More advertisers to flee X after recent Elon Musk lawsuit and riot comments | Hacker News Reader

More advertisers to flee X after recent Elon Musk lawsuit and riot comments

cityam.com

18 pointsdoener12 comments

Would one solution to the free speech problem in social media is if we had state sponsored social media? The Government wouldn’t have a financial incentive to go after advertisers, and 1st amendment would actually apply.

What is the "free speech problem" in social media, exactly?

Some people want a platform that is resistant to the ideological whims of its owner.

Don't we have that? Mastodon etc?

But most people aren't on mastodon, because most people don't care about a platform "resistant to the ideological whims of the owner". Most people just wanna be able to complain about it.

The article is in a British publication, so no, in this context the 1st amendment wouldn't apply.

This is the kind of argument that leads to "Let's put Jordan Peterson in charge of the equitable distribution of female partners." Unfortunately, that not even a fanciful comparison.

Some things have an objective ick. Whether it's women not wanting to touch icky men or advertisers not wanting to have their ads next to their abstruse rants entailing sexism, racism, or fascism. The question is do you value your ick more than you value being prosperous or laid? A smart lawyer once said "You exist in the context of all in which you live and what came before you."

I mean, I’m not personally in the market for a free speech social network, the more moderation the better, but for those who want an anything goes social network not subject to the ideological whims of the owner, with strict first amendment protections, would this work?

(I am personally sus that there are a lot of people who would actually use such a thing, but people seem to talk about it a lot)

At the risk of being redundant to the other guy who asked you what's the problem, there are plenty of sites that will post whatever horrifying theory you want published.

But you say those sites have no reach. They have no reach because they're full of trolls. That's what would happen to any network no matter who owns it that attracts that kind of audience.

Musk confuses freedom of speech with freedom from consequences. In the USA the right to free speech prevents the government censoring or restraining what citizens say. It does not immunize against responsibility for what you say or write. And it does not compel anyone to listen, repeat, or publish what you say.

Other countries have different rules, free speech doesn’t apply absolutely, everywhere. This is middle school civics stuff.

"freedom from consequences" is a phrase that has no meaning. Everything is a "consequence" of something else. Causal relationship does not imply goodness. A husband hitting his wife for what she said to him is a "consequence" of her speaking, but you would not apply the "consequence" trope to this situation. Our job is to let good consequences happen, and prevent bad consequences from happening. This sounds almost tautological, because the whole premise of "there is no freedom of consequences" is almost tautological.

I think you understand what I meant, but thanks for the lesson in rhetoric. I'll correct my statement to Musk confuses freedom of speech with freedom from penalties for his speech. Of course he narcissistically craves the attention and encouragement, even if from a tiny minority, so in that sense he understands consequences, but only wants those that feed his ego.

I don't know for sure if Musk truly doesn't understand freedom of speech as protected in the Constitution, or if he does but cynically deploys his "rights" to serve his own purposes. I no longer give him the benefit of the doubt.

the boycott has become a buy-in

Reply on news.ycombinator.com