This is the best summary I could come up with:
Musk spoke about two weeks after he posted a favorable response to an antisemitic tweet, causing an advertiser backlash that added to X’s already significant financial struggles.
“Our mission at X is bold: to be an open platform without censorship of thought—one that provides people information and the freedom to make up their own minds,” she wrote.
“X sits in a one-of-a-kind constellation of companies that are changing the world—from helping to conserve the planet through Tesla’s electric vehicles, to exploring new planets with SpaceX, to the seamless global connectivity of Starlink, to the potential of transforming lives with Neuralink, to responsibly reimagining the benefits of AGI through xAI.”
Yaccarino also defended Musk publicly in a post on twitter.com, writing that the X owner "offered an apology, an explanation and an explicit point of view about our position.
On November 15, Musk replied, “You have said the actual truth” to an X post that said Jewish communities are “pushing hatred against whites.”
At the DealBook interview, he called the post “foolish” and said, “I should in retrospect not have replied to that one person and should have written in greater length what I meant.”
The original article contains 486 words, the summary contains 194 words. Saved 60%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Edit - I never read any comments since the first two.
Edit - it’s ironic that the uncompromising ideology of the left is making Trump 2.0 inevitable. Absolute shame. Read the room folks.
Edit - next day: wow, 60 downvotes. I must have hit a nerve close to truth to illicit a response beyond indifference. 16 upvotes, decent ratio. I’m pretty sure that speaking in support of speech protections will become more of a freedom of religion issue in the years to come, as post-Marxist critical theory takes on more and more of a dogmatic, theological place in intellectual society. I can assure not each of you is at the end of their political and ideological journeys, and happy to have planted this seed. May it bloom. -Omar
…
Lemmy might hate me for this… Musk is right on speech. It’s not often that those in power will have the moral compass to justly decide what ideas can be said and what cannot. Without free speech protections, none of the LGBTQIA+ movement, or other social movements, would have taken hold. It sucks that extremists will espouse hurtful views, but it’s absolutely critical that the speech of minority voices be protected. What will the world be like if the assholes win and say the only legal speech is something that would completely abhor us today. Look at speech in Russia. I believe the country has just designated LGBTQIA+ activists terrorists. What will happen if the wrong people get power in the USA or Europe?
Edit: I’m not going to reply any more. I’ve said my piece.
Edit: one more edit for the downvotes. Someone you don’t like can have a correct idea. Someone who you admire can have the wrong idea. There’s an argument that speech protections should extended into the defacto town squares (short of harassment, etc…), and because of the reasons I stated above, it’s an important humanitarian issue. I’m not some asshole troll trying to stir anything up, just wanted to voice an idea I feel is important. Wish you all well.
Another edit 30 mins later: I’m an HSP with PTSD, so as much as I would like to chat and learnt some other perspectives, my nervous system has a hard time with stimulation when I don’t feel safe that I can be speaking to someone in good faith. I understand this may seem counterintuitive to my argument, but I still think speech protection is an important humanitarian issue that is worth dealing with speech I don’t agree with.
Edit: 1 hour later. Well, I never thought it would get this much disapproval. May you all live life with wisdom and honor and light. And may you never be silenced in your pursuit of justice. Peace.
He has the right to free speech, and advertisers have the right to walk. What’s your point
He owns a major social network and his remarks are regularly repeated in the press. Who or what is harming his free speech? The constitutional right to free speech is protection from the government punishing someone. The advertisers are exercising their right to be associated or not with what happens on “X”.
Free speech is certainly under threat. Arguments against free speech have never been as popular as they are now in the U.S., for instance.
It doesn’t sound like you know what “free speech” means and you didn’t address anything I said about it.
I am a huge proponent of free speech personally, and I exercise it regularly. However, I do not believe it is a right to be able to force your speech into places it is not wanted.
Free speech should also include other people’s right to be free from your speech, if they so wish. It is not a right to force your speech onto others against their will.
In actual fact, it is only one thing, and that’s the letter of the law. Congress shall make no law that infringes. It says nothing about corporations or individuals, who have the right to do as they wish. And frankly, if you want to fuck up some corporations, we’d probably be happy to help with that. Don’t listen to conservatives trying to say woke is censorship. It’s a lot more complicated than that, as usual.
Feel free to pm me a reply if you’d like to have your say, but rather not engage in public.
Why don’t you want to engage in public? Just curious, I don’t have any contentious viewpoint to express
I was extending the offer to the person I was replying to. As they were taking heat from several different people, which can be a stressful situation, they rather reasonably decided to stop replying.
In the event that he had something he wished to say to me, but did not want to come back to the thread, I extended an invitation to pm me, if he wished.
That’s all. I don’t personally need to pm, but thought I’d be polite.
If you look at musjs actions, he shuts down speech he doesn’t like. He is only a proponent of free speech that benefits him.
I agree, minority voices should be able to freely say what they want. Nobody has the right to force others to listen, though.
The principle of free speech is good, but it too has limits. Musk is not a proponent of free speech and Twitter is no longer useful for activists or political organisation. Probably why the totalitarian governments invested in it. To shut down that type of use.
Elon is free to say or agree with whatever wild point of view he chooses and advertisers are free to decide they don’t want their brand associated with that kind of take. That isn’t a free speech issue, it’s the free market that Elon pretends to love in action.
He doesn’t want free speech, he wants consequence free speech which has never been a thing.
Fwiw, you got my up vote for contributing an honest opinion to the thread. Totally excellent in that regard.
Where I disagree is in thinking that muskrat is making decisions based on a moral compass defending free speech. He will gladly suppress speech he doesn’t like, given a chance.
I would also point you towards the so called tolerance “paradox”. There must be limits to what is tolerated, or the whole thing breaks down. And that’s coming from someone that’s pretty damn tolerant of extreme speech as a matter of principle. But the truth is that musk has free speech. He has publicly made statements, and has not received governmental interference in his ability to say dumb shit. Nor have any of the idiots spewing bigoted rhetoric.
I will also exercise my free speech and say that I will gladly put my foot up the ass of anyone that says the same shit as musk approved of in my presence. Freedom of speech does not equate freedom from consequences of speech. That includes my preference for kicking the shit out of bigots, advertisers backing away, etc.
Edit: I would also encourage anyone finding this to go and upvote the person I’m responding to. They made a comment in good faith, that was on topic and honest. That should be an opportunity to have a good conversation about it, no matter how many times it’s been covered before. It’s an important conversation to repeat. The boundaries of one of the core human rights (that of freedom of speech/expression) is too important to not merit repeated discussion.
The limits are violence, no? The point of free speech is that the government doesn’t get to use violence against you for words. When that turns into actions such as violence or credible threats, then self defence and law enforcement come into play.
If you meant that their intolerant language should warrant intolerance from you, then great, that’s covered under free speech. But that’s not what you mean, you want to respond to intolerant language with violence and want to pick which language is intolerant enough.
Ah, I’d say that when it’s the government, any application of the power of state against speech has to be rigorously prevented. Not just violence.
I’m not claiming perfection for myself, I do hold contradictory beliefs (on the surface anyway, underneath they’re extensions of a more complex thought process). But, yeah, there’s a point at which intolerance becomes such a threat to a stable society that only eradicating it when it arises is going to allow for stability. Once you get into nazi territory, all bets are off for me.
Lemmy is even worse than than Reddit when it comes to sharing a different opinion. Don’t even try that here. I also do agree Trump will get elected again mainly because the left continues to silence the right. So instead of communication, people from the left have no issues doing whatever it takes to silence voices they dont like. And they call it free speech lmao. This is why I left Democrat and became a Republican. Though last time I refused to vote for Trump, this time I will. Cause the yinyang is broken. We need a balance.
I pity the ceo who has to cleanup after him
Never pity a CEO. Ever. They make a quarter of a million doing less than you with only a golden parachute.
They make a quarter of a million…
You haven’t seen CEO compensation lately. She makes between $6-12m depending on bonuses and stock options.
$6-12m depending on bonuses and stock options.
Considering the ad revenue I think it will be closer to 6…still a good payday.
Yup. By all accounts she’s been a shitty boss everywhere she works, with a penchant for dealing with bad news by sticking her head in the sand. Big Trump fan too.
I dunno, being a CEO is a stressful job, the buck stops with you ultimately. Yes they’re paid very well, which counters this a bit!
lol, fucking please. The buck stops with them? So when they over hire and fuck up profits do they get fired or is it all the staff? And when they do get fired do they get packages for fucking up? What about regular employees? Get outta here with that ignorant nonsense.
I think the problem is that most often the buck doesn’t stop with them. They always find a way to find a scapegoat instead. If they were 100% liable for anything wrong the company does, we’d be on the right path. But it’s always a “rogue employee”.
Person hired as meat puppet mouth piece for owner continues to defend owner.
Details at 11.
For $6 Million a year, fuck yeah I’d consider it myself. You don’t even look bad if you fuck it up because the world’s richest fuckwit outshines every possible fuck up every step of the way.
i would gladly get paid 6 million to defend…Almost anyone.
[[if the glove does not fit, you must aquit intensifies]]
CEO is just a musk suck up.
