Quote:
|
Just stop. He doesn't "admit" anything about "ideologues (the woke) at lower levels." He says they make mistakes without an ideological valence, and then partisans of different stripes get bent out of shape, imaging that they're being discriminated against. See -- you're doing it. You're doing exactly what he says happens.
|
Do a Google search for "Twitter" and "employees." See how many stories you get about younger employees upset that Musk might allow more unbridled speech.
They can't be upset about their holdings. They just got a 38% premium.
Quote:
|
It's not a "construct." It's the way that every single commercially successful internet platform business operates. It's a fact of life that you choose only to notice when it fits your personal bugaboos about "the woke".
|
I'm referring to the construct of moderation itself. And your defense admits its flaws. If the basis for preclusion of certain content is commercial, well then smart managers would preclude information that reflects poorly on advertisers. A concern about Musk is he will knuckle to Chinese censors to protect Tesla's market there.
The moderators inherently have several conflicts of interest. Some are political, some commercial. They couldn't be entirely neutral when Twitter was public, as that would be acting in a manner contrary to shareholders' interests.
And to the extent getting on board with fashionable political positions (wokeness, ESG, etc.) is currently viewed as a good population/govt manipulation tactic by many of Twitters advertisers, Twitter's moderation cannot be deemed neutral. They have to dance to the tune of those that pay them.
Quote:
|
If you're going to pretend to care for free speech principles, shed a tear for Disney, which just had the State of Florida retaliate against it by changing its tax treatment for disagreeing with the Republican Governor.
|
Drive this through the cement between your ears: It is not a response to my concern about moderation to cite a story that is literally everywhere in the news.
Do you not grasp this? There is no preclusion of any story about DeSantis' ridiculous, bigoted law in Florida. If anything, one cannot escape the story.
Also, more whataboutism?
And do I need to exhibit disgust with DeSantis' idiotic law here? Isn't it axiomatic to every sane person that the law is odious, and he's a bottom feeding asshole to have pushed it? Of course it is. It's objectively awful. We all agree with that. Where we do not agree is in terms of our comfort with "moderation," and specifically how it was applied to the laptop story. Hence the back and forth.
