Elon & Twitter

[Rammstein]

Nope. Courts are quite clear - unless fiscal or physical damage is done, parody is free speech.

You're really not getting what this term "absolutist" means are you? No laws were broken - Elon simply banned people making fun of him. He's also sacking anyone who dares correct his mistaken statements about Twitter's software - I figure you'll find a way to consider that not-free-speech too

But keep digging - it's very entertaining to watch the free-speechers demonstrate their actual stance on the topic.

Anyways, I think it should be illegal to impersonate someone online when it’s not clear it’s a parody. Especially if that person try’s to do harm and make that person look bad.

Do you think this is a moral thing to do?

 

[ZenRockGarden]

You’re not getting it. If it’s not clear that the account is parody then I think you could agrue that someone has done harm if that account is trying to make that person look bad.

After that the harm would have to be proven in court. That’s not up to you decide if there was harm or not.

Read my lips: Free Speech ABSOLUTISM - your religion is a fraud. Elon is banning all kinds of speech that's not illegal, and you don't seem to get the basic fact that this is YOUR religion, not ours. We're in favor of all kinds of content moderation which is what you free-speechers have been saying has to be gotten RID of.

Stand up for your religion already. It's not our job to defend it for you - we don't believe in it

 

[InDaClub]

What law was broken?

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_1401-1450/sb_1411_bill_20100927_chaptered.pdf

 

[Rammstein]

Read my lips: Free Speech ABSOLUTISM - your religion is a fraud. Elon is banning all kinds of speech that's not illegal, and you don't seem to get the basic fact that this is YOUR religion, not ours. We're in favor of all kinds of content moderation which is what you free-speechers have been saying has to be gotten RID of.

Stand up for your religion already. It's not our job to defend it for you - we don't believe in it

All kinds?

He’s only banned impersonators when it’s not clear it’s parody. Which is a good thing. Seems to be illegal too but that would be up to the courts to decide.

 

[Chunky Jr.]

No. This move will push out anyone who can get a better job elsewhere. He'll only be left with h1b's who need this job to stay in the country.

Additionally the extra hours they put in will be nothing more than productivity theater.

I couldn't disagree more. I've been in Silicon Valley for 30+ years and have seen people happily work 80+ hour weeks for a product/company they believe in. A team of 10 great engineers who are highly motivated can do more than a 500 person team of mediocre people that don't care.

 

[JRP3]

Oh, you mean like Mars?

More like Tesla.

 

[DrGriz]

Immoral ≠ illegal

 

[JRP3]

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_1401-1450/sb_1411_bill_20100927_chaptered.pdf

Already covered.

"for purposes of harming,
intimidating, threatening, or defrauding another person is guilty of a
misdemeanor. "

 

[JRP3]

Well that would be up to the courts then.

Let’s get this clear. If you think it is ok to impersonate another person online and it’s not obvious that it’s a parody and then try to make them look bad then you have serious moral issues.

Don't assume your specific "morality" is universal.

 

[EVNow]

What is relevant is free speech absolutism

We are still talking about it .... thought it went out of the window a long time back when Elon found out what advertisers will do with "free speech absolutism".

BTW, it really wasn't ever on the table. Afterall he was not going to allow pornography on Twitter. If that is allowed, he would get 99.999% advertisers to quite Twitter.

As I keep saying, "free speech" / "anti-woke" is the new "states rights". Just a euphemism to promote discriminatory, hateful speech.

 

[ZenRockGarden]

All kinds?

He’s only banned impersonators when it’s not clear it’s parody. Which is a good thing. Seems to be illegal too but that would be up to the courts to decide.

Uh skippy, that's simply not true. MOST of the bannings were against obvious parodies.

Reality is kinda hard, but you really should take a look at it.

 

[ZenRockGarden]

As I keep saying, "free speech" / "anti-woke" is the new "states rights". Just a euphemism to promote discriminatory, hateful speech.

I agree - at this point, based on their actions, it doesn't seem like Elon and friends ever actually believed in anything resembling free speech. It was just a nice phrase to use in the cause of allowing kinds of speech and conspiracy crap THEY happen to like with tons of bannings for free speech they don't happen to like.

 

[InDaClub]

Already covered.

"for purposes of harming,
intimidating, threatening, or defrauding another person is guilty of a
misdemeanor. "

Please contact any U.S. senator and ask them if it’s okay that you impersonate them online, with tweets that include their likeness “borrowed” from their twitter profiles under the guise of official business. Let me know how they respond, and if they feel they would be harmed in any way. Have fun!

Also, if you don’t like the law as written, please contact the California legislature.

”Existing law makes it a crime to falsely impersonate another in either his or her private or official capacity”

 

[EVNow]

All kinds?

He’s only banned impersonators when it’s not clear it’s parody. Which is a good thing. Seems to be illegal too but that would be up to the courts to decide.

But - the intent was clearly not to defraud users - but to highlight issues with verification.

I look at it as "ethical hacking" or you could even call it "bug bash".

 

[Crutonius]

I couldn't disagree more. I've been in Silicon Valley for 30+ years and have seen people happily work 80+ hour weeks for a product/company they believe in. A team of 10 great engineers who are highly motivated can do more than a 500 person team of mediocre people that don't care.

Well the problem is that the goal here is to cut costs to make money for one of the richest people alive.

I doubt there are many people who would find this very inspiring.

 

[Rammstein]

But - the intent was clearly not to defraud users - but to highlight issues with verification.

I look at it as "ethical hacking" or you could even call it "bug bash".

I didn’t say the intent was fraud.

The intent could have been to harm. That would be up to the courts though.

You think it’s ethical to impersonate someone when it’s not clear it’s parody?

 

[JRP3]

Please contact any U.S. senator and ask them if it’s okay that you impersonate them online, with tweets that include their likeness “borrowed” from their twitter profiles under the guise of official business. Let me know how they respond, and if they feel they would be harmed in any way. Have fun!

Please show me any of their lawsuits for harm. Have fun!

 

[Rammstein]

Please contact any U.S. senator and ask them if it’s okay that you impersonate them online, with tweets that include their likeness “borrowed” from their twitter profiles under the guise of official business. Let me know how they respond, and if they feel they would be harmed in any way. Have fun!

Also, if you don’t like the law as written, please contact the California legislature.

”Existing law makes it a crime to falsely impersonate another in either his or her private or official capacity”

Nice find.

These people defending this kind of behaviour of impersonation when it’s not clear it’s parody disgust me!

 

[InDaClub]

Please show me any of their lawsuits for harm. Have fun!

Your lame BS stops here for me. Ignore.

 

[EVNow]

I didn’t say the intent was fraud.

The intent could have been to harm. That would be up to the courts though.

You think it’s ethical to impersonate someone when it’s not clear it’s parody?

Absolutely ethical if you are trying to show problems with verification and draw the attention of lawmakers.

As I said this is common with "white hat hacking", public "bug bash" etc.

There is zero chance even Justice Thomas would find it wrong