Hacker News Reader

Comment by root_axis | Hacker News Reader

> at least he has the courage to stand by his beliefs and ideals enough to actually try allowing as much free speech as possible.

I see this sentiment a lot, but how do you reconcile that with his explicitly anti-free speech behavior.

Censoring links for people he doesn't like

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33991136

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35565359

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34035149

Censoring links to competitor websites

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35482222

Banning ads that disagree with his personal politics

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36916334

and many other examples.

View on HN

That time he banned all links to all Mastodon instances was a particularly egregious example of that.

He backed down after some very prominent people made it clear that this was a laughably poor move.

They're still slowing down links to Substack and Threads.net and NYTimes.

I'm not the parent poster. But someone can appreciate aspects of Musk's business decisions while simultaneously agreeing with you that there are counterexamples and may dislike those. I don't understand why that would be difficult to reconcile. Real life is cloudy and murky, and that doesn't mean people can't acknowledge the times someone gets it right.

The comment I replied to stated that Elon is courageously adhering to his principles of free speech, but the examples I have provided directly contradict that sentiment.

It's clear that Elon is ok with repeatedly disregarding his stated principles if it suits his personal or political agenda. As the owner of Twitter, that's entirely his prerogative, but I don't see how one can reconcile his stated values with his actual behavior.

I think the OC might win this on a technicality which is that he said 'his principles of free speech' instead of just 'principles of free speech'. That 'his' qualifier indicates the specific principles belonging to Elon Musk which evidence proves to be along the lines of 'allowing speech I like, censoring speech I don't like'.

My understanding was that the GP poster was making the point that Musk is allowing free speech even when he knows that people will criticize him when people post the kind of things that's mentioned in the article (the potential blowback of which is probably why you don't see these kind of decisions on most social media sites anymore). Wasn't that what GP was saying was courageous? I agree that it's not courageous to limit speech in some of the examples you posted. Probably at least some would make the case that he's courageous in general when it comes to free speech on Twitter and that he's also a flawed human being.

The OP stated that Elon is courageous for "allowing as much free speech as possible". However, Elon's actions contradict this sentiment because he is unilaterally censoring speech he personally dislikes.

> Probably at least some would make the case that he's courageous in general when it comes to free speech on Twitter and that he's also a flawed human being.

It seems to me, at best, one could argue he is courageous for not letting the opinions of his critics guide his actions, however, the way he is behaving clearly contradicts the sentiment of "free speech".

With respect to "free speech" it would appear he is the opposite of courageous since he frequently uses his authority to violate that stated principle (or he's not being truthful about his principles with respect to free speech)

Since we're splitting hairs now, GP said "try allowing as much free speech as possible." You've pointed out some times he's failed. That doesn't contradict whether GP thinks he's trying.

It's not splitting hairs, it's the literal words they wrote that I explicitly quoted in my original reply.

> You've pointed out some times he's failed. That doesn't contradict whether GP thinks he's trying.

Elon didn't simply "fail", like an honest person earnestly working hard to adhere to the values they proclaim loudly, rather he has repeatedly used his unique authority as the owner of Twitter to censor speech in a way nobody else could - it's not a one-off mistake, it's a deliberate pattern of behavior that flies directly in the face of his stated intentions for the platform, which was the clarion call he shouted from the rooftops in has campaign to take over Twitter.

> I don't see how one can reconcile his stated values with his actual behavior.

I have walked this earth for nearly 6 decades. I can probably count on one hand with fingers left over the number of people who I have met in all that time who lives up to that standard.

I include myself and my saintly mother among those people who missed the mark.

What's your point? I don't mean that to sound snarky, I'm genuinely asking.

My point is there seems to be a tendency among people to hold other people to higher standards than they do themselves.

Everybody is a hypocrite to some degree or another. People pointing out that speck of sawdust in Elon’s eye is ignoring the plank in their own eye.

> Everybody is a hypocrite to some degree or another

So what? If we grant that everyone is a hypocrite, are we to then conclude that all critiques of hypocrisy are unfounded or unworthy? If that's not what you're saying, then what is your criteria for excusing hypocrisy vs condemning it?

I just find it ironic that a bunch of folks who occasionally act like assholes online are critical of someone who occasionally acts like an asshole online.

Huh? What does that have to do with the topic we're discussing?

Do you have an explanation for why you believe critiques of hypocrisy should be dismissed? I'm getting the sense that you're just personally a fan of Elon, which is fine, but not really a substantive contribution to the discussion.

If you knew a pastor who was having an affair on his wife would you accept a sermon from him condemning the adultery of another…even if everything he said was true? Or perhaps would you tune out that message because you can’t get past the noise from his hypocrisy on the subject?

It’s just hard to hear anything worthwhile due to all the noise.

If the pastor initiated a loud campaign openly castigating the previous pastor for his egregious acts of infidelity, and proclaimed that under his stewardship of the church he would foster a renewed culture of unmitigated faithfulness, then, after taking over the church, immediately started leveraging his position of authority to sleep with a variety parishioners, I think most people would react strongly to that brazen level of hypocrisy.

Then you obviously understand my point as to why I don’t feel that criticism of hypocrisy by hypocrites should be taken seriously.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com