[pr_nik2]

This is such an instructive story in how social media messes up discourse. Yes, fine-tuned shadow banning of stuff one does not like politically is BS (point taken, Musk). But promoting a bunch of randos with personal endorsement so they run important debates is also a very questionable service to democracy (see https://www.cip.uw.edu/2023/10/20/new-elites-twitter-x-most-...). Overreacting to some of the stuff that then floats to the top on the part of advertisers and commentators is again not right, but calling this reaction "blackmail" is probably a little over the top. So what have we learnt? Make time for reading paper books and sniffing the flowers sometimes maybe?

[f30e3dfed1c9]

"[C]alling this reaction 'blackmail'" isn't "a little over the top," it's petulant and incoherent. The basic idea of blackmail is "I know a secret about you and I'll reveal it if you don't give me money."

Musk's present position is that he keeps saying and promoting repulsive stuff in public and so some advertisers prefer to stop supporting or being associated with his business. This isn't remotely like "blackmail": the repulsive stuff is all public to begin with.

[kmlevitt]

The Sorkin guy said maybe advertisers don’t want to be associated with it, and he said “let’s see what the courts say“.

So he’s going to sue people for not advertising with him? How can anyone who says this kind of thing claim to believe in free markets, libertarianism or capitalism?

[pr_nik2]

Correct, and the basic pattern persists: Someone in a larger group of people does something objectionable, and this is then attributed to one "side" in the debate (fundamental attribution error). This transgression of the "side" is then interpreted as being indicative of its intentions (ultimate attribution error). The imagined intention is then being fought with polemic and exaggerations. I'll stick with my flowers and I appreciate your correction.

[drewcoo]

> "[C]alling this reaction 'blackmail'" isn't "a little over the top," it's petulant and incoherent.

It is compelling him to behave in an involuntary manner, thus coercion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion

Advertisers are attempting to gain benefit via coercion, so it is extortion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion

So far as we know, they are not threatening to air secrets, so it is not blackmail.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackmail

So it was a bad choice of language, but frankly it doesn't seem "incoherent," just off by a hair.

It also does not seem petulant, though telling advertisers to F themselves through that sneer of his certainly is.

> he keeps saying and promoting repulsive stuff

Yes, and the responses to him seem repulsive, too. Chicken? Egg? I don't care.