Board 8 > Elon Musk purchases Twitter

(+) Yeah! (+)

red sox 777 posted...

The left (or whatever they should be called at this point) are being ridiculous over this. If they are for censorship I don't know that they still deserve to be given the title of "liberal." Actually, there's no doubt, they clearly don't. What idea is more anti-liberal than censorship?

so i assume you're vehemently against gamefaqs having a ToU?

Corrik7 posted...

I think Musk says it best though. Moderate with economically more conservative / right of center tendencies, but socially clearly liberal.

even if this is true (which i doubt), this is far removed from socialism. not sure why you're arguing that he's a socialist.

JOHN FUGELSANG (HOST): I mean, for all the coverage that CNN+ tanking got, this is the -- really the media story of the year so far.

ANGELO CARUSONE: Oh yeah, no. This is a huge story. And it's a huge story, I think that it's a huge story in ways that I don't think that the current reactions actually reflect.

...

There are really, really bad people, and Marjorie Taylor Greene, strangely enough, amongst this group of people that are celebrating isn't even the worst.

Like, there are actual Nazis and white supremacists and really horrible, violent people that are very very excited about this, about Musk acquiring Twitter because they all think they're gonna get their accounts back which is gonna allow them to like, you know, do a whole bunch of stuff that got banned in the first place, which was abusing people.

But I actually -- to me, the big thing here is that it's a pivot point. This is actually -- and I see this in many ways as similar to what happened -- and it's because, partly because of Musk, partly because the way that Twitter plays out. You know, it's -- when Fox sort of was born, the idea behind it is that it was a counterbalance to the rest of the news media.

FUGELSANG: That's right.

CARUSONE: And in a lot of ways, Musk sees this as a counterbalance to a whole range of policies that were put in place on social media. And he's been talking about this for like two to three years, where he's teased the idea, you know, in conversations and on Twitter that he wants to buy a network or some kind of social media outlet because it's time to push back against this sort of woke culture.

And I think that he sees this as an opportunity to do -- you know -- it's not as ideologically pure as say what Ailes and Murdoch tried to do in the nineties, but he sees this through ideological terms, which is that this is an opportunity to demonstrate in his mind, a sort of open environment very much the way that, like, a sophomore in high school that just read Ayn Rand for the first time would, like, regurgitate stuff back to you and think they have some really profound thoughts.

Probably the most accurate take on this.

I feel like most people who dislike Musk are similarly not fans of Bezos and are either not aware or it drops out of their conscience when it's not obviously relevant. Most media is owned by a small handful of ridiculously rich people anyway, and I think the main way Musk is different is that he's very vocal with his questionable ideas and might change the thing he bought drastically and with massive fanfare, to stroke his ego.

Also, people actually engage with Twitter actively rather than just reading it.

Like, you don't generally look at Jeff Bezos and think he's going to bring about massive structural change and cause the Washington Post to transform entirely into a college student's thought experiment. And even if that were the case, the Washington Post is not one of the primary methods of communication for millions of terminally online people, so I think you'd struggle to find so many voices that care.

I just think the hate speech and the death threats and the doxxing are going to get a lot worse if the moderation is further loosened; it's already not great

Mr Lasastryke posted...

even if this is true (which i doubt), this is far removed from socialism. not sure why you're arguing that he's a socialist.

Where did I argue he is a socialist? I said he is a self-proclaimed socialist. Whether I think he is or not, he considers himself one based on what he believes.

Most label him moreso a libertarian.

Corrik7 posted...

Where did I argue he is a socialist? I said he is a self-proclaimed socialist. Whether I think he is or not, he considers himself one based on what he believes.

Most label him moreso a libertarian.

ok, you were saying that you didn't understand why liberals were deleting their twitter accounts because musk is on the left. which he also isn't if he's moderate with right-wing tendencies. and libertarianism is extremely far removed from the left.

Mr Lasastryke posted...

ok, you were saying that you didn't understand why liberals were deleting their twitter accounts because musk is on the left. which he also isn't if he's moderate with right-wing tendencies. and libertarianism is extremely far removed from the left.

According to common United States meanings of conservative and liberal, libertarianism in the United States has been described as conservative on economic issues (economic liberalism and fiscal conservatism) and liberal on personal freedom (civil libertarianism and cultural liberalism).

This would relatively be a liberal to me, especially in regards to a social media platform.

This is sort of the idea where everyone to the right of where I stand is a nazi mentality or something.

Yes, I don't understand deleting your account over it. At all. It's a bit ironic because the left was mocking the right for "leaving" their social media because Trump was banned for some stupid offshoots and then they are gonna "quit" for a few weeks because someone they don't like now owns it? Idk. I personally don't get it. I find the polarized nature of American politics and the teams on both sides as huge contradictory idiots anymore lol.

I think the US definitions of liberal are kinda warped tbh. Musk is definitely a liberal and is at the same time not particularly progressive or left-wing, at least not by the standards of a lot of the rest of the world. He's all about freedom of speech and business and small government. Honestly, most of his thoughts can be understood by taking an average Reddit user from 2015 and filtering their thoughts through an incredible quantity of money.

Sheep007 posted...

I think the US definitions of liberal are kinda warped tbh. Musk is definitely a liberal and is at the same time not particularly progressive or left-wing, at least not by the standards of a lot of the rest of the world. He's all about freedom of speech and business and small government. Honestly, most of his thoughts can be understood by taking an average Reddit user from 2015 and filtering their thoughts through an incredible quantity of money.

ie a libertarian

NFUN posted...

ie a libertarian

Agreed, but I'd argue libertarian is more a sub-category within liberalism than entirely separate. I think the main difference is the connotation of edgy American hyper-capitalism, but the rest (and even that, bar the aesthetics) all fits in what is historically called liberalism. Mostly just trying to say that calling him either fits, but he definitely does have the edgy "government sucks, I like weed, gay people want too much attention" libertarian talking points going for him.

Socialist, though? He's the richest man in the world and his family wealth came from heavy industry in apartheid South Africa, so I think it's pretty easy to read how genuine that one is.

Mr Lasastryke posted...

so i assume you're vehemently against gamefaqs having a ToU?

As long as they are only prohibiting speech in ways which US caselaw says would be okay if done by the government, I'm fine with it. I think the caselaw on free speech is pretty good - the basic underlying principle is, you cannot ban speech based on the opinions it expresses.

I mean I express conservative opinions all the time here and don't get modded.

HeroicCrono posted...

As long as they are only prohibiting speech in ways which US caselaw says would be okay if done by the government, I'm fine with it. I think the caselaw on free speech is pretty good - the basic underlying principle is, you cannot ban speech based on the opinions it expresses.

I mean I express conservative opinions all the time here and don't get modded.

We absolutely don't. We don't allow people to post about Animal Crossing on the FF7 board. We mandate trigger warnings before users post spoilers.

Team Rocket Elite posted...

We absolutely don't. We don't allow people to post about Animal Crossing on the FF7 board. We mandate trigger warnings before users post spoilers.

Exactly. I think both of those would be constitutional even if this site were an arm of the government. They are not discriminating based on viewpoint.

Look, if think you're going to infringe on my god-given right to post about my Simpsons porn addiction on the Mario Kart boards, I'm afraid I'll have to refer you to the caselaw.

HeroicCrono posted...

Exactly. I think both of those would be constitutional even if this site were an arm of the government. They are not discriminating based on viewpoint.

I'd be interested to hear how you can back that up. Stuff like Aeris's fate in FF7 is straight up factual information.

Team Rocket Elite posted...

I'd be interested to hear how you can back that up. Stuff like Aeris's fate in FF7 is straight up factual information.

If it's factual information then by definition it is not expressing an opinion (although free speech can protect the expression of facts too). But here, it's not like the site is censoring statements about Aeris it disagrees with, they are putting spoiler tags on to hide info from people who don't want to have the story spoiled. The discrimination is based on whether the reader has played the game, not what the writer's viewpoint is. And the reader can read it even without playing the game if he decides he doesn't mind being spoiled.

Socialism is when you support public ownership of the means of production and redistribution of wealth, which is a million miles from what Musk believes.

Also, liberalism believes in individual liberty, which includes not having others harm your liberty, which is why in liberalism some regulations are necessary, eg dealing with bots, banning hate speech, etc. because these violate the freedoms of others. It us nit the same thing as libertarianism which is I can do whatever I want, Musk is a libertarian economically and a conservative socially, in no reality is he left in any way.

Sheep007 posted...

Agreed, but I'd argue libertarian is more a sub-category within liberalism than entirely separate. I think the main difference is the connotation of edgy American hyper-capitalism, but the rest (and even that, bar the aesthetics) all fits in what is historically called liberalism. Mostly just trying to say that calling him either fits, but he definitely does have the edgy "government sucks, I like weed, gay people want too much attention" libertarian talking points going for him.

The word you're looking for to describe what happens when classic liberalism gets taken over by hypercapitalism is "neoliberal." It can be conservative though because since the main underlying philosophy is adherence to capitalism and money, it fits neatly anywhere around the center of the political spectrum. This definitely describes tech bros like Musk and Yang whose whole philosophy relies around the idea that allowing the tech industry to be unregulated will eventually solve all the world's problems (while making them rich).

Musk is a cultural conservative on some issues (trans rights been mentioned) and as a billionaire his entire empire is built on exploiting workers, apartheid money, racially segregating Tesla plants, etc. so I don't think there should be any problem with calling him on the conservative end of neoliberalism.

To carry the analogy further, if the site had a rule that everyone is required to use the spelling "Aerith" instead of "Aeris" that would probably violate free speech if this were a government institution.

Corrik7 posted...

According to common United States meanings of conservative and liberal, libertarianism in the United States has been described as conservative on economic issues (economic liberalism and fiscal conservatism) and liberal on personal freedom (civil libertarianism and cultural liberalism).

This would relatively be a liberal to me, especially in regards to a social media platform.

This is sort of the idea where everyone to the right of where I stand is a nazi mentality or something.

Yes, I don't understand deleting your account over it. At all. It's a bit ironic because the left was mocking the right for "leaving" their social media because Trump was banned for some stupid offshoots and then they are gonna "quit" for a few weeks because someone they don't like now owns it? Idk. I personally don't get it. I find the polarized nature of American politics and the teams on both sides as huge contradictory idiots anymore lol.

i can understand liberals deleting their accounts because musk is going to make twitter an "anything goes" platform. if gamefaqs got rid of its ToU and everyone here were free to post racist and pro-nazi shit, i would possible leave this site too.

if they're deleting their accounts for no reason other than "omg musk is so right-wing i can't take it" then that's dumb, though, sure.

Lightning Strikes posted...

Socialism is when you support public ownership of the means of production and redistribution of wealth, which is a million miles from what Musk believes.

Is it though?

He donated to the prop in California to tax the rich to provide free pre-k. He supported Yang and his UBI. His Martian government ideas are direct democracy, and his belief is government should have no bearing on people and if it does it should be for the happiness of the populace only.

Idk if being rich and working by the model the world he lives in operates automatically disqualifies him from what he may wish the world was.

HeroicCrono posted...

As long as they are only prohibiting speech in ways which US caselaw says would be okay if done by the government, I'm fine with it. I think the caselaw on free speech is pretty good - the basic underlying principle is, you cannot ban speech based on the opinions it expresses.

I mean I express conservative opinions all the time here and don't get modded.

i've gotten modded tons of times for insulting people on this board. pretty sure that's not according to the caselaw on free speech!

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i can understand liberals deleting their accounts because musk is going to make twitter an "anything goes" platform. if gamefaqs got rid of its ToU and everyone here were free to post racist and pro-nazi shit, i would possible leave this site too.

if they're deleting their accounts for no reason other than "omg musk is so right-wing i can't take it" then that's dumb, though, sure.

Considering he tweeted within the last couple of weeks that he wants to make the most left 10% and most right 10% equally dislike his policies, I doubt it's going to be anything as extreme as those people are allegedly fearing. I say allegedly because most of them were probably on Twitter even while Trump was tweeting 20 times a day, so they clearly didn't think it was such a big problem then. If people like that leave anything, great!

Also not every site needs to be a "town square." We have public parks and private gardens right? And you often can't give political speeches in the private gardens. Because that isn't their purpose.

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

The word you're looking for to describe what happens when classic liberalism gets taken over by hypercapitalism is "neoliberal." It can be conservative though because since the main underlying philosophy is adherence to capitalism and money, it fits neatly anywhere around the center of the political spectrum. This definitely describes tech bros like Musk and Yang whose whole philosophy relies around the idea that allowing the tech industry to be unregulated will eventually solve all the world's problems (while making them rich).

Musk is a cultural conservative on some issues (trans rights been mentioned) and as a billionaire his entire empire is built on exploiting workers, apartheid money, racially segregating Tesla plants, etc. so I don't think there should be any problem with calling him on the conservative end of neoliberalism.

Neoliberal works too, although that's obviously a subset of liberalism again. I don't take issue with calling Musk it, but I think his style fits more with the connotations of libertarianism, generally. The key difference to me is the focus on drug laws and political free speech within his brand. To my knowledge, they aren't considered that important in neoliberalism since it focuses on massive institutional and economical structures rather than individual liberties. It's hard to argue that the richest man in the world isn't representative of the ideology which made him that rich, but I do think there's plenty of things he can be called which aren't wrong.

Well thats the thing right, taxing the rich to fund public services as a not inherently socialist (though it does fit in socialist ideology) its social democratic. And UBI (IF he even supports it himself which I doubt) is a liberal, though not neoliberal, policy. A lot of socialists actually oppose UBI and see it as capitalist, its not necessarily left. I think however its more likely that he supported Yang because he said he would put Musk in his cabinet haha.

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i've gotten modded tons of times for insulting people on this board. pretty sure that's not according to the caselaw on free speech!

Insults are generally not protected free speech. Because they don't express an opinion about some issue of public importance. They just attack the person being insulted. I mean they could have some tangential relationship to a debate on some issue, but the lower that relationship is the less likely it triggers free speech concerns.

It's different if the person being insulted is a public figure. An insult directed at Trump, Obama, etc. almost always will inherently expresses a political opinion.

Corrik7 posted...

Is it though?

He donated to the prop in California to tax the rich to provide free pre-k. He supported Yang and his UBI. His Martian government ideas are direct democracy, and his belief is government should have no bearing on people and if it does it should be for the happiness of the populace only.

Idk if being rich and working by the model the world he lives in operates automatically disqualifies him from what he may wish the world was.

I think when you have as much power as he does, if you're gonna be taken seriously as anti-establishment or socialist you need to put your money where your mouth is.

I'll believe it when Tesla workers own as much of the company individually as he does, or when the equipment on his Mars colonies are owned by the people working there rather than him. Frankly, most of his ideas for Mars feel like the backstory for a dystopian 60s sci-fi novel.

Sheep007 posted...

Neoliberal works too, although that's obviously a subset of liberalism again

I don't think it's a subset - I'd argue it's a superset. Neoliberalism and capitalism work by going over other ideologies and forcing them to comply.

I think if you're trying to drill down on what Musk personally believes you're not going to get anything coherent. Most people (Musk especially) don't have a firm ideological model they adhere to. On the other hand, capitalism motivates everything Musk does, and as one of the richest people on the planet he actually has the resources to change the structure of society to his benefit. As long as he keeps that up he IS neoliberalism no matter how how his other beliefs change.

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

I don't think it's a subset - I'd argue it's a superset. Neoliberalism and capitalism work by going over other ideologies and forcing them to comply.

I think if you're trying to drill down on what Musk personally believes you're not going to get anything coherent. Most people (Musk especially) don't have a firm ideological model they adhere to. On the other hand, capitalism motivates everything Musk does, and as one of the richest people on the planet he actually has the resources to change the structure of society to his benefit. As long as he keeps that up he IS neoliberalism no matter how how his other beliefs change.

I kinda agree with your first point. I think it's still important to keep in mind that neoliberalism grew from the ideology of liberalism in the first place, though. The class divide and all isn't just something Thatcher and Reagan drew up on a bender in the 70s. It's a more efficient way of exploiting and developing what was already in place, in terms of culture and economy.

I think delving too deeply into what Musk believes is very difficult and I can't exactly read his mind. Butttt... I still think it's worth analysing. He holds a lot of cultural power and the more people willing to think more about his ideas the better, because I think accepting anything that dude says blindly is actively dangerous at times.

Also, I like semantics and political ideology discussion and am writing about them on Gamefaqs of all things to procrastinate writing my literal thesis on those subjects >_>

Corrik7 posted...

It's because he would unban Trump. They think because he does things that are beneficial for his company that it makes him right wing. He says it himself. He donates to both parties, moreso democrats barely, but he donates to both because (it is the cost of business in this country).

He is a huge environmentalist whose entire business is predicated on climate change. He was furious we left the Paris accord. Has stated many times he thinks direct rule and no government is the best rule (like lmfao how dumb). But, his business decisions are more right wing in being anti-union and such.

People don't realize that he runs a business and does what's best for the business. He can't change the overall means of production across the country through his own company.

Heck, libertarian is another label thrown out for him. I think Musk says it best though. Moderate with economically more conservative / right of center tendencies, but socially clearly liberal.

But, since he thinks pronouns are a confusing mess he is probably considered a bigot and thus a republican, I assume.

This just feels like a lot of excuses for why he does what he does, when he has more power than almost anyone to directly affect change like hes allegedly doing with Twitter, if you believe his stated reasons for purchasing it.

Like saying he cant be pro-union because he runs a massive business is completely false. If he still doesnt understand pronouns after this many years of trans rights issues, it shows he doesnt actually care to learn. Also, thats massively understating his anti-trans rhetoric.

Just because someone is on the left socially doesnt mean they cant be bigoted. TONS of people like that are. For high profile examples, see JK Rowling or Bill Maher. Musk has shown his beliefs to be a lot closer to theirs than a true social justice ally.

Sheep007 posted...

I kinda agree with your first point. I think it's still important to keep in mind that neoliberalism grew from the ideology of liberalism in the first place, though. The class divide and all isn't just something Thatcher and Reagan drew up on a bender in the 70s. It's a more efficient way of exploiting and developing what was already in place, in terms of culture and economy.

Oh yeah that makes sense. I'm not trying to be ahistorical and I see where you're coming from. It's actually a great example from my general non-academic understanding of politics. When people talk about Reagan and Thatcher they tend to get lumped in with conservatives, but what you're saying about the rise of the political theory is true. I guess that illustrates how nebulous these discussions can get.

Metal_DK posted...

its a product of you know what of you know when

Wouldnt mind getting rid of getting rid of instagram, facebook, whatsapp, youtube, twitch and a few other things. Just a bunch of clout chasers and overall unstable people creating more bitterness and jealousy

This is literally insane...

Thatcher was often compared to Gladstone, a Liberal Prime Minister, in terms of economic policy. However what set them apart was social policy, Gladstone was liberal for his time and believed in civil liberties and Thatcher was the most socially conservative PM of the last hundred years. So it would be accurate to call Thatcher a neoliberal conservative, while a social liberal who had neoliberal economics like Gladstone would be a classical liberal. An actual classical liberal, not what edgy right wingers on the internet call themselves.

Jakyl25 posted...

, it shows he doesnt actually care to learn.

He has outright said he cares about transgender equality for rights issues but has no care for the pronoun discussion. So, yes, he doesn't care to learn about it.

Sheep007 posted...

I think when you have as much power as he does, if you're gonna be taken seriously as anti-establishment or socialist you need to put your money where your mouth is.

I'll believe it when Tesla workers own as much of the company individually as he does, or when the equipment on his Mars colonies are owned by the people working there rather than him. Frankly, most of his ideas for Mars feel like the backstory for a dystopian 60s sci-fi novel.

Well, that is never going to happen. He believes his goals exceed this planet and his mission is greater than can be seen. He plays "by the rules and costs of business" set before him but wants to propel earth towards a future where those aren't the rules going forward.

It's super forward thinking with basically no grounding, but hey.

StealThisSheen posted...

You ever think maybe you're the unstable one

With how much clout chasing, social media jealousy i see...nah.

Waluigi1 posted...

This is literally insane...

It would make the world way better. But yes it would never happen

Corrik7 posted...

Well, that is never going to happen. He believes his goals exceed this planet and his mission is greater than can be seen. He plays "by the rules and costs of business" set before him but wants to propel earth towards a future where those aren't the rules going forward.

It's super forward thinking with basically no grounding, but hey.

Can you at least see why leftists would hate that

Jakyl25 posted...

Can you at least see why leftists would hate that

Seems unrealistic to me. Should they be canceling Bernie Sanders then and Hassan and so on every step of the way and proclaiming them not liberals?

How much of Hollywood?

Corrik7 posted...

Seems unrealistic to me. Should they be canceling Bernie Sanders then and Hassan and so on every step of the way and proclaiming them not liberals?

How much of Hollywood?

Theres nothing inherently wrong with having money. I dont think thats incompatible with socialism.

the difference between Elon and Hassan or lots of actors and other rich entertainers is Elon had to exploit workers to get his wealth.
Famous actors are extremely well compensated, but theyre also just unionized workers. theyre not necessarily doing anything exploitative. Hassan too is just a guy people are choosing to give money to, hes not making his money off of other peoples labor.

Jakyl25 posted...

Can you at least see why leftists would hate that

Because they want to live in a fictional version of the 19th century in which Marx was right and the proletariats (proletarii? This is originally a Latin word so the original plural should still be correct in English?) created a utopia?

Corrik7 posted...

Seems unrealistic to me. Should they be canceling Bernie Sanders then and Hassan and so on every step of the way and proclaiming them not liberals?

How much of Hollywood?

Its unrealistic to hate wealthy people who dont use their obscene wealth to help people in need? People come after Hassan and Hollywood for this all the time.

MoogleKupo141 posted...

Theres nothing inherently wrong with having money.

Uhhh agree to disagree

Transphobes love this purchase

https://twitter.com/erininthemorn/status/1518968693946044417?s=21&t=mQa_gu1-ke8P1SLwR35fXg

MoogleKupo141 posted...

Theres nothing inherently wrong with having money. I dont think thats incompatible with socialism.

the difference between Elon and Hassan or lots of actors and other rich entertainers is Elon had to exploit workers to get his wealth.
Famous actors are extremely well compensated, but theyre also just unionized workers. theyre not necessarily doing anything exploitative. Hassan too is just a guy people are choosing to give money to, hes not making his money off of other peoples labor.

Hassan has been very hypocritical in his messaging and actions actually.

Metal_DK posted...

It would make the world way better. But yes it would never happen

Youve just generalized millions of people as being unstable and having issues based on them using some form of social media or content creation.

Sounds like youre projecting that jealousy. If anybody is unstable in this situation, its you.

EDIT: Meant to quote the other post, but you get it.

Being personally wealthy doesnt mean youre not a socialist. Ive known a lot of well-off socialists. Owning a huge amount of means of production as your private property and as said exploiting labour makes you not a socialist.

https://twitter.com/reckless/status/1519039827366359041?s=21&t=tAG4E5AjHDmUZPtaYAs6ZQ

Turns out my joke was actually true. Spam bots do actually have freedom of speech