Elon Musk: Always A Douche

[Grey Fox]

Well, that's bad news for democracy in the West.

Putin should have waited for 2025

[Solmyr]

I think Musk also floated forcing people to confirm their ID.  For whatever benefits allowing anonymous accounts brings (I follow a Canadian fighting in Ukraine on Twitter - fascinating stuff, but he never shows his face or his name), I'm pretty sure it's overwhelmed by the number of anonymous trolls who make Twitter so unpleasant.

A lot of members of vulnerable minorities would be forced off Twitter due to facing death threats etc. if they were there under their real names.

[The Larch]

If somebody wants to dissect Musk's take on free speech from yesterday, here it is:

By "free speech", I simply mean that which matches the law.

I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law.

If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect.

Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people.

[Josquius]

So basically please don't lump me in with those nutters who bang on about free speech as they want to encourage the violent overthrow of the democratically elected government?

[The Minsky Moment]

(These two in the run-up to the decision - seems a bit dystopian that politicians threaten a corporation with consequences if they refuse a buyout from - how to put this delicately - an eccentric multibillionaire.)

It's the new Stalinist GOP led by Commissar Fidel DeSantis.  Business will be permitted to operate but only if they follow the will of the State and the Leader.

[garbon]

So basically please don't lump me in with those nutters who bang on about free speech as they want to encourage the violent overthrow of the democratically elected government?

I'd assume it means that of course I'll prevent people from transmitting illegal things but it isn't on me if people want to post hateful things online. Sort of the opposite conclusion of the EU/UK on online harms.

[Berkut]

I think Musk also floated forcing people to confirm their ID.  For whatever benefits allowing anonymous accounts brings (I follow a Canadian fighting in Ukraine on Twitter - fascinating stuff, but he never shows his face or his name), I'm pretty sure it's overwhelmed by the number of anonymous trolls who make Twitter so unpleasant.

A lot of members of vulnerable minorities would be forced off Twitter due to facing death threats etc. if they were there under their real names.

I question that as being really true.

But in any case, the issue is not forcing them to reveal their real names, it is forcing them to prove that they are real to the platform.

I think there is no reason there cannot be some standards around anonymity. In general, you should be forced to "prove" you are an actual human being, and broadly who you claim to be. If an argument can be made that in some cases, that presents a risk, then force people to make THAT argument and there can be exceptions.

But 99.99% of people using Twitter don't fall into those categories. And if we want social media to stop being so damn toxic, there has to be some kind of vetting. I am all for free speech for actual human beings. Not so much for bots, Russian psyops trolls, and advertisers.

[garbon]

I think Musk also floated forcing people to confirm their ID.  For whatever benefits allowing anonymous accounts brings (I follow a Canadian fighting in Ukraine on Twitter - fascinating stuff, but he never shows his face or his name), I'm pretty sure it's overwhelmed by the number of anonymous trolls who make Twitter so unpleasant.

A lot of members of vulnerable minorities would be forced off Twitter due to facing death threats etc. if they were there under their real names.

I question that as being really true.

But in any case, the issue is not forcing them to reveal their real names, it is forcing them to prove that they are real to the platform.

I think there is no reason there cannot be some standards around anonymity. In general, you should be forced to "prove" you are an actual human being, and broadly who you claim to be. If an argument can be made that in some cases, that presents a risk, then force people to make THAT argument and there can be exceptions.

But 99.99% of people using Twitter don't fall into those categories. And if we want social media to stop being so damn toxic, there has to be some kind of vetting. I am all for free speech for actual human beings. Not so much for bots, Russian psyops trolls, and advertisers.

I can see it if it is say some sort of captcha. But if the social media company holds onto your identify info, pretty easy to see trouble someone could be in if say their authoritarian country pushes for that information to be shared. In line with their local laws, of course.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Twitter is the least lucrative of the "Majors" precisely because its user base is so small, and it's always been suspected a decent chunk of that userbase are bots. Removing all of them likely hurts Twitter's ability to sell advertising, which is at least one reason it has not been done to this point.

Also, of course Musk has no fucking clue what he's going to do and likely hasn't thought this through at all. But he doesn't have to--he's making bets by leveraging Tesla shares, which are massively overvalued because millions of idiots think Musk is a genius and are willing to value his company at hundreds of times future revenue and higher than every other carmaker in America combined (despite having like 1/65th of their production output.)

If Musk means what he says about "doing no more than the law itself" on limiting speech, that also means not limiting anonymous speech, under current free speech jurisprudence you are entitled to anonymity. Now a private company isn't bound to respect that, but Musk has said he wants no further restrictions beyond what the law requires. Well, the law doesn't require you identify yourself to engage in speech.

[crazy canuck]

Let's put on an optimist hat for a moment.  Is there anything objectively good that can result from Musk owning Twitter?  We're mourning it as if it isn't a steaming pile of crap currently, but it already is.  Can he actually accomplish some objective good as the owner?

Absolutely.

A privately held company owned and controlled by Musk could enact some criticial changes that could improve the platform immensely.

More robust authentication of users to eliminate bots for example.

Requiring users to "prove" they are human.

One of things he mentioned was making the algorithms open source and transparent.

All of this could be very good, in fact.

Is there anything stopping a publicly traded company from doing all of those things?

The main difference between a company owned by one shareholder and a publicly held company is the one shareholder can completely screw the company's value without having to answer to the other shareholders. That may give him more flexibility to take risks that are not as palatable to a publicly traded company. But none of the things you listed appear to be in that category.

[Berkut]

I think Musk also floated forcing people to confirm their ID.  For whatever benefits allowing anonymous accounts brings (I follow a Canadian fighting in Ukraine on Twitter - fascinating stuff, but he never shows his face or his name), I'm pretty sure it's overwhelmed by the number of anonymous trolls who make Twitter so unpleasant.

A lot of members of vulnerable minorities would be forced off Twitter due to facing death threats etc. if they were there under their real names.

I question that as being really true.

But in any case, the issue is not forcing them to reveal their real names, it is forcing them to prove that they are real to the platform.

I think there is no reason there cannot be some standards around anonymity. In general, you should be forced to "prove" you are an actual human being, and broadly who you claim to be. If an argument can be made that in some cases, that presents a risk, then force people to make THAT argument and there can be exceptions.

But 99.99% of people using Twitter don't fall into those categories. And if we want social media to stop being so damn toxic, there has to be some kind of vetting. I am all for free speech for actual human beings. Not so much for bots, Russian psyops trolls, and advertisers.

I can see it if it is say some sort of captcha. But if the social media company holds onto your identify info, pretty easy to see trouble someone could be in if say their authoritarian country pushes for that information to be shared. In line with their local laws, of course.

I don't think we can set our standards around the dangers authoritarian countries might create. If China, as an example, want to pass laws that say "Twitter has to tell us how these people are" then Twitter has to decide if it wants to do business in China at all.

[Josquius]

I think Musk also floated forcing people to confirm their ID.  For whatever benefits allowing anonymous accounts brings (I follow a Canadian fighting in Ukraine on Twitter - fascinating stuff, but he never shows his face or his name), I'm pretty sure it's overwhelmed by the number of anonymous trolls who make Twitter so unpleasant.

A lot of members of vulnerable minorities would be forced off Twitter due to facing death threats etc. if they were there under their real names.

I question that as being really true.

But in any case, the issue is not forcing them to reveal their real names, it is forcing them to prove that they are real to the platform.

I think there is no reason there cannot be some standards around anonymity. In general, you should be forced to "prove" you are an actual human being, and broadly who you claim to be. If an argument can be made that in some cases, that presents a risk, then force people to make THAT argument and there can be exceptions.

But 99.99% of people using Twitter don't fall into those categories. And if we want social media to stop being so damn toxic, there has to be some kind of vetting. I am all for free speech for actual human beings. Not so much for bots, Russian psyops trolls, and advertisers.

I mean, back at brexit ref time I had people threatening me with physical violence.
And I'm a straight white guy in the UK.
To be a queer black woman in the US...

[Berkut]

Let's put on an optimist hat for a moment.  Is there anything objectively good that can result from Musk owning Twitter?  We're mourning it as if it isn't a steaming pile of crap currently, but it already is.  Can he actually accomplish some objective good as the owner?

Absolutely.

A privately held company owned and controlled by Musk could enact some criticial changes that could improve the platform immensely.

More robust authentication of users to eliminate bots for example.

Requiring users to "prove" they are human.

One of things he mentioned was making the algorithms open source and transparent.

All of this could be very good, in fact.

Is there anything stopping a publicly traded company from doing all of those things?

The main difference between a company owned by one shareholder and a publicly held company is the one shareholder can completely screw the company's value without having to answer to the other shareholders. That may give him more flexibility to take risks that are not as palatable to a publicly traded company. But none of the things you listed appear to be in that category.

Nothing but the will to do so.

You are right, there isn't anything structural to stop any of that, other then the boards fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders.

But the question was "Is there anything objectively good that can result from Musk owning Twitter". Yes, there are things that *could* be objectively good as a result.

Clearly the people who own the company can direct the companies strategy and tactics. Unless you presume that everything Twitter does now is as good as it possibly can be, then certainly changing who makes those decisions (and their priorities) CAN be good.

Will they be good? That seems pretty damn unlikely.

[Berkut]

I think Musk also floated forcing people to confirm their ID.  For whatever benefits allowing anonymous accounts brings (I follow a Canadian fighting in Ukraine on Twitter - fascinating stuff, but he never shows his face or his name), I'm pretty sure it's overwhelmed by the number of anonymous trolls who make Twitter so unpleasant.

A lot of members of vulnerable minorities would be forced off Twitter due to facing death threats etc. if they were there under their real names.

I question that as being really true.

But in any case, the issue is not forcing them to reveal their real names, it is forcing them to prove that they are real to the platform.

I think there is no reason there cannot be some standards around anonymity. In general, you should be forced to "prove" you are an actual human being, and broadly who you claim to be. If an argument can be made that in some cases, that presents a risk, then force people to make THAT argument and there can be exceptions.

But 99.99% of people using Twitter don't fall into those categories. And if we want social media to stop being so damn toxic, there has to be some kind of vetting. I am all for free speech for actual human beings. Not so much for bots, Russian psyops trolls, and advertisers.

I mean, back at brexit ref time I had people threatening me with physical violence.
And I'm a straight white guy in the UK.
To be a queer black woman in the US...

I think the number of queer black woman in the US who are actually in danger from their Twitter activity, even if their identity was known (and that is not what is being discussed anyway) is statistically close to zero.

People threaten people on the internet with violence all the time. One of the ways they get away with that (which is illegal, btw) is that they are anonymous and the law cannot actually respond to their illegal activity because of that anonymity.

[The Brain]

I think Musk also floated forcing people to confirm their ID.  For whatever benefits allowing anonymous accounts brings (I follow a Canadian fighting in Ukraine on Twitter - fascinating stuff, but he never shows his face or his name), I'm pretty sure it's overwhelmed by the number of anonymous trolls who make Twitter so unpleasant.

A lot of members of vulnerable minorities would be forced off Twitter due to facing death threats etc. if they were there under their real names.

I question that as being really true.

But in any case, the issue is not forcing them to reveal their real names, it is forcing them to prove that they are real to the platform.

I think there is no reason there cannot be some standards around anonymity. In general, you should be forced to "prove" you are an actual human being, and broadly who you claim to be. If an argument can be made that in some cases, that presents a risk, then force people to make THAT argument and there can be exceptions.

But 99.99% of people using Twitter don't fall into those categories. And if we want social media to stop being so damn toxic, there has to be some kind of vetting. I am all for free speech for actual human beings. Not so much for bots, Russian psyops trolls, and advertisers.

I mean, back at brexit ref time I had people threatening me with physical violence.
And I'm a straight white guy in the UK.
To be a queer black woman in the US...

I think the number of queer black woman in the US who are actually in danger from their Twitter activity, even if their identity was known (and that is not what is being discussed anyway) is statistically close to zero.

People threaten people on the internet with violence all the time. One of the ways they get away with that (which is illegal, btw) is that they are anonymous and the law cannot actually respond to their illegal activity because of that anonymity.

If a criminal doesn't introduce himself the police in the US cannot respond to a crime?