Musk is embarrassing himself on the global stage again by proudly stating a grade-school level of familiarity with the concepts of free speech, censorship, rights and privileges of individuals and government authorities. The fact that this ignorant person is likely to take over one of the largest communication platforms on Earth should scare you.
The richest man in the world said earlier today that he intends to acquire a platform.
By ‘free speech,’ I simply mean that which matches the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law. If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect. Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people.
He has one thing going for him. He has shown an ability to pack more willful and privileged knowledge into a single sentence than almost anyone on the planet.
I don't know where to start because these statements are so fundamentally wrong.
He might want to look at the most basic descriptions of what constitutes free speech. State authorities limit the speech of the people under their authority. Hate speech, harassment and other special cases that we as a society have decided constitute crimes are protected by free speech.
This is a complicated and nuanced concept that does not have a thick line of censorship on one side and no restriction on the other. There are huge cases setting new precedents in the courts at all times. The first sign that he has no idea what he is talking about is the idea that he thinks there is a solution or a set of hard and fast rules that govern this.
censorship that goes far beyond the law is what he means.
Musk wants to limit what private companies can do in this context, and he is proposing limits on their free speech. By suggesting that the government should define and impose these limits, he is suggesting a system of censorship.
This isn't some weird twist of logic, it's what the words he said actually mean. He had no idea what he was talking about.
Will Elon Musk put Twitter on a collision course with global speech regulators?
If people want less free speech, the government will have to pass laws. Going beyond the law is against the will of the people. There are many proposals along these lines. Right now the country is in the middle of a battle over free speech in which teachers are being told which topics they can and cannot teach.
Florida and Texas have succeeded in limiting free speech. Who asked them to do that? Is it possible that math textbooks that mention black mathematicians from history will be banned? It's forbidden by law to explain why someone might have two dads. One of the most naive things I have ever encountered is the idea that government action is determined by the will of the people. Is it possible that voting rights are being dismantled and that bills are being written by lobbyists? Is he aware of the history of asking the government to pass laws that include voter suppression and gerrymandering?
What do you know about the will of the people? This is a man who has no idea who the people are. He thinks they can shorten their commute by loading their $80,000 cars into vacuum tunnels.
He may be surprised that billionaires probably shouldn't exist at all. He doesn't know what it's like to be hungry.
The plans he has for the social network must be truly, truly foolish and uneducated because of this baby's take on one of the most complex and contentious topics in history.
It’s not rocket science: Why Elon Musk’s Twitter takeover could be bad for privacy
The people have been talking about this for hundreds of years. Audit a freshman course on ethics and philosophy, or just have someone summarize the reading list into a few bullets. The smartest minds of every generation since we have been able to record it have considered these topics long before they were born. Your take asserts knowledge where there is not and asserts superiority over something you have never considered. You could run a Hyperloop through the vacuum that is Musk's knowledge of civics. A Dragon spaceship could float in the void that is Musk's understanding of the cultural and legal labyrinth of expression and identity in a free society.
This all portends a simplistic and harmful take on free speech and moderation on a platform that desperately needs a sophisticated, humane and responsive one. It appears that something is not qualified to ideate or administrate.
I don't think your ideas on free speech are evil or bad. They are wrong because you are ignorant of the most basic context and precedent surrounding these concepts, as well as the highly specialized situational knowledge that informs the creation and management of a modern communication platform. You have no idea what you're talking about.
A complete timeline of the Elon Musk-Twitter saga
All Rights Reserved © 2024
