[adrr]

Elon Musk the bastion of free speech who famously banned a twitter account that posted publicly available information.

[littlestymaar]

One? Elon banned thousands after he took over.

He event went as far as personally canceling a Tesla customer's order for criticizing him. That's how petty he is. He has no interest in freedom of speech whatsoever, it's merely a talking point.

[jimnotgym]

Me included, not that I'm very interesting. Every time I asked why I got a different reason from support.

Edit: the last reason given was 'impersonation', which I thought was pretty random

[ilc]

I disagree.

Freedom of Speech guarantees the right to speak. Not the right to have no repercussions.

Elon has GREAT interest in Freedom of Speech, it enables him to have far more power than regulating the type of "speech" he showed in cancelling that customer's order.

[s-y]

Musk is a contrarian. He, however, is not a government body (nor does he represent one, u can choose to include the dubious Doge efforts into the discussion but that will devolve into semantics that do not negate the point). As a private citizen with a platform for which he overpaid - he can do as he pleases within the confines of said platform. Musk, however, cannot enforce fines on other providers and request stuff from them. This is what the post is about.

[testdelacc1]

He can do whatever he wants on that platform. Equally, can elected officials decide to ban that private platform?

[Covzire]

Besides attempting to get him murdered by a crazy person seeing a chance to be famous, what possible reason does someone have to constantly broadcast the location of his transportation? What difference does knowing where it or he is make in the daily lives of anyone? What long term planning does the information give to people?

[ben_w]

In the case of private plane info, to highlight hypocrisy regarding the eco-friendly identity he was at that time seemingly trying to curate.

[IncreasePosts]

If someone says they believe in free speech, they have to let me spraypaint anything I want on their house. Otherwise they're a hypocrite.

[ben_w]

If they publicly state that the house is a "town square" (he has said that of twitter), and they say that they are a "free speech absolutist" (he has said this of himself in the context of this house/town square/website), and state that "By 'free speech,' I simply mean that which matches the law.", then yes, if they don't let you spray-paint (tweet) whatever you want that's not strictly unlawful (like, ah, calling for civil disorder in the UK?), they are indeed a hypocrite.

When the house is digital (twitter is), why even use spray paint as the analogy?

[pavel_lishin]

When Musk bought twitter, he all-but-explicitly said "I have finally bought this house, which I will let anyone spray paint".

[muddi900]

This is a very sound example of what the right to free speech is; it is a protection for your property rights. The state can't retaliate against you for saying something, and can't compel you to accept any speech on your property.

However, as a defense of Papa Elon, it is ironic. Must and his lickspittles claim that online platform should not be allowed to block whatever speech they want.

Except speech they don't like. Like plane locations.

[adrr]

Italy can use the same argument.

[UqWBcuFx6NV4r]

Intellectually dishonest analogy but I’m sure you already know this.