Anybody considering leaving Twitter?

[Todd]

It wasn't simply what happened with Roth.

I like some of what you quoted.  For instance: "That new branding is ugly and despicable and I don't want to contribute content to it. The last straw was Elon Musk sending lunatics and bigots against former employees and leaning into conspiracy theories. So I'm exercising my free speech and free association and leaving, and shuttering the account."

It is dressed up as principled and high-minded decision making; it is purely ideological virtue signaling.  Of course people can come and go from different platforms, but this author apparently felt an obligation to say "look at me" when leaving.  Actual free speech requires putting up with the despicable.  It's not that hard to grasp, really. 

Does anyone care that a handful of companies have so much power to drive discourse and behavior?

Social media platforms are arguably the third most powerful propaganda tools behind broadcast television and radio.  In some areas they may be more potent than the older two technologies. 

There has been comparatively little concern expressed about the revelations that Twitter and Facebook certainly based on Taibbi's reporting and Zuckerberg's comments, and most likely all other social media platforms, are working directly with federal government security agencies in a way that shortcuts due process, in some instances entirely.  This anti-speech, anti-liberty, pro-state stance and ideological inversion of support for free speech (ie, "liberals" began to openly and unapologetically support speech suppression, and "conservatives" the opposite) began to emerge in the wake of Chelsea Manning's leaks, ratcheted up considerably in the wake of Edward Snowden's leaks, and then intensified when Trump rode down that escalator.  Typically, such feverish illiberalism abates after elections, but it has not this time.  It is clear that a significant proportion of the population openly supports and in fact desires authoritarian rule, but that was made clear during the pandemic.

[Brian]

This evening Twitter permanently banned the accounts of several journalists who report on Musk and his businesses.

Edit: Also seeing multiple people report that Twitter has banned links to the rival website Mastodon.

[amw]

There has been comparatively little concern expressed about the revelations that Twitter and Facebook certainly based on Taibbi's reporting and Zuckerberg's comments, and most likely all other social media platforms, are working directly with federal government security agencies in a way that shortcuts due process, in some instances entirely. 

To be fair these are hardly "revelations" and have been known, at least to communists and anti-imperialists, for... probably most of the 2010s. I vaguely remember some outcry when Facebook introduced new content moderation policies based on consultation with think tanks directly funded by, and staffed by, US and NATO agencies (such as the Atlantic Council), but Americans tended to ignore this in favour of outcry about the several explicitly partisan think tanks that had participated, preferring to believe that social media had been captured by the Democrats/Republicans instead of having been, all along and now explicitly, a propaganda arm of the US/NATO regime.

For one example (and undoubtedly a contentious one here), back when I was part of Palestine solidarity movements campaigns were frequently launched to use public pressure to undo the social media censorship (account suspensions, deletions of groups and pages, etc) of various Palestinian civil society and news organisations that were opposed to the American party line of normalisation with Israel, to the point where sometimes it felt like people were spending more time trying to get accounts unbanned than actually providing material support to Palestine—by design, presumably.

I will not argue in favour of free speech here; the lip service paid to it can be a useful weapon in our society, but there are others for when it fails. That said, conservatives have never desired free speech any more than liberals have. Every ideological position (except possibly anarchism) holds that the speech of its enemies should be suppressed via state power, or its nearest equivalent, and only uses "our free speech is being taken away!" as a rhetorical device to signal a fundamental uncertainty, a fear that the public sphere no longer belongs exclusively to them. This fear need not be grounded in reality. Politically, conservatives have been in the ascendant worldwide ever since around 2010, but they are too weak and uncertain in their goals to translate that ascendancy into confidence. Liberals have become politically unsteady, losing track of their own goals as a result, yielding now a situation where both political strains believe their free speech is being suppressed by the other.

[Todd]

To be fair these are hardly "revelations" and have been known, at least to communists and anti-imperialists, for... probably most of the 2010s.

Of course.  That is why I mentioned the ideological inversion of speech suppression starting around 2010.  The media circus surrounding the Snowden leaks and the righteous indignation at learning of the illegal behavior of various security state agencies immediately gave way to defense of those agencies - mostly on the American left, to the extent it actually exists.  (The recent breaking of the railroad unions shows it does not, as does Bernie pulling his Yemen resolution.)  You can actually go back and read posts defending the practice on this very forum.  The point here is that some people denied that Twitter was actively censoring people, with an observable ideological agenda, and now that it has been documented, they remain silent or will use various vapid current political phrases such as "nothingburger" to minimize it.  But really, it goes beyond that.  There have been repeated public calls to ban this or that person, this or that group, for years.  The lusted for bans are disguised as righteous, but they of course are nothing of the sort.

Almost everyone wants to suppress speech at some point.  The more openly statist a political ideology is - eg, the narrow range of ideologies held by US Democrats - the greater the lust for censorship.  Of course many or most Republicans favor censorship at different times.  Think the Dubya "free speech zones", though even those were happily embraced by Democrats.

Every ideological position (except possibly anarchism) holds that the speech of its enemies should be suppressed via state power

This is not correct.  In the US, there are indeed some principled libertarians, anti-federal conservatives, "liberals" who actually defend civil liberties (they are very rare now), and assorted others, to go along with anarchists.  Such people have diminished in number since around the collapse of the USSR.  Back in waning days of the Cold War, I never met personally and almost never read about so-called liberals suppressing political speech (other kinds could be suppressed, sure), whereas some conservatives favored suppressing commie speech because of the danger it posed to civilized society.  (Conservatives were down with suppressing other forms of speech, too.) I understand that is anecdotal.  I also understand that what appears on the internet overrepresents the overall public appetite for speech suppression.  When it comes to political communication, the internet tends to be a series of platforms for people to crow about their moral superiority, intellectual superiority, and just all-round virtuousness, and that potent brew of goodness imbues many folks with the faulty belief that they are able to effectively determine what should be censored, and to balk at the fairly minimal case law restrictions on speech in the US, instead favoring more restrictions.  I am one of those people who think case law restrictions are too broad and should be narrowed.  I want to read what commies think (and to that end I read WSWS at least monthly); I want to read what white/black/<insert other group here> separatists think (I enjoy a good laugh); I want to read the latest on so-called gender identity; and so on.  It all needs to be out there, all the time, without limitation beyond the narrow restrictions imposed by case law. 

It is also an observable trend that tertiary social issues are being used as wedge issues, as they always are, but they are now used constantly, in a more intensive way, and in a more targeted way.  New wedge issues have either been invented or previously irrelevant ones have been amplified in the recent past (the current state of gender identity is an example).  New language and new scholarship are being invented or increasingly emphasized to justify the expansion of state power to suppress speech, sometimes with a truly nonsensical basis.  There are academic and even popular press articles out there that not only state that speech can lead to violence, but that speech is violence in some cases.  That's not new, either, though it is increasing in frequency.  I've witnessed people in real life and most certainly online, and definitely on this forum, initially dismiss, say, the idea that statues and names of Founding Fathers (and I mean the more important ones like Washington and Jefferson) would be removed from public spaces only to then defend the actions when they occur.  There is no reason to believe that the same people would not adopt wider speech suppression on perverted notions of public safety. 

Suppression of speech and dissent, a rather important type of speech I would assert, is getting worse, at least online. 

One of the broader implications of this western phenomenon is that the more ingrained such foolhardy notions become, the more they will work their way into foreign policy goals - newer notions of equality will morph into human rights - and those will be used to justify all manner of ill-guided policies against other countries that do not adhere to western values.  Which of course is the majority of humanity.  The West and the US can turn anything into a crusade. 

[SimonNZ]

Tesla's Third Largest Shareholder Calls For the Ouster of Elon Musk as CEO
"Elon abandoned Tesla and Tesla has no working CEO," said KoGuan Leo, who owns $3.4 billion worth of Tesla shares.

[Karl Henning]

Tesla's Third Largest Shareholder Calls For the Ouster of Elon Musk as CEO
"Elon abandoned Tesla and Tesla has no working CEO," said KoGuan Leo, who owns $3.4 billion worth of Tesla shares.

Too busy as Troll-in-Chief

[SimonNZ]

If anyone has Todd's dick pics could they please post them.

I want to see if there are "ideological" calls to "censor" your "freedom of speech".

[SimonNZ]

Twitter's suspension of journalists sets 'dangerous precedent', UN warns
Pressure grows on Elon Musk as EU says social media platform could face sanctions over suspensions

"The United Nations is "very disturbed" by Twitter's abrupt suspension of a group of US journalists, a spokesperson has said, warning that the move sets a "dangerous precedent" – as the EU said the social media platform could fall foul of forthcoming digital regulations.

Stéphane Dujarric said on Friday the UN was "very disturbed" by the barring of prominent tech reporters at news organisations including CNN, the Washington Post and the New York Times who have written about Musk and the tech company he owns.

Dujarric said media voices should not be silenced on a platform that professed to be a haven for freedom of speech. "The move sets a dangerous precedent at a time when journalists all over the world are facing censorship, physical threats and even worse," he told reporters.

Germany's government said press freedom must not be switched "on and off on a whim" and Downing Street also raised concernsover the suspensions.

The warning from the EU came from Věra Jourová, the European Commission vice-president for values and transparency, who tweeted that "news about arbitrary suspension of journalists on Twitter is worrying" and said the economic bloc's Digital Services Act (DSA) required platforms to respect media freedom. Its provisions include a requirement that when users and content are penalised it must be in a "diligent and proportionate manner, with due regard to fundamental rights".

"This is reinforced under our Media Freedom Act. Elon Musk should be aware of that. There are red lines. And sanctions, soon," she said. Breaches of the DSA, which comes into force for large tech companies next year, carry the threat of fines of up to 6% of global turnover or being temporarily suspended in extreme cases. The European Media Freedom Act, which also addresses the operation of tech platforms, is currently in draft form.

The official spokesperson for the UK prime minister, Rishi Sunak, said tech companies must "balance protecting their users while upholding free speech". The German government tweeted screenshots of the affected accounts and said it had a "problem" with the suspensions. Germany's foreign office tweeted: "Press freedom cannot be switched on and off on a whim. The journalists below can no longer follow us, comment or criticise us. We have a problem with that, @Twitter."[...]

[milk]

If anyone has Todd's dick pics could they please post them.

I want to see if there are "ideological" calls to "censor" your "freedom of speech".

As long as you are not trolling,  I think this is one of the hits on this thread.

[greg]

Twitter's suspension of journalists sets 'dangerous precedent', UN warns
Pressure grows on Elon Musk as EU says social media platform could face sanctions over suspensions

He probably should have been a bit more clear on the boundaries and rules for speech on Twitter in the first place, radical free speech has some limits- doxxing being one that is only now being addressed (apparently his private jet, and some stalker now?)

Not being clear is like a signal for everyone in the media who hates him to make him look like a hypocrite.


Weird how this is the first time I've seen the UN comment on Twitter suspensions, conservatives in particular have been facing bans and suspensions for years for opinions, yet I haven't heard them say anything about it.



...so I just checked, apparently he unsuspended the accounts just now that doxxed him. He did it after having a poll and the majority (58%) voted for him to unsuspend them.

Tbh, I don't quite agree, you have to set some boundaries IMO.

[SimonNZ]

It will be clearer if you actually read the whole article I linked to. Or any article that covers it from any reputable source.

I can tell from your comments that you haven't.

He wasn't "doxxed". It's not clear if any part of his story is in any way true given that he's chosen not to involve the police. His rules are unclear because he's making stuff up and changing things daily on whims.

[Todd]

Weird how this is the first time I've seen the UN comment on Twitter suspensions

I'd say this is something to be concerned about, but it's the UN, so that's clearly not the case.

...so I just checked, apparently he unsuspended the accounts just now that doxxed him.

Doxxing and targeted threats are the only online behaviors that should result in permanent bans.  But Twitter is Musk's plaything, so he can do what he wants with it.  And he is.  It is all quite delightful.

[milk]

I'd say this is something to be concerned about, but it's the UN, so that's clearly not the case.


Doxxing and targeted threats are the only online behaviors that should result in permanent bans.  But Twitter is Musk's plaything, so he can do what he wants with it.  And he is.  It is all quite delightful.

It is interesting how crazy people are about it. Meanwhile in Japan, where I live, no one's noticed anything is different (not that Japanese notice anything political). But I'm not on Twitter so I'm just observing.

[Todd]

It is interesting how crazy people are about it.

It's a moral panic - regarding a website used by the corporate press.  Since the corporate press is being very slightly inconvenienced, democracy is in danger, etc.  I sure hope members of the corporate press can find alternative platforms.

[Brian]

This is funny:
https://twitter.com/TwitterSupport/status/1604531265419591681

Twitter has banned links to, and usernames from, Facebook, Instagram, Truth Social, Mastodon, and various other rival platforms.

[Karl Henning]

His rules are unclear because he's making stuff up and changing things daily on whims.

That atop his being a habitual bullshitter.

[Karl Henning]

This is funny:
https://twitter.com/TwitterSupport/status/1604531265419591681

Twitter has banned links to, and usernames from, Facebook, Instagram, Truth Social, Mastodon, and various other rival platforms.

FWIW, I'm on Post Beta now.

[milk]

It's a moral panic - regarding a website used by the corporate press.  Since the corporate press is being very slightly inconvenienced, democracy is in danger, etc.  I sure hope members of the corporate press can find alternative platforms.

They absolutely love it: "I received zero communication from the company on why I was suspended or what terms I violated," Taylor Lorenz wrote on Substack.
Now there's someone who's overjoyed to be the subject of this story, any story.

[Todd]

Now there's someone who's overjoyed to be the subject of this story, any story.

Members of the corporate press decrying Musk's all-out assault on the First Amendment, liberty generally, and democracy itself are pure of heart, pure of intent, and are acting as brave defenders of the republic.  They are not using the changes at Twitter as a way to garner free publicity, enhance their public image, and possibly advance their careers.  Remember, as Jeff Bezos' WaPo slogan says, democracy dies in darkness, and the corporate press fights to bring the pure light of unbiased journalism to the world.

These are scary times.

[Brian]

Karl will like this tweet I just saw:

"For your consideration. The world's wealthiest man has made the largest purchase of his life at 44 billion dollars. The product? A machine that shows him the thoughts of millions of people who all have one thing in common: they hate him. Tonight...On the Twilight Zone."