I think the outrage is due to Musk’s apparent hypocrisy. Also, what we are seeing is that it’s becoming apparent that when a few companies act as the gatekeeper to a large percentage of the people then perhaps government intervention is warranted.
> we are seeing is that it’s becoming apparent that when a few companies act as the gatekeeper to a large percentage of the people then perhaps government intervention is warranted
I think that's basically the GP's point. It's only "become apparent" now that there is a big tech company that doesn't toe the mainstream line. This (gatekeeping / censorship) was always a big problem with big tech, especially twitter, but the "it's a private company, if someone doesn't like it they can build their own" crowd (conveniently libertarian for a microsecond) shot down any notions that platforms needed some common carrier regulations. Then someone actually did the equivalent of getting their own social network by buying the most popular one, and suddenly everyone is up in arms.
These are fundamentally different complaints. The first party is complaining they believe a right is being violated. The second party is complaining that the first party is inconsistently applying their own beliefs.
Musk bought Twitter with the stated purpose of allowing free speech. If Musk bans some accounts while bringing back others, he's being a giant hypocrite by not allowing all to speak freely.
More than being a hypocrite, he's being partisan liar. The "I'm a centrist" kind of person always are, and it's important that people know and can see through their lies.
> It's a private company, if you don't like how they moderate, you can start your own company and moderate it the way you want.
Sure. It's a private company that no longer has the support of half of its advertisers, also private companies. Which means Twitter is going bankrupt entirely through neutral market mechanics. So be it.
The real puzzler here is why did Elon insist shooting himself in both feet.
Sure, and I still say that. It's just that criticism of Musk on hypocrisy grounds is justified, because he bought Twitter to bring back free speech or something like that, which includes crimethinc, and Andy Ngo. Free speech is a uniform criteria, not a collection of special cases.
The latter is hypocrisy.
There's general agreement on what "free speech" means. If Musk wants to claim free speech moral high ground, he has to put up with Chad Loder and crimethinc and Evon Latrail. If Musk bans accounts that he doesn't like that's fine, he owns that particular printing press. But he doesn't get to claim "free speech" and ban accounts, too. That's the very definition of hypocrisy.
Are the conservative voices advocating for violence against LGBTQ+, ethnic minorities, and critics? Then it's not really hypocrisy but completely valid and according to the policy of most of the platforms.
Heya @dang, is this what you were referring to when you said that you moderated without regard to viewpoint? Deleting 100% of posts from all on one side while boosting even pure personal attacks from your side?
Please read those guidelines you keep posting at people and then consider actually following them.
