I am trying to think through this from a neutral standpoint. After all, some of the tech world has put in significant effort to silence conservatives on platforms at scale. It's somewhat painful to see even if I am not a conservative.
Personally, I only follow things I like on Twitter which means I don't see any hate speech. It's hard for me to anecdotally say if things have changed. But it's not hard to imagine that chronically-online groups who have hate for Elon and his companies would try to crumble his social network because they don't agree with his approach.
This feels like a really slippery slope. Hard to weigh in honestly.
But it's not hard to imagine that chronically-online groups who have hate for Elon and his companies would try to crumble his social network because they don't agree with his approach.
You're imagining a vast anti-Elon conspiracy (with no apparent motive), instead of the much more boring explanation that an organization that tries to combat antisemitism is upset at antisemitism.
> some of the tech world has put in significant effort to silence conservatives
It's true, but that would be within Twitter and Meta's rights. The real issue was that they did so at the behest of the incoming administration, in behind-the-scenes meetings. It's the involvement of government officials that may have broken laws and trampled the First Amendment. Also egregious and painful to see was that they shadow-banned accounts rather than banning them outright.
But I don't see how that has anything to do with a private, non-government advocacy group making their feelings known to advertisers. It happens all the time. Conservative groups call to boycott Budweiser, liberal groups call to boycott Chik-fil-A. It's not illegal.
However, it's effective as a stunt for Elon, because saying that a Jewish advocacy group has the power to shut down his business implies, as subtext, the unspoken bit about Jews controlling the world. The statement and the choice of target leans on that implication. And the quote where he jokes that they're a defamation organization, as opposed to "anti-", reminds me of Sartre's quote which is worth repeating in full:
"Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past."
It's true, but that would be within Twitter and Meta's rights. The real issue was that they did so at the behest of the incoming administration, in behind-the-scenes meetings. It's the involvement of government officials that may have broken laws and trampled the First Amendment. Also egregious and painful to see was that they shadow-banned accounts rather than banning them outright.
I don't believe there is any evidence for any of these claims. Rather the opposite: pro-freedom pro-business anti-regulation conservatives have been crying wolf for years now, demanding special meetings with tech companies, demanding special treatment, demanding government intervention, demanding that they be allowed to say anything without consequences.
Modern US conservatives are a minority. How big of a minority depends on how you draw the lines. Republican policy proposals are often (but not always) even more unpopular. Cognitive dissonance (or just good old fashioned politicking) demands some conservatives insist otherwise and see everything as some kind of suppression effort or conspiracy.
It's the whole "conservatism can't ever fail... it can only be failed" thing at work. Or the Simpsons Skinner meme: "Am I Out of Touch? No, it's the voters who are wrong!" If only the big mean tech companies weren't suppressing my clearly superior views everyone would agree with me. No... maybe your views are just way less popular than you think. Maybe instead of being shadow banned people just think you're an asshole.
“We were under pressure from the administration and others to do more,” responded a Facebook vice president in charge of content policy, speaking of the Biden administration. “We shouldn’t have done it.”
The discussion took place three months after Facebook, which is owned by Meta Platforms META -0.14%decrease; red down pointing triangle, decided to stop banning posts asserting that Covid-19 was man-made or manufactured, in light of increasing debate about the virus’s origin.
So, you mean to tell me the gov't wanted them to continue to ban covid disinformation even though Meta decided it wouldn't? and then changed it's mind? Seems like Meta did the right thing. I'm not sure I come to the same inference that you do, where covid disinformation is some form of speech that is protected by the 1st amd as opposed to the other numerous forms of speech that the gov't does have the power to regulate, such that you get to the conclusion that this is somehow antithetical to the purpose of the 1st amd. I'm no "free speech absolutist" because there is no such actual thing nor ever was in american jurisprudence
i tend to agree with you, there isn’t a free-speech absolutist who wouldn’t fire someone if that person went on a rant cussing them out at work. free-speech absolutism is absurd.
if a free-speech “consequence free” absolutist were to berate their wife and call her disgusting every day, we could ask them how seriously anyone takes their “i have free speech” as she walks out the door with their kids.
there isn’t a free-speech absolutist who wouldn’t fire someone if that person went on a rant cussing them out at work.
if a free-speech “consequence free” absolutist were to berate their wife and call her disgusting every day, we could ask them how seriously anyone takes their “i have free speech” as she walks out the door with their kids.
"In light of increasing debate about the virus’s origin" — as in, the government has changed it mind and now certain branches believe COVID-19 might be man-made after all. So the "disinformation" may have been true.
But I don't see how that has anything to do with a private, non-government advocacy group making their feelings known to advertisers. It happens all the time. Conservative groups call to boycott Budweiser, liberal groups call to boycott Chik-fil-A. It's not illegal.
Definitely not. But if (not asserting this happened) the ADL threatened to defame as antisemitic any advertiser that didn't participate in a boycott, that could be illegal.
But I don't see how that has anything to do with a private, non-government advocacy group making their feelings known to advertisers. It happens all the time
It might be perfectly fine, but why should the target of this campaign- also a private entity- refrain from denouncing this and retaliating with bad publicity for the involved advocacy group? Twitter/ X lives off ad revenue, and the ADL lives off its reputation of a non-partisan organisation pursuing a laudable cause. If ADL can erode X's advertising revenue, I don't see why X shouldn't fight back by trying to weaken the ADL's reputation, as long as it is done in the open and by legal means.
It's a bit of a high-risk strategy, isn't it? If one accuses the ADL of saying untrue harmful things about them and those things turn out to be true, then not only is one now carrying the initial bad actions on one's reputation, but one now has the added reputation of trying to legally bury knowledge of those actions. Not a great look.
Yes, but it works also the other way around. If the ADL accuses one of doing something nefarious and then it turns out not to be true, their reputation is also compromised. The ADL must accept that there is a risk in moving its accusations, otherwise they would have no accountability.
And even assuming that from a risk standpoint X should rather comply to whatever the ADL demands; what is the effect of companies never fighting back purely because of risk aversion? Wouldn't this end up making the activist organisation less accountable and even encourage further demands?
But X would need to prove that the ADL made defamatory statements - presumably in private to said advertisers, because Elon's contention is that he's "heard from advertisers" about it. Then X would need to prove that those statements were false, and then prove that they financially harmed X. I'm dubious that X wants to, or can, do that. If Musk wants to go on a crusade to test whether the ADL makes up lies about antisemitism out of left-wing partisan hate for him personally (and if he really believes that), then fine, try to hold the ADL accountable. Why not? But the reason I quoted Sartre in that post is that I believe there is no sincerity to this. Selecting a Jewish organization as the source of his financial woes is simply a dog whistle to his increasingly radical rightwing fan base.
Of course if they went to court, X would have to prove what they claim. And ADL would probably have to do the same. It's the normal course of things between private entities.
In the meantime, the ADL has already threatened X with reputational damage, and now Musk is doing the same with the ADL- by spreading the idea that their motives are not necessarily laudable. I see a perfect symmetry in the situation.
the reason I quoted Sartre in that post is that I believe there is no sincerity to this. Selecting a Jewish organization...
Basically what you're saying here is that your judgement of the situation is biased by the fact that the ADL is a Jewish organisation. Should Jewish organisations not be engaged directly or asked to be accountable for their actions?
The poster is clearly saying that Elon is full of shit and chose a Jewish org as a dog whistle to his fanbase, it's beyond my understanding how you came to the conclusion that the poster meant that jewish organizations are beyond accountability...
Note that the ADL is not the first organisation singled out by Musk: a month ago X filed a lawsuit against the Center for Countering Digital Hate, a non-Jewish organisation. So the argument that he chose a Jewish org is weaker given it's not the only one or the first one.
As for the accountability, it seems obvious to me that if accusing a Jewish organisation of wrongdoing automatically exposes you to such a terrible suspicion as that of making antisemitic dogwhistles, then these organisations get free rein to say whatever they want because even challenging them produces an unacceptable reputational damage.
It's besides the point because Musk's targeting of the ADL occurs while he also boosts anti-semitism on his platform.
As for the accountability, it seems obvious to me that if accusing a Jewish organisation of wrongdoing automatically exposes you to such a terrible suspicion as that of making antisemitic dogwhistles, then these organisations get free rein to say whatever they want because even challenging them produces an unacceptable reputational damage.
I'm not sure how they are any less accountable than he is. If he wants to sue them, he can. There is nothing stopping that because the ADL is a Jewish organization. What accountability do you think there is aside from that? The ADL can't force anything to happen, they can just advocate for their side as he does.
You are being purposefully obtuse. Musk isn't being called an antisemite because he's singled-out the ADL, it's because he's amplified antisemitism and doesn't seem to care about it.
Not sure that it was the only interaction- but the Keith Woods' tweet was a link to an article critical of the ADL written by a renowned Jewish scholar, Norman Finkelstein. What is important, who tweets the link, or the link's contents?
Let's just also stipulate that Norman Finkelstein is not a renowned Jewish scholar. He is a profound antisemite whose Jewish ethnicity makes him a favorite prop for neo-nazis to trot out.
Both. While avoidance of ad hominem is a useful rule for sophists using argumentation as an intellectual game or to better their ability to argue in a Greek court of law, in the modern world there is content of the topic but also, very much, the reason a particular channel chose to share it and the reason a particular influential individual chose to reshare it. Even in our modern law courts, it is germane to question not just the testimony of a witness but the character of said witness.
The critique in the article can be considered on its own. The fact that it comes to us via Elon Musk resharing Keith Woods, and not as an original link from Musk, tells us volumes about how Musk is willing to be publicly portrayed and who he appears to be listening to, which are also relevant information for the topic at hand.
the absurdity of “we’re being censored for our conservative views” is that the primary target of banning hasnt been a “conservative viewpoints”.
for example, if someone is banned for saying “death to non-whites”, theres a pretty good chance they’re being banned for advocating genocide, not because they’re conservative.
or if someone was banned for denying that covid was real, they weren’t banned for “conservative views”. whether we agree with the reasoning or not, they were banned for denying covid when the sites had made clear this topic would result in a ban.
i’ll repeat what i’ve said many times before. this idea that banning is somehow new, or is some creepy definition of censorship is nonsense. site owners and moderators have had rules for their online spaces since the beginnings. and just like real world spaces, people get removed constantly. it’s not new. it’s not weird. it’s not shocking.
for example, if someone is banned for saying “death to non-whites”, theres a pretty good chance they’re being banned for advocating genocide, not because they’re conservative.
I think you will find that people have been getting banned for rather less harsh statements, like "maybe Covid was man-made", "Hunter Biden is corrupt", and "men cannot be women."
Most of the tech billionaires are conservatives (Musk, Thiel, Graham, Ellison, etc.)...are you suggesting that they are for some reason conspiring to silence themselves?
The billionaire executives are much more conservative than middle managers, HR, corporate drones. But even at the top level you have plenty of liberals (Omidyar, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Pichai…)
Comments
I am trying to think through this from a neutral standpoint. After all, some of the tech world has put in significant effort to silence conservatives on platforms at scale. It's somewhat painful to see even if I am not a conservative.
Personally, I only follow things I like on Twitter which means I don't see any hate speech. It's hard for me to anecdotally say if things have changed. But it's not hard to imagine that chronically-online groups who have hate for Elon and his companies would try to crumble his social network because they don't agree with his approach.
This feels like a really slippery slope. Hard to weigh in honestly.
You're imagining a vast anti-Elon conspiracy (with no apparent motive), instead of the much more boring explanation that an organization that tries to combat antisemitism is upset at antisemitism.
Weird how this contemplates anything but there being a significant rise in the antisemitism voiced on twitter
Respectfully you’re expecting the reader to fall for this informal logical fallacy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definist_fallacy
It's true, but that would be within Twitter and Meta's rights. The real issue was that they did so at the behest of the incoming administration, in behind-the-scenes meetings. It's the involvement of government officials that may have broken laws and trampled the First Amendment. Also egregious and painful to see was that they shadow-banned accounts rather than banning them outright.
But I don't see how that has anything to do with a private, non-government advocacy group making their feelings known to advertisers. It happens all the time. Conservative groups call to boycott Budweiser, liberal groups call to boycott Chik-fil-A. It's not illegal.
However, it's effective as a stunt for Elon, because saying that a Jewish advocacy group has the power to shut down his business implies, as subtext, the unspoken bit about Jews controlling the world. The statement and the choice of target leans on that implication. And the quote where he jokes that they're a defamation organization, as opposed to "anti-", reminds me of Sartre's quote which is worth repeating in full:
"Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past."
I don't believe there is any evidence for any of these claims. Rather the opposite: pro-freedom pro-business anti-regulation conservatives have been crying wolf for years now, demanding special meetings with tech companies, demanding special treatment, demanding government intervention, demanding that they be allowed to say anything without consequences.
Modern US conservatives are a minority. How big of a minority depends on how you draw the lines. Republican policy proposals are often (but not always) even more unpopular. Cognitive dissonance (or just good old fashioned politicking) demands some conservatives insist otherwise and see everything as some kind of suppression effort or conspiracy.
It's the whole "conservatism can't ever fail... it can only be failed" thing at work. Or the Simpsons Skinner meme: "Am I Out of Touch? No, it's the voters who are wrong!" If only the big mean tech companies weren't suppressing my clearly superior views everyone would agree with me. No... maybe your views are just way less popular than you think. Maybe instead of being shadow banned people just think you're an asshole.
Your belief is incorrect. To give one isolated example (out of many): https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-bowed-to-white-house-p...
Really? Linking to taking down covid disinformation seems to be making the poster's exact point
So, you mean to tell me the gov't wanted them to continue to ban covid disinformation even though Meta decided it wouldn't? and then changed it's mind? Seems like Meta did the right thing. I'm not sure I come to the same inference that you do, where covid disinformation is some form of speech that is protected by the 1st amd as opposed to the other numerous forms of speech that the gov't does have the power to regulate, such that you get to the conclusion that this is somehow antithetical to the purpose of the 1st amd. I'm no "free speech absolutist" because there is no such actual thing nor ever was in american jurisprudence
i tend to agree with you, there isn’t a free-speech absolutist who wouldn’t fire someone if that person went on a rant cussing them out at work. free-speech absolutism is absurd.
if a free-speech “consequence free” absolutist were to berate their wife and call her disgusting every day, we could ask them how seriously anyone takes their “i have free speech” as she walks out the door with their kids.
Of course! Both the insulted boss and battered wife have freedom of association. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association
"In light of increasing debate about the virus’s origin" — as in, the government has changed it mind and now certain branches believe COVID-19 might be man-made after all. So the "disinformation" may have been true.
I don't see where it says "the government has changed it mind"
In other reporting: https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2023-02-27/us-departme...
Definitely not. But if (not asserting this happened) the ADL threatened to defame as antisemitic any advertiser that didn't participate in a boycott, that could be illegal.
It might be perfectly fine, but why should the target of this campaign- also a private entity- refrain from denouncing this and retaliating with bad publicity for the involved advocacy group? Twitter/ X lives off ad revenue, and the ADL lives off its reputation of a non-partisan organisation pursuing a laudable cause. If ADL can erode X's advertising revenue, I don't see why X shouldn't fight back by trying to weaken the ADL's reputation, as long as it is done in the open and by legal means.
It's a bit of a high-risk strategy, isn't it? If one accuses the ADL of saying untrue harmful things about them and those things turn out to be true, then not only is one now carrying the initial bad actions on one's reputation, but one now has the added reputation of trying to legally bury knowledge of those actions. Not a great look.
Yes, but it works also the other way around. If the ADL accuses one of doing something nefarious and then it turns out not to be true, their reputation is also compromised. The ADL must accept that there is a risk in moving its accusations, otherwise they would have no accountability.
And even assuming that from a risk standpoint X should rather comply to whatever the ADL demands; what is the effect of companies never fighting back purely because of risk aversion? Wouldn't this end up making the activist organisation less accountable and even encourage further demands?
But X would need to prove that the ADL made defamatory statements - presumably in private to said advertisers, because Elon's contention is that he's "heard from advertisers" about it. Then X would need to prove that those statements were false, and then prove that they financially harmed X. I'm dubious that X wants to, or can, do that. If Musk wants to go on a crusade to test whether the ADL makes up lies about antisemitism out of left-wing partisan hate for him personally (and if he really believes that), then fine, try to hold the ADL accountable. Why not? But the reason I quoted Sartre in that post is that I believe there is no sincerity to this. Selecting a Jewish organization as the source of his financial woes is simply a dog whistle to his increasingly radical rightwing fan base.
Of course if they went to court, X would have to prove what they claim. And ADL would probably have to do the same. It's the normal course of things between private entities.
In the meantime, the ADL has already threatened X with reputational damage, and now Musk is doing the same with the ADL- by spreading the idea that their motives are not necessarily laudable. I see a perfect symmetry in the situation.
Basically what you're saying here is that your judgement of the situation is biased by the fact that the ADL is a Jewish organisation. Should Jewish organisations not be engaged directly or asked to be accountable for their actions?
The poster is clearly saying that Elon is full of shit and chose a Jewish org as a dog whistle to his fanbase, it's beyond my understanding how you came to the conclusion that the poster meant that jewish organizations are beyond accountability...
Note that the ADL is not the first organisation singled out by Musk: a month ago X filed a lawsuit against the Center for Countering Digital Hate, a non-Jewish organisation. So the argument that he chose a Jewish org is weaker given it's not the only one or the first one.
As for the accountability, it seems obvious to me that if accusing a Jewish organisation of wrongdoing automatically exposes you to such a terrible suspicion as that of making antisemitic dogwhistles, then these organisations get free rein to say whatever they want because even challenging them produces an unacceptable reputational damage.
It's besides the point because Musk's targeting of the ADL occurs while he also boosts anti-semitism on his platform.
I'm not sure how they are any less accountable than he is. If he wants to sue them, he can. There is nothing stopping that because the ADL is a Jewish organization. What accountability do you think there is aside from that? The ADL can't force anything to happen, they can just advocate for their side as he does.
You are being purposefully obtuse. Musk isn't being called an antisemite because he's singled-out the ADL, it's because he's amplified antisemitism and doesn't seem to care about it.
Regardless of what you think about ADL, he is now retweeting white nationalists like Keith Woods.
Not sure that it was the only interaction- but the Keith Woods' tweet was a link to an article critical of the ADL written by a renowned Jewish scholar, Norman Finkelstein. What is important, who tweets the link, or the link's contents?
Let's just also stipulate that Norman Finkelstein is not a renowned Jewish scholar. He is a profound antisemite whose Jewish ethnicity makes him a favorite prop for neo-nazis to trot out.
Both. While avoidance of ad hominem is a useful rule for sophists using argumentation as an intellectual game or to better their ability to argue in a Greek court of law, in the modern world there is content of the topic but also, very much, the reason a particular channel chose to share it and the reason a particular influential individual chose to reshare it. Even in our modern law courts, it is germane to question not just the testimony of a witness but the character of said witness.
The critique in the article can be considered on its own. The fact that it comes to us via Elon Musk resharing Keith Woods, and not as an original link from Musk, tells us volumes about how Musk is willing to be publicly portrayed and who he appears to be listening to, which are also relevant information for the topic at hand.
That doesn’t strike me as a neutral statement! What does “conservatives” mean in this context? Always reminds me of this tweet:
—-
Conservative: I have been censored for my conservative views
Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting lower taxes?
Con: LOL no...no not those views
Me: So....deregulation?
Con: Haha no not those views either
Me: Which views, exactly?
Con: Oh, you know the ones
https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/105039166355267174...
Why would a conservative complain about their views being censored, and then self-censor those same views? Seems like a strange straw man
the absurdity of “we’re being censored for our conservative views” is that the primary target of banning hasnt been a “conservative viewpoints”.
for example, if someone is banned for saying “death to non-whites”, theres a pretty good chance they’re being banned for advocating genocide, not because they’re conservative.
or if someone was banned for denying that covid was real, they weren’t banned for “conservative views”. whether we agree with the reasoning or not, they were banned for denying covid when the sites had made clear this topic would result in a ban.
i’ll repeat what i’ve said many times before. this idea that banning is somehow new, or is some creepy definition of censorship is nonsense. site owners and moderators have had rules for their online spaces since the beginnings. and just like real world spaces, people get removed constantly. it’s not new. it’s not weird. it’s not shocking.
I think you will find that people have been getting banned for rather less harsh statements, like "maybe Covid was man-made", "Hunter Biden is corrupt", and "men cannot be women."
Treating this neutrally is difficult when we can't agree on what constitutes anti-Semitism. We aren't debating it in this comment section at least.
Most of the tech billionaires are conservatives (Musk, Thiel, Graham, Ellison, etc.)...are you suggesting that they are for some reason conspiring to silence themselves?
The billionaire executives are much more conservative than middle managers, HR, corporate drones. But even at the top level you have plenty of liberals (Omidyar, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Pichai…)
What makes any of these rich corporate assholes "liberal"?
you probably have to differentiate social liberals and fiscal liberals.