Published On: Fri, Apr 29th, 2022

Elon, we have no thought what a ruin you’re articulate about

Elon Musk is annoying himself on a tellurian theatre again by proudly bruiting a grade-school turn of laxity with a immensely formidable concepts of giveaway speech, censorship, rights and privileges of people and supervision authorities. The fact that this aggressively ignorant chairman is expected to take over one of a largest communication platforms on Earth should shock a shit out of you.

Here is what a richest male in a universe pronounced progressing today, on a height he intends to acquire:

By ‘free speech,’ we simply meant that that matches a law. we am opposite censorship that goes distant over a law. If people wish reduction giveaway speech, they will ask supervision to pass laws to that effect. Therefore, going over a law is discordant to a will of a people.

Elon’s got one thing going for him. He has demonstrated an apparently inherited trickery to container some-more bullheaded and absolved stupidity into a singular judgment than roughly anyone on a planet.

These statements are so essentially wrong — factually, ethically, practically, and in each other way, that we frequency know where to begin.

For one thing, he competence wish to demeanour during a many facile descriptions of what constitutes giveaway debate and censorship. Censorship is when state authorities extent a debate of a people underneath their power. Free debate is a pledge that no movement tangible as debate is bootleg outward a few damaging examples, like harassment, hatred debate and other special cases (under consistent negotiation) that we as a multitude have motionless consecrate or intensify crimes.

But this is an unbelievably difficult and nuanced concept, not a large thick line with censorship on one side of it and tributary miss of any limitation on a other. The courts are constantly — as in, during all times in authorised story there are outrageous cases environment new precedents — literally defining and redefining what is meant by “that that matches a law.” We have a whole bend of supervision whose pursuit it is to appreciate a law. There is no elementary resolution or algorithm or set of tough and quick manners that oversee this, and a thought that Elon seems to possibly assume there is or, introduce one be drawn up, is a initial pointer that he has 0 thought what he’s articulate about.

Next is “censorship that goes distant over a law.” Presumably he means “censorship” such as mediation by private actors like companies, that isn’t censorship (only governments can be censors) though actually, by clarification and authorised precedent, an expression of giveaway debate by those companies.

By seeking to extent what private companies (as they are deliberate underneath a law Musk seems to caring so many about) do in this context, he is proposing boundary on their giveaway speech. By suggesting that a supervision be a one to conclude and levy these limits, he is literally proposing a complement of censorship.

This isn’t some uncanny turn of logic, it’s what a difference he pronounced indeed mean. He only had no goddamn thought what he was saying.

Will Elon Musk put Twitter on a collision march with tellurian debate regulators?

Next up, “If people wish reduction giveaway speech, they will ask supervision to pass laws to that effect. Therefore, going over a law is discordant to a will of a people.” OK! There indeed are lots of proposals along these lines, Elon. Right now a nation is in a thick of a genuine and terrifying conflict over tangible giveaway debate in that teachers are being told — by their govenments, that creates it censorship! — that topics they can and can't learn in schools.

Florida and Texas and others wish to extent giveaway speech; in fact they’ve succeeded. Who asked them to do that? “The people”? Did “the people” will that math textbooks that discuss black mathematicians from story be criminialized from use? Or that explaining given someone competence have dual dads is banned by law? The thought that supervision movement is by clarification a will of a people is one of a many genuine things I’ve ever encountered. Is Elon wakeful that voting rights are being evenly distant and bills are being created by lobbyists? Does he know a story of gerrymandering, redlining, voter termination and ubiquitous ratfuckery that creates adult a story of “asking supervision to pass laws”?

What a fuck do we know about “the will of a people,” Elon? Born abounding and now abounding over measure, this is a male who has no thought who “the people” are. He thinks they wish opening tunnels they can bucket their $80,000 cars into to digest their LA-SF invert or bicoastal lifestyle.

He might be astounded that “the will of a people,” outward a fawning burble of his replies, is that billionaires substantially shouldn’t exist during all. “The people” might really will tell him, if he asked, that his infinite cache should be liquidated and destined to shortening things like universe craving — a thing Elon pronounced he’d solve if someone sent him a plan, and afterwards forgot about. Probably given he has no thought what it’s like to be hungry, either!

More applicable to a Twitter news, this baby’s-first-free-speech-debate take on one of a many formidable and quarrelsome topics in story means a skeleton he has for a amicable network contingency be truly, truly ridiculous and uninformed.

It’s not rocket science: Why Elon Musk’s Twitter takeover could be bad for privacy

You might be astounded to hear this, Elon, though “the people” have been articulate about this for centuries. Maybe review a beginner march on ethics and philosophy, or only have someone promulgate a reading list into a few bullets. Other people, like a brightest minds of each era given we’ve been means to record it, have deliberate these topics in fact prolonged before we were innate into happening and privilege. Your take is over ignorant, given it asserts believe where there is none, asserts supremacy over something we have never even considered. You could run a Hyperloop by a opening that is Elon Musk’s believe of civics. A Dragon booster could safely boyant in a blank that is Elon Musk’s bargain of a informative and authorised intricacy of countenance and temperament in a giveaway society.

What this all portends is an impossibly uncomplicated and damaging take on giveaway debate and mediation on a height that desperately needs a sophisticated, benevolent and manageable one — something that Twitter, Facebook and everybody else have been perplexing (and failing, though solemnly advancing) to do for over a decade. Something Elon Musk appears singly utter to ideate or administrate.

Elon, your ideas on giveaway debate are not what we would call immorality or abhorrent, by a prolonged shot — they’re only wrong. They’re wrong given we are ignorant of a many simple context and fashion surrounding these concepts, as good as a rarely specialized situational believe that informs a origination and government of a complicated communication platform. You simply have no goddamn thought what you’re articulate about.

A finish timeline of a Elon Musk-Twitter saga

About the Author