Ah yes, famous free speech absolutist wants to sue people who use their free speech to write about his shithole website. Publishing facts that don’t conform to his warped worldview apparently do not meet the standard for free speech.
If Musk can prove their speech is based on maliciously cherry-picked examples and that it caused financial harm to his companay, of course he can sue for damages. They keep their freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequences.
In his ruling, the judge even suggested that X/Twitter’s litigation had chilled other types of research into disinformation online. He pointed to a recent survey of 167 academics and researchers that “found that over 100 studies about X Corp. have been diverted, stalled, or canceled, with over half of those interviewed citing a fear of being sued by X Corp. over their findings or data.”
The case was dismissed, because obviously. The case never had a chance of succeeding, the whole point was to create a chilling effect to make other people hesitant of criticizing him.
It wasn’t about Musk making someone pay the consequences for misrepresenting the truth. It’s entirely about the “free speech absolutist” using paper terrorism to silence criticism.
Welcome to Mastodon and the fediverse. If you don’t agree with the hive-mind ‘consensus’ then your speech is a ‘violation’ of some ambiguous ‘policy’ and must be censored. They will always invent spurious reasons for censoring things they hate, such as, ‘misinformation’ or ‘hate’ or ‘square dancing in a round room.’ This is how psychotic bolsheviks lord their power over others.
No. You are not clarifying. You are insinuating and muddying the water. My comment is about hypocrisy and vague rules made by hypocrites, rules designed to hide the real motives for censorship. They hide their real motives for censorship behind fake tropes and social signalling objectives. It doesn’t matter if it is X, Facebook, Mastodon, or any other platform. A huge chunk of the moderators of such platforms are criminally insane and are only interested in suppressing speech based upon partisan objectives rather than objective reality or objective morality or objective civility. Basically it is gangs competing for power in the mindshare space and that power is enforced through acceptable speech policies that have nothing to do with civility and everything to do with compliance and obedience to the gang.
Their acts of censorship and the fake motives they give expose their true character as fundamentally orwellian and dishonest.
A person who is orwellian and anti-goldstein would not understand. A totalitarian never thinks of himself as a totalitarian. He is a hero and genius in his own mind. Gangbangers think their gangs are in a war with, ‘the man’ and the same goes for politcos.
> “… let you screech anything you want …”
They are the ones screeching. Even their nebulous and inconsistent censorship rules are a screech. Almost everything they say in public is screeching. And if you don’t screech with them, you are the one who gets muzzled. If you screech with them, you’re a ‘freedom fighter’ or ‘warrior’ or ‘hero’ or ‘virtuous’ or ‘patriotic’ or a ‘true OG’ or whatever.
Gotcha, so you are in fact implying that anyone should be allowed to say whatever they want on other people’s digital property, and cloaking it in platitudes about censorship and 1984 rah rah. Trying to be eloquent in your response doesn’t hide the substance of what you’re saying.
Side note: I always love how conservatives, “nonpolitical” people, and “centrists” evoke 1984 imagery while also claiming that liberals are a vast and powerful, but also clumsy and weak, enemy. Almost like you use the same rhetoric on your enemies that the book you jackoff to had its sheep masses believe about their fake enemy. I’m sure that realization won’t have much impact on your programmed double-think, though.
No, you once again are playing the smug, snide troll just insinuating your cult speak nonsense. I explained the true motives behind censorship, as opposed to the pretexts supplied by the liars. My point was that these people are liars who play mind games and wordsmithing games, just like you are doing. You are a false accuser and a slanderer trying to pump his preconceived cult notions. Your arguments are banal, childish, and simple-minded.
Don’t bother responding. I won’t see it. The next time you nymshift to harass me I will immediately block you and report you to the system administrator. Quit following me around the Internet, creepy stalker kook.
Mastodon, as a whole, never claimed to be free speech haven, did it? They have rules like twitter used to have. I’ve never seen Mastodon’s lord and owner (oh snap they don’t have one) claiming to be a ‘free speech absolutist’. You’re obviously salty because you got banned for breaking the rules. Why don’t you fuck off back to twitter?
If there is no such thing as a hive mind then how do you know that, ‘nobody likes’ me? Either you surveyed everyone alive, or you telepathically intuited this grand revelation.
Your comment is some 3rd-grade level, witless name-calling. Take your pre-pubescent frustrations to your guidance counselor.
Hahahaha there always is a musk shill in the comments somewhere. Go back to X then or have you been banned?
Anyway, we do have rules, which are not sidewide for the most part but if you want freeze peach you need to go to truth social.
Disclaimer: every community has issues and getting dogpiled on isnt fun anywhere. So yes, we do need to work every day to keep the community friendly and non toxic. That means openly disagreeing with complete out of touch posts like yours and banning you if you keep spewing generalizations like this without backing it up and effectively killing the vibe.
Ah yes, famous free speech absolutist wants to sue people who use their free speech to write about his shithole website. Publishing facts that don’t conform to his warped worldview apparently do not meet the standard for free speech.
If Musk can prove their speech is based on maliciously cherry-picked examples and that it caused financial harm to his companay, of course he can sue for damages. They keep their freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequences.
The case was dismissed, because obviously. The case never had a chance of succeeding, the whole point was to create a chilling effect to make other people hesitant of criticizing him.
It wasn’t about Musk making someone pay the consequences for misrepresenting the truth. It’s entirely about the “free speech absolutist” using paper terrorism to silence criticism.
Sorry, your boy isn’t what he says he is.
@glovecraft@infosec.pub
‘tortious interference’
Musk is a wart on Pinocchio’s nose. I feel no pity for him after all the lies he tells.
Many of his haters are his own kind of people envious that he climbed on the gravy train and they didn’t.
deleted by creator
Only consequences I am seeing is Elon Musk lost his case.
Welcome to Mastodon and the fediverse. If you don’t agree with the hive-mind ‘consensus’ then your speech is a ‘violation’ of some ambiguous ‘policy’ and must be censored. They will always invent spurious reasons for censoring things they hate, such as, ‘misinformation’ or ‘hate’ or ‘square dancing in a round room.’ This is how psychotic bolsheviks lord their power over others.
@downpunxx@fedia.io
deleted by creator
Difference between Bloods and Crips … or Mexican cartel vs. Columbian cartel.
To be clear, are you implying you think private entities should have to let you screech anything you want on their digital front lawn?
No. You are not clarifying. You are insinuating and muddying the water. My comment is about hypocrisy and vague rules made by hypocrites, rules designed to hide the real motives for censorship. They hide their real motives for censorship behind fake tropes and social signalling objectives. It doesn’t matter if it is X, Facebook, Mastodon, or any other platform. A huge chunk of the moderators of such platforms are criminally insane and are only interested in suppressing speech based upon partisan objectives rather than objective reality or objective morality or objective civility. Basically it is gangs competing for power in the mindshare space and that power is enforced through acceptable speech policies that have nothing to do with civility and everything to do with compliance and obedience to the gang.
Their acts of censorship and the fake motives they give expose their true character as fundamentally orwellian and dishonest.
A person who is orwellian and anti-goldstein would not understand. A totalitarian never thinks of himself as a totalitarian. He is a hero and genius in his own mind. Gangbangers think their gangs are in a war with, ‘the man’ and the same goes for politcos.
They are the ones screeching. Even their nebulous and inconsistent censorship rules are a screech. Almost everything they say in public is screeching. And if you don’t screech with them, you are the one who gets muzzled. If you screech with them, you’re a ‘freedom fighter’ or ‘warrior’ or ‘hero’ or ‘virtuous’ or ‘patriotic’ or a ‘true OG’ or whatever.
Gotcha, so you are in fact implying that anyone should be allowed to say whatever they want on other people’s digital property, and cloaking it in platitudes about censorship and 1984 rah rah. Trying to be eloquent in your response doesn’t hide the substance of what you’re saying.
Side note: I always love how conservatives, “nonpolitical” people, and “centrists” evoke 1984 imagery while also claiming that liberals are a vast and powerful, but also clumsy and weak, enemy. Almost like you use the same rhetoric on your enemies that the book you jackoff to had its sheep masses believe about their fake enemy. I’m sure that realization won’t have much impact on your programmed double-think, though.
No, you once again are playing the smug, snide troll just insinuating your cult speak nonsense. I explained the true motives behind censorship, as opposed to the pretexts supplied by the liars. My point was that these people are liars who play mind games and wordsmithing games, just like you are doing. You are a false accuser and a slanderer trying to pump his preconceived cult notions. Your arguments are banal, childish, and simple-minded.
Don’t bother responding. I won’t see it. The next time you nymshift to harass me I will immediately block you and report you to the system administrator. Quit following me around the Internet, creepy stalker kook.
You sure you dont want to put any more buzzwords and random accusations you can think of into your response? I’ll give you another go at it.
Baaaaaaaa
Mastodon, as a whole, never claimed to be free speech haven, did it? They have rules like twitter used to have. I’ve never seen Mastodon’s lord and owner (oh snap they don’t have one) claiming to be a ‘free speech absolutist’. You’re obviously salty because you got banned for breaking the rules. Why don’t you fuck off back to twitter?
There’s no such thing as a hive mind. You’re just an asshole, and nobody likes your L takes or your fake tears.
If there is no such thing as a hive mind then how do you know that, ‘nobody likes’ me? Either you surveyed everyone alive, or you telepathically intuited this grand revelation.
Your comment is some 3rd-grade level, witless name-calling. Take your pre-pubescent frustrations to your guidance counselor.
Hahahaha there always is a musk shill in the comments somewhere. Go back to X then or have you been banned?
Anyway, we do have rules, which are not sidewide for the most part but if you want freeze peach you need to go to truth social.
Disclaimer: every community has issues and getting dogpiled on isnt fun anywhere. So yes, we do need to work every day to keep the community friendly and non toxic. That means openly disagreeing with complete out of touch posts like yours and banning you if you keep spewing generalizations like this without backing it up and effectively killing the vibe.