Elon Musk is bad for Western Democracy

[Michael Hardner]

12 minutes ago, User said:

Rights are not discussed on their costs and benefits or they are not rights at all. 

You clearly have no interest in freedom of speech. It is one of the foundational rights. 

Yes I do but you don't get to apply those according to your personal definition. 

If you can acknowledge that there is some nuance and ambiguity in discussing these things in a modern context we could probably have a discussion. 

But if you just want to claim... Freedom of expression... Therefore Elon Musk can make Twitter say whatever it wants ... Well the conversation is over then isn't it?

 

[User]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes I do but you don't get to apply those according to your personal definition. 

It is not my personal definition. You are the one on here bringing up licensing and behavior controls in the context of a social media platform. 

Clearly, you have some concept of free speech that is not all that free after all. 

Maybe its a Canadian thing and your culture, because your country clearly doesn't have as much respect for this as we do in America. 

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

If you can acknowledge that there is some nuance and ambiguity in discussing these things in a modern context we could probably have a discussion. 

What nuance and ambiguity are you discussing here? What modern context?

This is a thread started with the claim that Elon Musk is bad for Western Democracy and you jumped in with talk about licensing. 

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

But if you just want to claim... Freedom of expression... Therefore Elon Musk can make Twitter say whatever it wants ... Well the conversation is over then isn't it?

Well, most if not all conversations with you are over the moment your positions are criticized and you can't defend them anymore. 

[Michael Hardner]

21 minutes ago, User said:

1. You are the one on here bringing up licensing and behavior controls in the context of a social media platform. 

2. Clearly, you have some concept of free speech that is not all that free after all. 

3. Maybe its a Canadian thing and your culture, because your country clearly doesn't have as much respect for this as we do in America. 

4. What nuance and ambiguity are you discussing here? What modern context?

5. This is a thread started with the claim that Elon Musk is bad for Western Democracy and you jumped in with talk about licensing. 

6. Well, most if not all conversations with you are over the moment your positions are criticized and you can't defend them anymore. 

1. Yes, and so you seem to think freedom of speech applies to social media platforms.  Am I right ?
2. Well, the concept has changed since it was introduced so if you want to jump ahead and say that my definition is wrong you've done that.
3. And yet, the thing has changed there as much as it has here I would say.
4. Well, what does "free" mean ?  What does "speech" mean ?  I believe that you should be able to shout ANYTHING on a street corner so I believe in free speech by definition.

5. Yes, because if he is bad (and I would say he is) then how do you address that ?  I haven't scrolled back but I doubt I prescribed licensing as a solution.  Solutions are difficult, and I doubt I was that cocky.  Maybe I was just opening the conversation by saying let's not be doctrinaire about putting up any barrier at all in front of Mr. Musk's hate app.
6. I can't think of an example but ok.  I don't remember any conversation we have ever had, and here I am having one with you.  If I'm so bad, you at least seem interested in continuing it.  If not, drop it and we can go our separate ways.

[User]

14 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Yes, and so you seem to think freedom of speech applies to social media platforms.  Am I right ?

I don't seem to think it. It is a statement of fact. It does. At least in as much as that is an American concept. Clearly, other Western Democracies want to silence people and do not have the same freedoms we do here in America.

14 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. Well, the concept has changed since it was introduced so if you want to jump ahead and say that my definition is wrong you've done that.

I don't have to jump ahead. You jumped into this thread talking about licensing and behavior controls. 

14 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. And yet, the thing has changed there as much as it has here I would say.

Not really. 

14 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

4. Well, what does "free" mean ?  What does "speech" mean ?  I believe that you should be able to shout ANYTHING on a street corner so I believe in free speech by definition.

Oh, I see, you are an absurd literalist. Freedom of the press, really only applied to a literal press. *eye roll*

14 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

5. Yes, because if he is bad (and I would say he is) then how do you address that ?  I haven't scrolled back but I doubt I prescribed licensing as a solution.  Solutions are difficult, and I doubt I was that cocky.  Maybe I was just opening the conversation by saying let's not be doctrinaire about putting up any barrier at all in front of Mr. Musk's hate app.

LOL, your first post here:

"We used to grant LICENSES to media channels and held them to high standards of behaviour."

How is he bad? It sure seems like you want to silence him because you think he is bad. Oh, what were we discussing here again? Oh yeah, freedom of speech and how you sure don't seem to like it very much. 

14 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

6. I can't think of an example but ok.  I don't remember any conversation we have ever had, and here I am having one with you.  If I'm so bad, you at least seem interested in continuing it.  If not, drop it and we can go our separate ways.

You are pathological. There is something wrong with you. You spend most of your time on here (in any interactions with me) ignoring me, threatening to ignore more, telling others to ignore me, and generally crying about putting people on ignore. 

I have no idea why all of a sudden you are back to talking to me now and the fact that you are here acting like you can't recall and discussions in the past... is pathological. 

Edited October 10, 2024 by User

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, User said:

1. It is a statement of fact. It does.

2. At least in as much as that is an American concept. Clearly, other Western Democracies want to silence people and do not have the same freedoms we do here in America.

3. ...you are an absurd literalist.

4.  It sure seems like you want to silence him because you think he is bad.

5. Oh yeah, freedom of speech and how you sure don't seem to like it very much. 

6. You are pathological. There is something wrong with you. You spend most of your time on here (in any interactions with me) ignoring me, threatening to ignore more, telling others to ignore me, and generally crying about putting people on ignore. 

7. I have no idea why all of a sudden you are back to talking to me now and the fact that you are here acting like you can't recall and discussions in the past... is pathological. 

1. I disagree.  Even the Supreme Court justices render "opinions" on such things, not "facts".
2. Your definition is binary and heavy-handed.  Of course the USA limits rights in this area to some degree.
3. If you say I don't believe in Freedom of Speech, and simultaneously claim Twitter is speech then yes I will become a literalist if only to challenge you to add some better rationalization to your moral point of view on all of this.
4. Well, he's the worst example of what happens when you allow private entities to own public discussion.  There are liberal and pro-Democrat versions too if that makes sense.
5. I explained why I like it and you called me a literalist.
6. And yet you're STILL responding to me.  Maybe you're one of these last word people ?
7. I'm interested in the topic.  I have no beef with you, but I don't remember any of our conversations in the past sorry.  Not sure why you'd think I would lie about that.

Maybe we can just move forward and ignore all of what we've already said....

Why do you think that a radio network, a television network, communication monopolies, communication arms of major tech companies (like Microsoft and Amazon) deserve absolute protection (if that's your position) as free speech does ?

Or maybe you can tell me what the policy differences should be, high-level, between a communication monolith/oligopoly and a crank on a street corner ?

I'm thinking that your answers to those two questions might lead to an interesting discussion, sincerely.  If you think I'm "pathological" then you can just dismiss me and we'll move on.  No hard feelings, but also I won't remember this discussion if the topic comes up again...
 

[User]

18 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I disagree.  Even the Supreme Court justices render "opinions" on such things, not "facts".

Not in America. It is a simple fact freedom of speech applies to social media. 

22 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. Your definition is binary and heavy-handed.  Of course the USA limits rights in this area to some degree.

Nothing is absolute, but you are here wanting to silence Elon, because you think he is bad. 

22 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. If you say I don't believe in Freedom of Speech, and simultaneously claim Twitter is speech then yes I will become a literalist if only to challenge you to add some better rationalization to your moral point of view on all of this.

People speak on Twitter, that is protected speech. My moral point of view is that the entire point of freedom of speech is to protect people like Elon from folks like you who think they are bad and want to silence them. 

24 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

4. Well, he's the worst example of what happens when you allow private entities to own public discussion.  There are liberal and pro-Democrat versions too if that makes sense.

He owns X. X is not all public discussion. The crazy thing here is that he is one of the most pro free speech people right now when it comes to social media... and you are here wanting to change that because you think he is bad. Again... you clearly have issues with free speech. 

25 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

5. I explained why I like it and you called me a literalist.

An absurd literalist. I doubt you even believe that is the extent of what speech is, you are just being obtuse. 

26 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

6. And yet you're STILL responding to me.  Maybe you're one of these last word people ?

Its a discussion forum, responding to your silly nonsense only takes a few moments of my time. 

27 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

7. I'm interested in the topic.  I have no beef with you, but I don't remember any of our conversations in the past sorry.  Not sure why you'd think I would lie about that.

Liar? Maybe you are. I think you have some mental issues. 

28 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Why do you think that a radio network, a television network, communication monopolies, communication arms of major tech companies (like Microsoft and Amazon) deserve absolute protection (if that's your position) as free speech does ?

Not my position. 

29 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Or maybe you can tell me what the policy differences should be, high-level, between a communication monolith/oligopoly and a crank on a street corner ?

There is no difference between the free speech of a crank on a street corner and having a place where 300,000,000 cranks can also engage in the same speech online. 

 

[Michael Hardner]

23 minutes ago, User said:

Not in America. It is a simple fact freedom of speech applies to social media. 

Nothing is absolute, but you are here wanting to silence Elon, because you think he is bad. 

People speak on Twitter, that is protected speech. My moral point of view is that the entire point of freedom of speech is to protect people like Elon from folks like you who think they are bad and want to silence them. 

He owns X. X is not all public discussion. The crazy thing here is that he is one of the most pro free speech people right now when it comes to social media... and you are here wanting to change that because you think he is bad. Again... you clearly have issues with free speech. 

An absurd literalist. I doubt you even believe that is the extent of what speech is, you are just being obtuse. 

Its a discussion forum, responding to your silly nonsense only takes a few moments of my time. 

Liar? Maybe you are. I think you have some mental issues. 

 

"Maybe we can just move forward and ignore all of what we've already said...." I will apply that to all of this as promised.

 

Quote

1. Not my position. 

2. There is no difference between the free speech of a crank on a street corner and having a place where 300,000,000 cranks can also engage in the same speech online. 

1. Ok cool.  State it then and we can start.

2. Ok you don't think that the things I listed deserve absolute protection as free speech does - but you also think there's no difference ?  Maybe I'll just ask you to state your position as per #1 again then.  How are they different and what policy should apply to the various forms of communication ?

[suds]

On 10/10/2024 at 6:24 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Does it make more sense that he have no obligations at all?

Laws are passed according to technology of the day. This is why music copyright is based around sheet music printing, it predates the gramophone...

 

 

 

 

I never claimed Musk had no obligations only that social media was treated entirely different than news media.  For obligations see Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

[suds]

Technically on U.S. social media, free speech only applies to the owners of social media platforms. They're the ones who make all the rules concerning what's allowed and who gets to post. Free speech by the users of the platform lies solely at the owners discretion.  When a government can get the FBI to coerce an owner into making certain topics off limits, how is that not a first amendment issue?

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, suds said:

 When a government can get the FBI to coerce an owner into making certain topics off limits, how is that not a first amendment issue?

Because the government can exert power over media for national security reasons, and always has?

 

 

 

 

[suds]

On 10/13/2024 at 9:35 PM, Michael Hardner said:

Because the government can exert power over media for national security reasons, and always has?

 

 

 

 

By what law, or whatever, would give the US government the authority to do that? I seem to have come to a dead end.

[Michael Hardner]

29 minutes ago, suds said:

By what law, or whatever, would give the US government the authority to do that? 

Whatever laws governed the FCC.

This is one of those weird topics where I whenever I post reference to these things, the thread stops.

[suds]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Whatever laws governed the FCC.

This is one of those weird topics where I whenever I post reference to these things, the thread stops.

FCC limitations begin with the 1st amendment. Speech transmitted by cable or satellite TV is generally not regulated. The FCC does not regulate online content, which is significant in a thread devoted to Musk, and Twitter, being bad for western democracy.

https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/fcc-and-speech

[suds]

Congress handed social media over to private entities simply because the people demanded such a platform and private entities are not forced to abide by the 1st amendment. And that's pretty much it.

[Michael Hardner]

22 minutes ago, suds said:

FCC limitations begin with the 1st amendment. Speech transmitted by cable or satellite TV is generally not regulated. The FCC does not regulate online content, which is significant in a thread devoted to Musk, and Twitter, being bad for western democracy.

https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/fcc-and-speech

The FCC has regulated content I believe, from memory.

And they don't give licenses to everyone who wants one.

If you disagree, we can look at it together...

[Michael Hardner]

Trump recently said that the government has to take cbs's license away, ostensibly because they did something he thinks is dishonest.

[suds]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

The FCC has regulated content I believe, from memory.

And they don't give licenses to everyone who wants one.

If you disagree, we can look at it together...

They mostly regulate local TV and radio. What I posted concerning satellite, cable, and online content, comes straight off an FCC website. So I don't disagree.

[suds]

31 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Trump recently said that the government has to take cbs's license away, ostensibly because they did something he thinks is dishonest.

I also remember a few years back when a couple of Democrat congressmen tried to coerce a cable provider to pull Fox News off the air using official government paper and letterhead. No real reason given except the contract between Fox and the cable provider was set to expire. The difference is that these Democrat congressmen were serious and Trump is a bullshitter. Was he serious or not? Who the hell knows.

[Michael Hardner]

8 hours ago, suds said:

 Was he serious or not? Who the hell knows.

Right.  But we're basically acknowledging that the government has been in a position to grant licenses, oversee content, and generally exert power over a medium as it sees fit.

Mass instantaneous communication came of age in the 20th century, an era where government control - in the domains of social, economic and security policy - was paramount.

We can argue about the utility of more or less government control, argue about whether the 1950s, for example, with the strict moral codes and prosperity for working people were actually the good old days, and argue a lot of things.

But I don't think that it's true that the government doesn't have the right to regulate platforms that effectively provide a platform for the public sphere via proprietary algorithms.  

 

[SkyHigh]

I always find it amusing when the magats cry about the MSM being in the Dems pocket (though there is a small amount of truth in that) and in the same breath will put Musk, the man that owns arguably the most influential social media site in the world and has openly endorsed Trump on some sort of pedestal.

Today's word boys and girls is hypocrisy 

[suds]

9 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

I always find it amusing when the magats cry about the MSM being in the Dems pocket (though there is a small amount of truth in that) and in the same breath will put Musk, the man that owns arguably the most influential social media site in the world and has openly endorsed Trump on some sort of pedestal.

Today's word boys and girls is hypocrisy 

So "there's a small amount of truth in that" ...... ya think???  Fox is no different than the rest of them except they support the Republican candidates.  Musk openly endorses Trump, and Zuckerberg gives $420 million to local Democrat activists for 'get out the vote efforts'.  Fox supports a free press (even for its competition), while the rest of the MSM wants Fox shut down. Personally, I admire both Musk and Zuckerberg. Not for who they support but for what they've accomplished. You're just blind to your own hypocrisy.

 

Edited October 19, 2024 by suds

[SkyHigh]

3 minutes ago, suds said:

So "there's a small amount of truth in that" ...... ya think???  Fox is no different than the rest of them except they support the Republican candidates.  Musk openly endorses Trump, and Zuckerberg gives $420 million to local Democrat activists for 'get out the vote efforts'.  Fox supports a free press (even for its competition), while the rest of the MSM wants Fox shut down. Personally, I admire both Musk and Zuckerberg. Not for who they support but for what they've accomplished. You're just blind to your own hypocrisy.

 

How can you agree with me and call me a hypocrite in the same breath? 

It would almost be funny if it weren't so sad

[suds]

27 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

How can you agree with me and call me a hypocrite in the same breath? 

It would almost be funny if it weren't so sad

Not only are you blind to your own hypocrisy, you're blind to your own stupidity.

[SkyHigh]

5 minutes ago, suds said:

Not only are you blind to your own hypocrisy, you're blind to your own stupidity.

Ok big guy 

[herbie]

Musk Bad For Western Democracy?

Nothing new. So was Henry Ford.