This is about the hypocrisy over free speech not ‘the left’. But I suppose that won’t stop you from mindlessly rallying behind him no matter how hard he clowns you and everyone else for his own pleasure thinking he is somehow on ‘your side’. Just like someone else…
I’m not sure I qualify as a spokesperson for the entire “left” ;)
It seems a lot of people are pointing out the massive amounts of hypocrisy Elon is displaying, as well as how fickle & fragile the concept of free speech is when it comes up against the personal opinions of a billionaire.
Plus a democratic vote, which is definitely not what a Twitter poll is, controlling speech is exactly the thing that many on the (if we’re using labels) “right” objected to once a truly democratic vote (within a flawed process) delivered a government that they didn’t want. True freedom of speech is a fixed principle, not dictated by the whims of current powers, votes or Overton window.
> It seems a lot of people are pointing out the massive amounts of hypocrisy Elon is displaying, as well as how fickle & fragile the concept of free speech is when it comes up against the personal opinions of a billionaire.
As Peter Kafka (heh) wrote over at Vox:
> But I think we’re better off if we face reality on reality’s terms: One of the richest men in history bought something many of us use and like. Because he could. And now he’s going to run it based on his whims. Because he can.
Indeed. The whole point all along was that Twitter as a private company could moderate content as it saw fit. Let us now try and score some internet points by pointing out that the new buyer disagreed with that idea enough to spend $44 billion to correct it. However once it was their private company and their opinions that could control the content, suddenly that idea of private control of a private entity is excellent and as it should be! This is simply one person changing their very publicly and steadfastly held opinion once the facts align to their own benefit.
This comment reads like something out of an Orwell book.
How accurate do you think it is to reduce human virtues, considerations etc to a model which simpliy splits the populations in two? Stop perpetuating football-team politics.
I think the spectrum exists most places but it’s a minority of countries where there is such a strong divide and intentional polarisation between only 2 political choices, with those in the relative middle having to choose the lesser evil due to lack of other choice.
In many other countries the political parties lie in different areas of the spectrum, with the US’s “left” still quite right leaning compared to many other countries. Where there are more political parties with influence it is more likely that politicians will seek to bridge divides to bring over supporters, rather than just polarise their current supporters to vote more. There are countries where left leaning communities will swing to the right if convinced to do so. But they are still left and right and if you compare the fringe parties I think you’ll often find the same polarisation and combativeness, just less so as it doesn’t win the middle. Basically the more the middle is in play, the less polarised the political parties tend to be (obviously with exceptions).
I don't understand the obsession with infantile "right left" division US politics has and is plaguing the entire world with. There is more nuance to this.
It’s a means of control. Convincing everyone that the bad people are whoever is the other side keeps us divided and is very useful to the people who are actually in control.
