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

[u/Doctor_Byronic]

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

[u/cathbadh]

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?

[u/StarMNF → u/cathbadh]

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.

[u/cathbadh → u/StarMNF]

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.

[u/StarMNF → u/cathbadh]

No, I am not saying “we need to protect the billionaires from our rights”.

That’s a very poor summary of what I said. In fact, I said nothing even remotely like that.

It’s clear you are starting with the assumption that Elon can’t be trusted.

I am merely arguing about whether it is justifiable to ban the flight data. Forget about who did the ban. Forget about who it protects. That should be irrelevant to the debate.