Dec 16, 2022·edited Dec 16, 2022Liked by Kathleen Sykes
It is obvious that the idea of free speech absolutism is not practical, at least not in today's climate. Elon Musk is a genius, and is arguably as benevolent as any wealthy person in recent memory. He is now learning on a very personal level the trials that anyone involved with the realm of politics must endure. Who can blame him for lashing out when one of his children is threatened?
Will our society force agents for positive change to become recluses? Will his entire family have to become recluses? Do we want agents for positive change to be treated in this manner?
I'm inclined to give Mr. Musk time to sort out the mechanics of offering what could be a modern version of the old Roman Forum, where serious issues can be debated freely without fear of being physically harmed. There are surely forces and groups which do not want their dirty laundry to be aired, and some will stop at nothing to fight against our right to speak out.
Freedom of speech was one of the hallmarks of liberals when I was a young Wizard. I was a Liberal and I was there among them in the anti-war and civil rights movements.
The grass roots movements of my day were abducted by the Democrat Party, and today its agents make a hobby (or career) of protesting just about any matter, regardless of the effect on society as a whole. There will always be singular events of someone's rights being limited in some way by local authority all the way up to the federal level. In general we are the most liberated people on the planet. Yes there are flaws affecting select individuals from time to time, but today's Democrats seem to be throwing out the baby with the bath water.
When "activist" becomes a job description there is something wrong. True protest grows from a grass roots level, not from some organization which in most cases becomes corrupted via empowerment. Today we have seen activism devolved to its agents stalking and threatening the children of people on "the other side" of an issue. Especially the most successful agents of change.
Having seen the damaging effects of far left practices, (such as this attack on a child) my views evolved toward a more libertarian philosophy of governance. Growing up and having a family brought me maturity. That maturity I see lacking in the current form of the Democrat Party.
I had no clue why Musk was buying a company which has never generated a profit and may not ever be profitable. Today both his genius and his conscientious practice are evident once again.
The courts refused to hear cases of election interference because they are afraid of the repercussions of any ruling. Any decision would surely have drawn backlash from one side or the other. Some of the Supreme Court Justices own lives have been threatened similarly to the attack on Musk's son. The election was another case of "too big to fail". The result either way would be catastrophe.
Seeing that the courts would not give the evidence a proper legal hearing, Elon Musk has outright purchased a large packet of the evidence by purchasing twitter and is now revealing publicly what the courts could not bear to look at. It's a hugely benevolent act. I'm not sure if at the time he was aware that he would be putting himself and his family at risk of bodily injury or death, but he surely is now. It may take some time for him to sort that out. I hope he can. The Supreme court, also under threat, abdicated its duty and the result is that the people are taking the law into their own hands. This is what happens when you refuse to hear and properly adjudicate such serious matters.
Many of us, including myself, are relishing the airing of this dirty laundry. It's an indictment of all of media and well deserved. Trump in his crude way opened the door with his childish name calling of "fake news". This fact is something any intelligent person has seen for at least 50 years, but had never seen expressed so boldly before. Musk is doing the same thing in a more adult and intelligent way. He bought the evidence and is revealing it publicly. It's even sprinkled with humor at times in the midst of threats to his life. If more people had such a sense of humor in stressful times, the world would indeed be a better place.
P.S. to touch on another point Kathleen, "Don’t ask me how this law was enforced. Although Amazon is getting close, as of 2022, no one has yet invented mind-reading technology." You are blind if you cannot see that unless you have taken precautions, your phone automatically transcribes your telephone conversation via Google or other parties, which then sells information about your interests to vendors. Yes, big tech is reading your mind via your conversations. Musk has also spoken publicly about the danger of Artificial Intelligence, but most people don't have a clue of the scope of this issue.
The way we politically divide our trust is now causing many people to ignore a sincere and factual warning from a person with deep knowledge of the subject, because he is "on the opposing side". We do this at our own peril.
Oh, Great Gandalf! First off, indulge me in the following scene:
Me: *thinks about buying pajamas on Amazon*
Me waking up in the middle of the night: "Huh? Hey! What are you doing?!"
Amazon Employee: *putting new pajamas on me* "Shhhhhh! We brought you the pajamas you ordered!"
———
Secondly, I see what you mean. That's one point of the story I didn't realize last night (and frankly am still a bit confused about). I think this casts it in the sticky realm of respecting speech but also having guardrails to protect vulnerable parties. Live tweeting the exact location of a minor? Probably a bad idea.
My one issue with the argument people have been making with Musk protecting his child is that he is certainly rich enough to hire security. It would suck for him to have to do that, but he also has an advantage that most people don't (which conveniently comes with his public figure status and enormous wealth.)
Nevertheless, "absolute" free speech is not entirely feasible. There's a reason certain kinds of speech aren't protected under the first amendment — we have just come to such a nebulous time where we don't have laws that can cut this apart with surgical precision.
I actually posted an article by Abigail Shrier in The Charrette chat that speaks more eloquently to your point. She's also concerned about the personal protection and stalking angle. I've been asking people to contribute their thoughts. Go take a look!
One other comment on Musk. I would not be surprised to see him make quite a few mistakes. His family has been threatened and that's enough to make anyone nuts.
Beyond the stress factor, his method of operating a company is very unique and he expects mistakes. Exploding rockets are part of the process for him. Surprisingly, it's more efficient than the alternative. Twitter has fired almost 70% of it's staff (about 5200, going from 7,500 to only 2,300 today), and yet it's operating faster than it was before. That's a big boost in efficiency.
SpaceX is an example of a different way to engineer and produce things which are timely and efficient. Typical rockets like the recent Artemis ship take 10 years to come to fruition. By the time the first is launched, much of the technology aboard is considered outmoded. For example the cameras are GoPro 4 cameras. Gopro is now at model 11. The rocket's entire design process had to be frozen at the time the GoPro 4 came on the market, and could not be upgraded to newer, much better versions.
SpaceX builds new rockets and engines at a very rapid pace, and many of them explode. In the long run you get a rocket that is current technology and much cheaper to produce and operate that a rocket like Artemis. Additionally, beyond designing a new rocket, Musk is designing a production line for rapid construction of many engines and rockets in rapid succession. NASA does not do even attempt to build a mass production process. At most they plan to build only a few of each model because the process takes so long that the rocket is old tech by the time the first one is launched. Imagine the cost of designing a luxury car that will only be sold to 5 or 6 customers.
So I went to read your article and I am not familiar with the Charette chat option. I really don't want to install an app for that. My phone is already clogged up and the screen is just to small for my old eyes anyway. Is there a way to view it without the app?
I'm thinking that it is the responsibility of twitter to keep it safe. There is an argument that once you edit or block anything you then become an editorial publication, and are responsible for everything that you allow to remain. That idea may need to be adjusted a bit.
In the end, it is probably best left to the platform how restrictive it wants to be, and perhaps liable only for allowing things which directly endanger people, like posting real time locations. Journalists have complained that this would hinder their ability to do real time live stories. I think the answer is that they need to have their own platform if they want to do that. Sorry, but no links to your live event on twitter. Get your own server for livestreaming. Or maybe someone will come up with a way to do it safely, such as pixilation of faces on the fly. It's probably already available.
The real story of this whole thing is the evidence of government interference in the 2020 election via back channel access to twitter data. I'm pretty sure that will be the biggest story coming out of the twitter purchase. I believe he made the purchase in order to get his hands on the evidence that the Supreme Court refused to hear. Airing it publicly may at least get us all talking about more secure methods for the next big election. I have an article about that entitled "Doubt Relief" at my little space here.
Beyond that issue, Musk will probably attempt to make twitter viable in the long term by attracting those wanting the least editorial control over speech. I think he may be able to beat much of the competition in that regard by avoiding the trap of having to answer to bureaucrats.
If the Democrats don't want to end up with egg on their faces, they had better join in the effort for cleaner media without government interference. It's almost unbelievable to me that any organization would allow that kind of access without being under some kind of threat, blackmail or other "incentives". Right now many Democrats are gnashing their teeth over this and they are really embarrassing themselves. Look up celebrities like Elton John, George Takei, and Marina Sirtis, leaving twitter by announcing their departure on Twitter. How comical is that? It's not an airport, just depart at your convenience. No need for clearance. Excessive self-esteem.
daww thanks for the shoutout!
It is obvious that the idea of free speech absolutism is not practical, at least not in today's climate. Elon Musk is a genius, and is arguably as benevolent as any wealthy person in recent memory. He is now learning on a very personal level the trials that anyone involved with the realm of politics must endure. Who can blame him for lashing out when one of his children is threatened?
Will our society force agents for positive change to become recluses? Will his entire family have to become recluses? Do we want agents for positive change to be treated in this manner?
I'm inclined to give Mr. Musk time to sort out the mechanics of offering what could be a modern version of the old Roman Forum, where serious issues can be debated freely without fear of being physically harmed. There are surely forces and groups which do not want their dirty laundry to be aired, and some will stop at nothing to fight against our right to speak out.
Freedom of speech was one of the hallmarks of liberals when I was a young Wizard. I was a Liberal and I was there among them in the anti-war and civil rights movements.
The grass roots movements of my day were abducted by the Democrat Party, and today its agents make a hobby (or career) of protesting just about any matter, regardless of the effect on society as a whole. There will always be singular events of someone's rights being limited in some way by local authority all the way up to the federal level. In general we are the most liberated people on the planet. Yes there are flaws affecting select individuals from time to time, but today's Democrats seem to be throwing out the baby with the bath water.
When "activist" becomes a job description there is something wrong. True protest grows from a grass roots level, not from some organization which in most cases becomes corrupted via empowerment. Today we have seen activism devolved to its agents stalking and threatening the children of people on "the other side" of an issue. Especially the most successful agents of change.
Having seen the damaging effects of far left practices, (such as this attack on a child) my views evolved toward a more libertarian philosophy of governance. Growing up and having a family brought me maturity. That maturity I see lacking in the current form of the Democrat Party.
I had no clue why Musk was buying a company which has never generated a profit and may not ever be profitable. Today both his genius and his conscientious practice are evident once again.
The courts refused to hear cases of election interference because they are afraid of the repercussions of any ruling. Any decision would surely have drawn backlash from one side or the other. Some of the Supreme Court Justices own lives have been threatened similarly to the attack on Musk's son. The election was another case of "too big to fail". The result either way would be catastrophe.
Seeing that the courts would not give the evidence a proper legal hearing, Elon Musk has outright purchased a large packet of the evidence by purchasing twitter and is now revealing publicly what the courts could not bear to look at. It's a hugely benevolent act. I'm not sure if at the time he was aware that he would be putting himself and his family at risk of bodily injury or death, but he surely is now. It may take some time for him to sort that out. I hope he can. The Supreme court, also under threat, abdicated its duty and the result is that the people are taking the law into their own hands. This is what happens when you refuse to hear and properly adjudicate such serious matters.
Many of us, including myself, are relishing the airing of this dirty laundry. It's an indictment of all of media and well deserved. Trump in his crude way opened the door with his childish name calling of "fake news". This fact is something any intelligent person has seen for at least 50 years, but had never seen expressed so boldly before. Musk is doing the same thing in a more adult and intelligent way. He bought the evidence and is revealing it publicly. It's even sprinkled with humor at times in the midst of threats to his life. If more people had such a sense of humor in stressful times, the world would indeed be a better place.
P.S. to touch on another point Kathleen, "Don’t ask me how this law was enforced. Although Amazon is getting close, as of 2022, no one has yet invented mind-reading technology." You are blind if you cannot see that unless you have taken precautions, your phone automatically transcribes your telephone conversation via Google or other parties, which then sells information about your interests to vendors. Yes, big tech is reading your mind via your conversations. Musk has also spoken publicly about the danger of Artificial Intelligence, but most people don't have a clue of the scope of this issue.
The way we politically divide our trust is now causing many people to ignore a sincere and factual warning from a person with deep knowledge of the subject, because he is "on the opposing side". We do this at our own peril.
Oh, Great Gandalf! First off, indulge me in the following scene:
Me: *thinks about buying pajamas on Amazon*
Me waking up in the middle of the night: "Huh? Hey! What are you doing?!"
Amazon Employee: *putting new pajamas on me* "Shhhhhh! We brought you the pajamas you ordered!"
———
Secondly, I see what you mean. That's one point of the story I didn't realize last night (and frankly am still a bit confused about). I think this casts it in the sticky realm of respecting speech but also having guardrails to protect vulnerable parties. Live tweeting the exact location of a minor? Probably a bad idea.
My one issue with the argument people have been making with Musk protecting his child is that he is certainly rich enough to hire security. It would suck for him to have to do that, but he also has an advantage that most people don't (which conveniently comes with his public figure status and enormous wealth.)
Nevertheless, "absolute" free speech is not entirely feasible. There's a reason certain kinds of speech aren't protected under the first amendment — we have just come to such a nebulous time where we don't have laws that can cut this apart with surgical precision.
I actually posted an article by Abigail Shrier in The Charrette chat that speaks more eloquently to your point. She's also concerned about the personal protection and stalking angle. I've been asking people to contribute their thoughts. Go take a look!
One other comment on Musk. I would not be surprised to see him make quite a few mistakes. His family has been threatened and that's enough to make anyone nuts.
Beyond the stress factor, his method of operating a company is very unique and he expects mistakes. Exploding rockets are part of the process for him. Surprisingly, it's more efficient than the alternative. Twitter has fired almost 70% of it's staff (about 5200, going from 7,500 to only 2,300 today), and yet it's operating faster than it was before. That's a big boost in efficiency.
SpaceX is an example of a different way to engineer and produce things which are timely and efficient. Typical rockets like the recent Artemis ship take 10 years to come to fruition. By the time the first is launched, much of the technology aboard is considered outmoded. For example the cameras are GoPro 4 cameras. Gopro is now at model 11. The rocket's entire design process had to be frozen at the time the GoPro 4 came on the market, and could not be upgraded to newer, much better versions.
SpaceX builds new rockets and engines at a very rapid pace, and many of them explode. In the long run you get a rocket that is current technology and much cheaper to produce and operate that a rocket like Artemis. Additionally, beyond designing a new rocket, Musk is designing a production line for rapid construction of many engines and rockets in rapid succession. NASA does not do even attempt to build a mass production process. At most they plan to build only a few of each model because the process takes so long that the rocket is old tech by the time the first one is launched. Imagine the cost of designing a luxury car that will only be sold to 5 or 6 customers.
So I went to read your article and I am not familiar with the Charette chat option. I really don't want to install an app for that. My phone is already clogged up and the screen is just to small for my old eyes anyway. Is there a way to view it without the app?
I will read it for sure. Thanks.
I'm thinking that it is the responsibility of twitter to keep it safe. There is an argument that once you edit or block anything you then become an editorial publication, and are responsible for everything that you allow to remain. That idea may need to be adjusted a bit.
In the end, it is probably best left to the platform how restrictive it wants to be, and perhaps liable only for allowing things which directly endanger people, like posting real time locations. Journalists have complained that this would hinder their ability to do real time live stories. I think the answer is that they need to have their own platform if they want to do that. Sorry, but no links to your live event on twitter. Get your own server for livestreaming. Or maybe someone will come up with a way to do it safely, such as pixilation of faces on the fly. It's probably already available.
The real story of this whole thing is the evidence of government interference in the 2020 election via back channel access to twitter data. I'm pretty sure that will be the biggest story coming out of the twitter purchase. I believe he made the purchase in order to get his hands on the evidence that the Supreme Court refused to hear. Airing it publicly may at least get us all talking about more secure methods for the next big election. I have an article about that entitled "Doubt Relief" at my little space here.
Beyond that issue, Musk will probably attempt to make twitter viable in the long term by attracting those wanting the least editorial control over speech. I think he may be able to beat much of the competition in that regard by avoiding the trap of having to answer to bureaucrats.
If the Democrats don't want to end up with egg on their faces, they had better join in the effort for cleaner media without government interference. It's almost unbelievable to me that any organization would allow that kind of access without being under some kind of threat, blackmail or other "incentives". Right now many Democrats are gnashing their teeth over this and they are really embarrassing themselves. Look up celebrities like Elton John, George Takei, and Marina Sirtis, leaving twitter by announcing their departure on Twitter. How comical is that? It's not an airport, just depart at your convenience. No need for clearance. Excessive self-esteem.
On to read your article!