r/Conservative • u/Doctor_Byronic Millennial Conservative • 1d ago

Musk Critics Including Laura Loomer Claim Censorship on X, Loss of X Badges Flaired Users Only

https://www.cf.org/news/musk-critics-including-laura-loomer-claim-censorship-on-x-loss-of-x-badges/
2.7k Upvotes

83% Upvoted

View all comments

1.0k

u/prey4villains Conservatively Independent 1d ago

Musk needs to be very careful here if he’s behind any of this. You can’t claim freedom of speech being paramount to democracy and then start fucking with people…

989

u/cathbadh Grumpy Conservative 1d ago

You can’t claim freedom of speech being paramount to democracy and then start fucking with people…

We should definitely wait and see, but let's be honest, he's never be a defender of free speech. He regularly bans people for posting public flight data and either bans or notes people who use cis or cisgender in their tweets. Journalists who've reported on him have lost their accounts with no explanation, only to get them back again, with no explanation when it became a major news story. The man requires employees to sign restrictive non-disparagement agreements, and once tried to get CUSTOMERS to sign non-disclosure agreements just to get their vehicles repaired. Plus he loves to do business with the biggest anti-free speech regime on the planet, the Chinese government, and has never said a bad word about them.

The man can be good on some issues, and has done some good things at Twitter, and is a successful businessman. But lets be real, the only free speech he is interested in is the kind that serves his personal agendas and conforms to his personal worldview. He is a 14 year old 4channer with more money than God.

-335

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-394

u/Awesome_Orange Conservative 1d ago

Freedom of speech doesn’t include doxxing as per X policy.

343

u/cathbadh Grumpy Conservative 1d ago

Freedom of speech as a right doesn't include anything on social media whatsoever. When talking about freedom of speech though, Musk talks about more than our constitutional right, he talks about a broader belief in the right.

Their policy on "doxxing" was rewritten to specifically encompass linking to public flight data because Elon doesn't like it. It isn't doxxing under any reasonable definition of the word. The reality is that Elon only believes in free speech on his terms, which means it isn't free at all.

-154

u/StarMNF Christian Conservative 1d ago

What purpose does sharing his flight data provide other than encouraging people to stalk him?

The important part of free speech is being able to publicly share and discuss your opinions. Critically, the old Twitter censored people for sharing opinions it didn’t like or agree with.

But speech can also be used to harass and intimidate people. That usage is evil.

The question is how to differentiate harassment from expression of opinions. And it comes down to making a judgment call about intent.

The dude who was sharing Musk’s flight info seemed to be trying to intimidate him. Yes, it’s data that is technically publicly available but by sharing it on Twitter, he’s giving that data a much larger platform, which increases the likelihood some nutjob will see it and stalk Elon. It may not be technically “doxxing” but it serves a similar goal.

Moreover, any opinion the dude wanted to express could be done so without that data. If he wanted to say how much he hates Elon, that could be done without that data. If he wanted to start a conversation about limits of free speech, that could be done without that data.

Yes, this is still censorship, but it’s a characteristically different kind of censorship from the kind happening at the old Twitter.

I understand that this theoretically diminishes the “free speech absolutist” claim, because theoretically there might be some legitimate reason to share the flight data.

But I also understand that Elon, who pays the server bills for X, doesn’t want to pay to make it easier for people to stalk him. You’re free to create a website StalkElon.com and test First Amendment limits with your own money.

188

u/cathbadh Grumpy Conservative 1d ago

What purpose does sharing his flight data provide other than encouraging people to stalk him?

This very sub has used it to shame supposed environmentalists for use of private planes. Is that stalking and somehow wrong? Others could use it to organize protests where he and other public figures are at, using their actual, constitutional right to free speech.

You say stalk... He's the richest man on Earth. He could conceivably hire an actual army to overthrow a country if he wanted. He has great private security, better than the leaders of some nations. He'll be fine without special protections created just for him.

The important part of free speech is being able to publicly share and discuss your opinions. Critically, the old Twitter censored people for sharing opinions it didn’t like or agree with.

If this report is accurate, the new one does too.

The question is how to differentiate harassment from expression of opinions. And it comes down to making a judgment call about intent.

Sharing public information is not harassment, even when it's public information related to the ruling class.

The dude who was sharing Musk’s flight info seemed to be trying to intimidate him

I don't see that, but how? How can he intimidate a man worth more than some countries? What power does a 20something year old sharing information that is incredibly easy to find have over that?

Yes, it’s data that is technically publicly available

Not "technically." It's published in real time for all to see. It is literally publicly available. Sorry, banning info on website A that is available on website B isn't making him safer by any reasonable amount.

which increases the likelihood some nutjob will see it and stalk Elon.

Wider availability of firearms increases the likelihood that someone could harm Elon or other public figures too. Time for gun control, right? We must protect our wealthier betters at all cost!!!

It may not be technically “doxxing” but it serves a similar goal.

It's no more "doxxing" than listing the that the President lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

If he wanted to say how much he hates Elon, that could be done without that data. If he wanted to start a conversation about limits of free speech, that could be done without that data.

Tell that to Loomer and the others.

Yes, this is still censorship, but it’s a characteristically different kind of censorship from the kind happening at the old Twitter.

True. There it affected conservatives. Here it affects those King Elon doesn't like. All hail our social betters.

I understand that this theoretically diminishes the “free speech absolutist” claim, because theoretically there might be some legitimate reason to share the flight data.

Not theoretically. Literally.

But I also understand that Elon, who pays the server bills for X, doesn’t want to pay to make it easier for people to stalk him. You’re free to create a website StalkElon.com and test First Amendment limits with your own money.

All true. However claiming to be a free speech advocate, and claiming to promote it on your platform, while wielding said platform as a weapon against those who dare criticize you is hypocrisy. Musk is no ally to free speech.

-63

u/StarMNF Christian Conservative 1d ago

First, I want to say that IF Elon is censoring Loomer then that is wrong and hypocritical of him. I was never defending that, but speaking about the flight data, which I consider a very different situation.

Most of your argument seems to boil down to “Elon is rich and powerful, so he shouldn’t worry about being intimidated or harassed.”

So does that mean it’s not okay to share the flight data of someone who isn’t as rich as Elon??? Drawing the line at someone’s ability to hypothetically defend themselves from harassment doesn’t seem like the right line to draw.

Also keep in mind that rich people aren’t invincible. Consider the Manson murders. Yes, you can hire a ton of security, but most people don’t want to live that way if they can help it.

Let’s go back to the nature of the information itself, because that’s the crux of the issue. You argued that the flight data can be used to make an argument about hypocritical environmentalists.

Fair enough, but can’t you make that argument without providing specific real time information? You can say so-and-so flew 1,000 times in the last month, without providing every detail. Averages and summary statistics will be more useful in making your argument than raw data.

That’s what a newspaper would do. They would publish enough information to make the case, without publishing needless details that only serve to violate someone’s privacy.

Well…unless they’re a paparazzi tabloid like TMZ. Then the goal might be invading a celebrity’s privacy for entertainment.

But the point is that there’s a difference between expressing an opinion and being a paparazzi. While banning paparazzi-like behavior is a restriction on free speech, it’s not the same kind of restriction as banning opinions.

51

u/cathbadh Grumpy Conservative 1d ago

So does that mean it’s not okay to share the flight data of someone who isn’t as rich as Elon???

I didn't say that. It's a rebuttal to the pretend fears that Musk must be protected at all costs from all of these stalkers who are so lazy about their stalking that they only look to Twitter.

Fair enough, but can’t you make that argument without providing specific real time information?

Sure. Is that the bar we 're going to use for free speech now? Limit it by time or vagueness to ensure the rich and powerful are happy? Regardless, your argument should be with the FAA here.

That’s what a newspaper would do. They would publish enough information to make the case, without publishing needless details that only serve to violate someone’s privacy.

Random activists are not newspaper journalists. Are those the only ones who should be allowed to speak ill of our social betters?

But the point is that there’s a difference between expressing an opinion and being a paparazzi. While banning paparazzi-like behavior is a restriction on free speech, it’s not the same kind of restriction as banning opinions.

Christ, you sound like the Biden folks who wanted to police misinformation. Anything to protect our kings though, right?

-34

u/StarMNF Christian Conservative 1d ago edited 1d ago

You’re making a false equivalence.

Policing misinformation is dangerous because the person judging the misinformation may judge incorrectly, and that authority is easy to abuse.

We have many examples of where so called “fact checkers” have gotten it wrong. And things that the mainstream media dismisses at first, like the “COVID lab leak” theory are later proven to have merit.

But hypothetically banning paparazzi behavior is not the same thing. You can argue there would be downsides to such a ban, but those downsides are not the same ones as the risk of policing misinformation.

ANY RESTRICTION on free speech will have some downsides to it.

But there is nowhere you can go without some restrictions on speech. Even the United States with its strong First Amendment protections has restrictions on speech. You can’t “yell fire in a crowded theater”, you can be sued out of existence for libel, and you can sued for republishing copyrighted material.

So the current laws in the U.S. are far from being true “you can say anything you want” free speech absolutist. They are still relatively more free than anywhere else in the world.

Ultimately, you have to weigh the Pros and Cons of any restrictions you place on speech. You may be of the belief that ANY restriction is bad, but then your ideal platform is illegal in the U.S. and everywhere in the world.

You can also argue for a platform that has no restrictions that go beyond U.S. law.

X is clearly not that platform. But I think it’s disingenuous to say that the restrictions X has carry the same dangers as those of old Twitter — at least, using the flight data restriction as an example.

26

u/cathbadh Grumpy Conservative 1d ago

Policing misinformation is dangerous because the person judging the misinformation may judge incorrectly, and that authority is easy to abuse.

True. It isn't a perfect comparison, as where misinformation can be judged, public facts, like flight data, are objective. Weird that you support restricting objective information but oppose policing subjective stuff. Why not let both flow?

But hypothetically banning paparazzi behavior is not the same thing.

Listing information found on a public website isn't paparazzi behavior.

Ultimately, you have to weigh the Pros and Cons of any restrictions you place on speech. You may be of the belief that ANY restriction is bad, but then your ideal platform is illegal in the U.S. and everywhere in the world.

You've said a lot of words to sum up "we need to protect the billionaires from our rights."

But I think it’s disingenuous to say that the restrictions X has carry the same dangers as those of old Twitter — at least, using the flight data restriction as an example.

Again, he is allowed to run his site however he wants. It just makes him a liar and hypocrite when he claims to be a free speech absolutist while simultaneously suppressing the speech of anyone who he doesn't like. Speech isn't free if you can't criticize the person providing it. But yes, he is of course allowed to restrict people tweeting flight data, or made up gender words, or daring to disagree with his demands on how the country is run.

→ More replies

-141

u/Awesome_Orange Conservative 1d ago

I think an argument can be made that posting live, real-time flight data is a form of doxxing. And the health insurance CEO getting assassinated may bolster that claim.

152

u/Doctor_Byronic Millennial Conservative 1d ago

Then make the argument that real-time flight data should not be publicly available in the first place. For it to be doxxing it had to have been private before you posted it.

-86

u/Awesome_Orange Conservative 1d ago

Why isn’t it public for government planes?

99

u/Doctor_Byronic Millennial Conservative 1d ago

For security reasons I assume. I don't get your point, because I'm not saying that flight information should remain public, just that so long as it is publicly available you aren't exposing anything private when you do share it.

-18

u/Awesome_Orange Conservative 1d ago

Yeah so he can claim the same thing-security reasons.

68

u/Doctor_Byronic Millennial Conservative 1d ago

That still doesn't make it doxxing because the same information is freely available to everyone outside of X.

→ More replies

52

u/cathbadh Grumpy Conservative 1d ago

The FAA and federal government disagree. Maybe they care more about free speech than Musk does, though.

And the health insurance CEO getting assassinated may bolster that claim.

If he was shot down by someone with a homemade anti-air missile, sure. But he wasn't. Meanwhile Musk, the richest man on Earth can afford all sorts of security. But again, maybe we need special rules for free speech that offer more protection for the ultra wealthy.

-6

u/Awesome_Orange Conservative 1d ago edited 1d ago

Why would they disagree if I am not threatening or adding a call to violence with the data of a government flight?

31

u/cathbadh Grumpy Conservative 1d ago

The agencies that publish this public info likely don't agree with you that they're "doxxing," since.... they're publlishing the info.

-2

u/Awesome_Orange Conservative 1d ago

Didn’t answer my question

24

u/cathbadh Grumpy Conservative 1d ago

Your question made no sense. There are no calls to violence or threats here. Just someone publishing public flight data on Twitter. The FAA and federal government believe this is in fact public information and choose to publish it.

One man being shot in New York shouldn't someohw change how all flight data is publicized. That'd be like saying we should ban "assault rifles" because they were used in mass shootings. That's some Biden type stuff there.

→ More replies

58

u/Doctor_Byronic Millennial Conservative 1d ago

Who said anything about doxxing?

-30

u/Awesome_Orange Conservative 1d ago

“He regularly bans people for posting public flight data”. Posting public flight data is classified as a form of doxxing as per X policy.

93

u/Doctor_Byronic Millennial Conservative 1d ago

Doxxing is the publishing of private information. Public flight data is by definition not private. Elon classified it as a form of doxxing because he personally doesn't like it, but that doesn't change the definition of the word.

-18

u/StarMNF Christian Conservative 1d ago

I’d challenge you to consider that the distinction between “public” and “private” information is fuzzy, and it’s a poorly defined concept at best.

If I happen to see you walking home one day, I now know where you live. This information was “publicly” shared with everyone who saw you that day. And certainly having your eyes open and noticing something is not a crime.

Does this then become “private” information if I share it with a wider audience?

Regardless, if I share that information and it wasn’t widely known, most people would say that’s “doxxing”. Is it a crime? Probably not, or else most paparazzi would be in jail. But it’s still doxxing, as the term is common used.

So I think defining “doxxing” as “sharing private information” is a bad definition, given the ambiguity.

I would define it as “Making information that could be used to harass someone significantly more WIDELY known.”

Both the cases of me sharing your home address, and someone sharing Elon’s flight data on X, meet that criteria.

-26

u/Awesome_Orange Conservative 1d ago

I still think he can be considered a free speech absolutist because he means free speech in the sense of ideas and literal speech.

-134

u/Lord_Sicarius Conservative 1d ago

Has a conservative flair and uses the term "cis"

111

u/cathbadh Grumpy Conservative 1d ago

I identified a word that exists and is relevant to the conversation. You can pretend that I use or support the term all you want. You have zero evidence to do so. But please, keep grasping at straws.

-61

u/Aurondarklord Anti-Woke 1d ago edited 1d ago

But I need to see more proof that he is. A few people have already been caught deactivating their accounts and claiming he suspended them, and anyone can cause their checkmark to disappear for a while by changing their display name.

I don't consider Laura Loomer a credible source here, and Musk has no reason to do something this trifling and petty, he's a big boy who knows how the Streisand Effect works, he would be fully aware that this would not benefit him and only draw more attention to Loomer and her buddies.

Edit: Oh come on guys, who here thinks LAURA LOOMER is a believable source of information?

-31

u/prey4villains Conservatively Independent 1d ago

I certainly don’t lol. Which is why I’ll give him benefit of the doubt.

-9

u/GiediOne Reaganomics 1d ago

Agree, but restricting Musk's actions may not be the best way. I think more competing platforms like Truth Social and other similar leftist social platforms that actively compete with each other is a more appropriate check on a particular platforms dominance. I think the more social platforms that people can go on, the better.

-56

u/day25 Conservative 1d ago

Generally yes though there are exceptions just probably not applicable here. See Popper's intolerance of intolerance. If you believe in freedom you have to stop the thought that stops thought, can't allow tolerance of intolerance, etc. I.e. McCarthy was right. That said Musk has been pretty tolerant of the intolerant left. Certainly infinitely more than they are of us.

-51

u/Awesome_Orange Conservative 1d ago

Even if he’s behind this, he’s not censoring them…just removing their verification badges. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of reach.

65

u/Doctor_Byronic Millennial Conservative 1d ago

Is he removing their verification badges for no reason, or is it in response to something they said? The former is a random act, the latter is retaliation.

-22

u/Awesome_Orange Conservative 1d ago

Different argument. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of revenue sharing or reach.

59

u/Doctor_Byronic Millennial Conservative 1d ago

I'm not making the argument that Elon violated the First Amendment here, I'm just calling him a hypocrite for claiming to be a "free speech absolutist" while retaliating against speech he doesn't like.

-14

u/Awesome_Orange Conservative 1d ago

Being a free speech absolutionist doesn’t mean you promote every thing anyone ever says.

62

u/Doctor_Byronic Millennial Conservative 1d ago

Of course it doesn't, but it does mean you don't inhibit speech either.

-2

u/Awesome_Orange Conservative 1d ago

No it means not removing it.

49

u/Doctor_Byronic Millennial Conservative 1d ago edited 1d ago

A free speech absolutist can suppress speech all the way up to but just short of removing it completely, without there being an ounce of contradiction?

-10

u/Awesome_Orange Conservative 1d ago

Correct

→ More replies

38

u/Highwiind-D4 Far Right 1d ago

He's not censoring them— just removing monetization, verification, and reducing visibility.

Think about what you're saying.

-14

u/Awesome_Orange Conservative 1d ago

Yeah that’s not censoring them. People can say anything they want, doesn’t mean we also need to give them a microphone to say it.

57

u/Highwiind-D4 Far Right 1d ago

Manipulating the X algorith to target accounts critical of certain topics is indeed censorship.

-13

u/Awesome_Orange Conservative 1d ago

No censorship would be banning them so they don’t have a voice at all

54

u/Highwiind-D4 Far Right 1d ago

Banning, suppressing, and removing content are all forms of censorship.

-11

u/Awesome_Orange Conservative 1d ago

Yes banning and removing content is censorship, it’s a good thing he didn’t do that