to criticize them), and they are not inconsistent at all. You can support free speech without supplying your platform to organize attacks on public figures or hurting their families. You do not have to be "all or nothing" - and in fact, nobody has advocated "all or nothing" policy towards Twitter or Facebook or any of the social media platforms ever, before Musk. Now, because Musk is also not "all or nothing" - as is everybody else - how is he any special? His line is such that publishing private information about people that can hurt them is not ok, good for him I say.
> when the political viewpoint on one side is that the other side has no right to exist
Yes, I know, you only have to be bad because your opponents are so much worse. Always a good excuse. It is totally OK for good people to be bad to bad people, after all, we are good people and they are bad people, that makes it right when we do it to them, but wrong when they do it to us!
> However, publishing somebody's private information that can easily lead to deadly attack on him or his family is in entirely different class of speech.
Got it, encouraging people to execute gay and trans people is completely fine, and is clearly nowhere near as bad as publishing information sent by a person running for vice president. I get your point, on the one hand the people saying "LGBT/black/hispanic people are not actually people and don't have the right to exist" are only causing harm to people who aren't really people. On the other hand you have the emails and information about a major public figure running for political office with secret service protection who is running on a platform of "brown people are illegal and killing your pets, and lgbt people should be illegal" while encouraging bomb threats against minorities.
> The owner of the social media platform has to draw the line,
His entire justification for not restricting attacks on minorities is free speech, he actively promotes false information about political groups he does not like, while actively censoring things like this that are, again, a dossier about a public figure running for a major office.
So his line is "anything, no matter how wretched, gross, false, or fraudulent, as long as it doesn't attack my political friends".
Stop pretending these are equivalent.
> > when the political viewpoint on one side is that the other side has no right to exist
> Yes, I know, you only have to be bad because your opponents are so much worse.
The idea that a leaked "dossier" about a public figure is somehow "bad" is so fucking bullshit.
The fact that you consider this equivalent to promoting violence against minorities tells me everything I need to know about your world view. The fact that you think leaking a dossier about a political candidate is "bad" tells me that your opinion is free speech ends once it hurts political figures, which means I don't give a shit about your position.
I'm glad I'll never meet you, and I hope you're never in a position where someone vulnerable depends on you.
The hypocrisy of Musk around 'free speech' has been on full display since he bought Twitter. It's wild to me that you're still having to argue with people on this point. Twitter is a Musk Speech platform, and has very little to do with free speech.
> Got it, encouraging people to execute gay and trans people is completely fine,
Please stop it. Nobody advocated executing gay and trans people here, and nobody said it is "completely fine". Stop lying, please.
> on the one hand the people saying "LGBT/black/hispanic people are not actually people and don't have the right to exist"
There are no such people, at least not in the numbers worth mentioning, in the US (there are in other countries, but curiously you don't care about that at all, do you?). You are just whipping yourself into a frenzy by imagining something that doesn't exist but it would be nice if they did because that would justify you hurting your political opponents - after all, they are so, so bad!
> So his line is "anything, no matter how wretched, gross, false, or fraudulent, as long as it doesn't attack my political friends".
Again, this is a lie. X prohibits a lot of content that has nothing to do with "attacks" on supposed Musk's "political friends". I just recently personally saw one prominent political article "restricted" on X because it mentioned (in a quote) certain slur word, for example. And I witness a lot of fraud deleted (not 100%, true, but that's impossible). Again, you are being completely false here.
> The idea that a leaked "dossier" about a public figure is somehow "bad" is so fucking bullshit.
Yes, it is bad, in this particular case. It does nothing but hurting people, including people that are not related to any political involvement, and does not contribute in any way to the society. You can not name any cause or any group that would be better off by the fact that these private details are public. How would publishing Vance's SSN be useful? Does it protect "LGBT/black/hispanic people" somehow? No. The only way one could use them is to commit personal attacks on his person and the persons of his relatives. I am hoping you would at least stop before advocating that. Though these days one can't be sure anymore.
> The fact that you think leaking a dossier about a political candidate is "bad" tells me that your opinion is free speech ends once it hurts political figures,
And again, you keep ignoring the fact we're talking about private information, like home addresses, SSNs and so on. You try to present it as if it a purely political dossier of political nature that has some societal value. It might be the case if the leaker bothered to redact out the private information - but they didn't, and they probably didn't because beyond that, this document contains pretty much nothing interesting. It's as boring and mundane as the content of my "old bills" drawer. The only purpose to publish something like this could be to personally hurt a political opponent - no other goal is achieved by it. And the fact that you are consistently refuse to address this issue - the issue of publishing private information, having no significance in public discussion - makes me suggest you are actually ok with it. Your belligerent tone and baseless false accusations confirm it quite nicely. If you want to know what's wrong with the politics today - look at the mirror, it's you and your hate. I hope you find a way to move beyond it one day.
> There are no such people, at least not in the numbers worth mentioning, in the US (there are in other countries, but curiously you don't care about that at all, do you?)
That is literally a campaign point for multiple candidates. Maybe the problem is you're a delusional bigot.
And guess what, I do care about what happens in those countries as well, but this article is about someone in the US and involves a candidate for US political office. I feel the same way about bigots in other countries, and make the same complaints about them, just not in a context where they aren't relevant.
> The only way one could use them is to commit personal attacks on his person and the persons of his relatives.
You mean the dude, and family, with secret service protection? None of which required this magic dossier.
Also, I looked at that dossier, the overwhelming majority of which was details about his variable political positions and personal history - all of which seem super relevant to a political candidate.
But, I understand, there is much more danger in a leak that happens to include information about where he lives and his family - which are not secret - than calling for criminalization of and violence LGBT people.
> If you want to know what's wrong with the politics today - look at the mirror, it's you and your hate
I'm not the person saying "these people don't have the right to exist", you're trying disingenuous "paradox of tolerance" bs. Claiming the problem is "my hate towards people that deny the rights of others to exist" is classic white surpremacist BS.
Again, I hope no one vulnerable ever needs you for anything, because you're the kind of person who would ask a victim if they've considered the harm that speaking up would do to their abuser.
We don't need to continue this thread. We clearly disagree on some fundamental issues, I think that bigotry has no place in a civil society, and you think I'm an evil hater for not lovingly accepting people's choice to decide who has a right to exist.
I think people that take such position care very little about free speech and a lot about hurting people who have different politics than they do. And they are part of what is wrong with the politics today.