Has Twitter Become a Musk Plaything?

[engine]

Has Twitter become an Elon Musk plaything, making things up as he goes along.?

It seems he's suspending accounts having changed the rules on--the-fly.

“You doxx, you get suspended. End of story. That's it,” Musk said, explaining his latest policy to the group, before he left minutes after having joined the discussion.

Musk was referring to Twitter's latest rule change about accounts that track private jets, including one owned by Musk himself, which was put in place Wednesday.

The Twitter account for Mastodon, a platform billed as a Twitter alternative, was also suspended early Thursday evening.

[nbcnews.com...]

As of 6:30 PM PT, many links to Mastodon no longer work on Twitter, which flags them as “potentially harmful.”

[techcrunch.com...]

[not2easy]

Yesterday's bulk Journalists ban seems to indicate that the wonderful new 'Freedom of Speech' he touted has many more boundaries each day. Who knew?

[engine]

He's choosing what he wants, fair enough, it's his system.

I heard a (a long time back) perfect example of allowing free speech, and it being unacceptable: You don't shout "FIRE" in a crowded theatre, when there is no fire.
That is unacceptable free speech, most will agree.

[lucy24]

And now the bad news: The line about shouting FIRE in a crowded theater is not the brainchild of some wise jurist or philosopher looking for a useful analogy. It is taken from a WWI-era Supreme Court (US) ruling that would today be considered horrifically wrong, involving the publication of anti-draft literature in wartime. So the literal fire-in-a-crowded-theatre example may be legitimate, but what one does with the metaphor varies wildly.

[phranque]

plaything?
or weapon?

@elonmusk: Anyone recognize this person or car? [twitter.com]

also @elonmusk, the following day:

“You doxx, you get suspended. End of story. That's it”

[tangor]

doxing in the past was not allowed.... just manged in a ham fisted manner.

only difference this time around is it is being enforced for everybody.

(read the other reports where the journalists admit, "well, yeah, we did display cached or direct links to real time..."

[jimji]

I find myself in some wonderment that some powerful media entities seem to be stating there is a case for some sort of rights for journalists on a platform such as Twitter. By extension, that would have to mean there are the same rights for all others on that platform, no?

By the way, I am informed that certain important people are allowed to have special formats used and periodically changed when that GPS data is used by/for that important person for whatever they may need the data for. I mean, that data isn't so easy to collect, if I have been informed correctly. And that seems to be an issue in this case. GPS data was gathered in some sort of incorrect manner. But that is just a "by the way" thing.

I am much more interested in the idea that certain rights are being stated by some big media folks as a given on platforms such as Twitter. And if that is allowed by any court, then that unlocks a door that some may not care to have unlocked.

I personally believe there could be some free advertising being used by Mr. Musk in this latest bit of drama, but it still has people at a door that I think many in this community informed me in the past was locked. Or didn't even exist.

I also find it absolutely amazing that some of these media entities are suddenly focusing so much attention on Twitter (free advertising) yet in other areas of the Twitter manner of operating under the previous management there was little focus on some rather unusual happenings on that Twitter platform. If Mr. Musk had not taken over management of that site, the general public would still be in the dark about some very odd happenings by the previous management folks.

[Marshall]

So many people, including politicians, news media, and anyone far left, far right, or whatever, always bring up the "Free Speech" argument when something happens on a social platform that they do not like. The ongoing ignorance of so many never ceases to amaze me. I am getting so tired of hearing "free speech is my constitutional right" and Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc., is violating that right when they suppress or remove posts. I will remind everyone, the First Amendment only prohibits the government from suppressing free speech, It does not apply to businesses or other private entity. They are free to do what they want. That said, I personally believe Musk is a vindictive man who changes the rules to suit his personal desires and he should not solely be in charge of the decisions he is making, even if he does own Twitter. His actions are akin to building a house of cards which, one day, will come back to haunt him.

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

Has Twitter become an Elon Musk plaything, making things up as he goes along.?

You could ask if media has become a play thing, too. It certainly didn't care about all the bannings happening before Elon bought the company.

Wikipedia as an example: "Thursday Night Massacre" [en.wikipedia.org...]

9 temporary bans with doxxing involved = Thursday Night Massacre? Seems dramatic.

[mack]

Elon likes rules but I don't think he believes he is personally bound by them. The recent doxxing bans make sense IMO... but in the same thread where he is discussing that, he drops a photograph of someone he claims was stalking his son in LA and asks for information on him. Effectively asking for him to be doxxed.

Mack.

[not2easy]

According to BuisinessInsider, Elon shared a photo showing the man's license plate number: [businessinsider.com...]

[tangor]

On the face of it, appears to be two faced, yet when examined it is a plea for help regarding a criminal act. Police departments do it all the time with "have you seen this xyz? Please contact..."

That's not doxxing.

Doxxing is the reverse: "This is where you can find this xyz."

[martinibuster]

I find myself in some wonderment that some powerful media entities seem to be stating there is a case for some sort of rights for journalists on a platform such as Twitter.

Do you have a link to an actual "powerful media" entity where they say that they have that right? Or are you just repeating something that you heard?

Some news organizations have quoted others saying it, but I haven't seen a news source claiming they have a right to be on Twitter.

Even the NYTimes wrote:

"Journalists’ participation on Twitter, a privately controlled company, is not tantamount to free speech; reporters are free to publish their work on their own companies’ platforms and through other social media outlets."

They go on to quote someone who says journalists have a right to report without fear of reprisal, but that seems to be their opinion and not that of the NYTimes.

[nytimes.com...]

[jimji]

Thank you, martinibuster, for the quoted text you provided, as that always me to highlight my use of nuance:

... seem to be stating there is a case for some sort of rights for journalists on a platform such as Twitter.

A full documentation of all sorts of text I have found in the last hour would be way too much for a post here, but this one I will quote a few lines from is very interesting:
[nbcnews.com ]

A spokesperson for the network said the suspensions were “impulsive and unjustified” — but not surprising.

“Twitter’s increasing instability and volatility should be of incredible concern for everyone who uses Twitter,” the network said in a statement. “We have asked Twitter for an explanation, and we will reevaluate our relationship based on that response.”

Sally Buzbee, the executive editor of The Washington Post, said Harwell’s suspension “directly undermines Elon Musk’s claim that he intends to run Twitter as a platform dedicated to free speech.”

Harwell was “banished from Twitter without warning, process or explanation, following the publication of his accurate reporting about Musk” and should be reinstated immediately, Buzbee said in a statement Thursday night.

A spokesperson for The New York Times, who called the suspensions questionable and unfortunate, said no explanation was provided to Mac or the newspaper about the ban.

Note: If you don't wish to load that page that link takes you to, the network being referred to in the first sentence is CNN.

Now, to fit into that which I wrote I think we have a couple of significant media entities pointed to by NBC that feel they have some sort of right to something at Twitter. < unjustified > < questionable > < should be reinstated immediately >

[Marshall]

On the face of it, appears to be two faced, yet when examined it is a plea for help regarding a criminal act. Police departments do it all the time with "have you seen this xyz? Please contact..."

According to the LAPD, no police report has yet been filed making this statement rather suspect.

[jimji]

I thought tangor's post was simply making an observation that maybe the situation isn't as two faced as some seem to feel it is. Are you stating tangor's statement is somehow suspect? Or are you stating something about Mr. Musk is somehow suspect?

Please excuse the intrusion. Just a tad curious. Thank you for your help.

[jimji]

By the way, with regard to the jurisdiction of the LAPD, it might be that there is another law enforcement agency that would have precedence on this matter, if they were asked. I understand Mr. Musk does work of a sensitive nature with some branches of the U. S. government and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if there is some government entity loosely involved in his security and that might extend to his family, if he were to ask them for assistance in a security matter. I don't think it is beyond the realm of impossibility that the LAPD would be sort of shunted aside, if that were the case. I also do not think it is beyond the realm of impossibility that some in the U.S. government wouldn't want to see harm come to Mr. Musk. Remember, he has actively assisted a certain nation's military capabilities and another nation on the opposite side of that conflict may not be so happy with Mr. Musk's help in that arena. I also think his work with the space program is an area where security concerns could arise. Frankly, I'd say Mr. Musk could be a serious headache for anyone charged with providing security for him and his family.

[Marshall]

Are you stating tangor's statement is somehow suspect? Or are you stating something about Mr. Musk is somehow suspect?

The latter.

And I will add that I find it odd that a person allegedly stalking someone and (again allegedly) jumping on the hood of their car, would stay still while a person video records their license plate. That said, if you recorded their license plate, is there really a need to post a "help identify" tweet?

And in reference to a post saying the police post images of suspects online or give them to the news to help identify, have you ever seen them post a license plate and ask to help identify this person? They may ask or help to identify a car, but I have never seen that asked when they have the license plate.

[martinibuster]

A full documentation of all sorts of text

Heh, what I thought. You are reading into what's written (or maybe repeating what some talking head told you). None of what you quoted shows any news organization asserting a right to be on Twitter.

They're just saying it's unjustified and that it runs counter to what Musk said he intended wrt to free speech.

If you have a quote from a news organization where they actually assert that they have a "right" to be on Twitter, I would love to see that. ;)

And btw, I believe that Musk has a right to ban whoever they want.

[jimji]

Your position here in this community, martinibuster, places me in a horrible situation, because you are either slanting vocabulary usage to suit your own agenda, or you are just plain uneducated in proper English usage. I trust it is the former, but then that brings forth the question of your position as a moderator and if you fall behind that shield that you are posting as a non-staff member, then ... (I can't finish that and be polite.)

Do you really not understand the difference in the meaning/intent of these two excerpts:

_ _ _ asserting a right - - -

_ _ _ some sort of rights - - -

Frankly, this is a very sad situation for me in this community. Some other communities allow such nonsense to prevail, but this is supposed to be a community where intelligence prevails, not ... (Again, I can't finish that.)

And the use of "excerpts" is itself being very polite, because you also seem to wish to ignore an earlier set of words I used in that sentence you quoted ... "seem to be stating" ... and I am so sad for this community. It is becoming harder and harder to find true dignity on the Net and I thought this was one community where such could still be found. It seems I was wrong. Very sad.

But, if, by any chance, it is simply that your English ability is what is amiss here, then my heartfelt apologies to you and all others for my thoughts posted above. Possibly your English is a second language.

[ronin]

That is unacceptable free speech

Because the phrase "free speech" is misinterpreted.

Free speech is the liberty to discuss, endorse, refute ideas without fear of being persecuted by the authorities.

Not (as is naively assumed) the right to exclaim, assert, opine or say WTF you want, about whom, in whatever context or environment you feel like.

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

The BIGGER problem is that "laws" are now being made by everyone. It means none of them are actual laws and there is no LEGAL punishment for ignoring them, but they will all be used against you to punish you in other ways if you're deemed a threat to the groups doing it.

It's often called cancel culture. No, you do not have "stakeholder" rights to control any of the LEGAL decisions or actions anyone else makes. The best you can hope for is to just ignore their LEGAL rights, do it, and hope they willingly comply. When enough people do, and it happens often enough, it gets normalized and accepted as the way things are.

It's one of the more vile, divisive and damaging things you can do to someone without actually touching them. Don't, if you hated the person before, you make them even more powerful in other ways by canceling them, especially collectively. It only escalates, unless people stop doing it.

example: Twitter. Enough were silenced and shadow banned, now Elon owns it in part BECAUSE that was happening.

History tells you why you don't want to do this to people. In Italy they were called Black Shirts, in Germany they were called Brown Shirts, groups of people targeting other groups and being fascist against them. Visit any University presentation by a conservative right now and you will see it first hand, the shouts and accusations start immediately and having the event cancelled is deemed a "win". It's actually a loss to everyone.

People don't learn, especially when history isn't taught anymore. Trust me, whatever side you feel deserves your support, it's not a hill you want to fight on because it never ends well, for anyone. Not everything in life should be politically motivated... so enjoy Twitter, or leave it, but do it for the right reasons.

Oh, and stop being snarky at each other? It's neither funny nor witty. It's abusive.

[ronin]

Those who advocate cancel culture have not yet learned that liberty emerges from vigilantly defending freedoms via active, intelligent debate.

Not from stipulating how things will be free and then banning dissent.

[ronin]

Relevant to the question Has Twitter Become a Musk Plaything?:

Silicon Valley does wield functionally unchecked power over people’s lives these days. Massive platform providers such as Facebook and Twitter exert significant influence over the scope, tone, tenor, and impact of social and political discourse, and reporters should strive to hold these companies accountable with critical, skeptical, and scrupulous work. “[...] if the story of Old Twitter is about the biases and prejudices and power trips of the company’s former overlords, the question is what Musk will now do with the powerful tools they created?” Weiss wrote. “What does it mean when the owner of Twitter tweets that his pronouns are ‘Prosecute/Fauci’?”

Source: [slate.com...]

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

I'm sorry but is Musk elected somewhere? No? Then he's speaking for one person, himself.

Besides, Musk owns Twitter, it's whatever he wants it to be.

[blend27]

-- t's whatever he wants it to be-->> "i" amended

With an army of lawyers that he can have to participate in/to "prostitute free speech and so I AM", sure thing.

Having a civic conversation without relying of government/army of lawyers banked by big buck aint easy.

Musk now has a private property, paid for, sure.

Twitting from, the 2 holes that he has left, contradictions of one to another are not welcome in a Public Square.

Most see it. Most see how it is presented to the masses. Most either don give a Flying-Yak, till some time or wasting time & see if they are banned if they are doing it again and again.

Sally: "We Are Here to start a NEW NET Community" << great, bless you hearts, not monitored on a platform, right?.
Ruben: We are here too(created an account for future community indispensable input).
El Gordo Kraken: I am watching.
Sling Turtle; Yeeey!
.....

Does not make sense
NUKE.

[blend27]

Next Message:

You have been identified as a member of "El Gordo Kraken" including & participating members, click here to stay in touch with members for only @1$ a month.

Madness.

[tangor]

One thing about playgrounds .... if you don't like the one you're in now, you can always change to another---they are everywhere. :)

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

One thing about playgrounds .... if you don't like the one you're in now, you can always change to another---they are everywhere. :)

Depends which part of the world you live in.

[tangor]

^ Yah ... I guess T is everywhere and some places don't have extra playgrounds.