Dan Sherman 6d ago
The author of this article is so out of touch with reality, it's painful to read. But he presents a perfect example of the approach to censorship that Musk bought twitter to fight. Thankfully, for one moment in time at least, the correct side is winning the overall battle. But we have to make sure we continue to push for liberty of words and thought, in every corner of our existence.
Josh Sajjev 6d ago
Note to author: If you are going to accuse Musk of not knowing what he's talking about, you may want to correct your assertion that "hate speech" is illegal. In the US, it is not, the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the 1st Amendment allowing speech that in some European counties might be considered illegal. And a major "hurray" for the Supreme Court for getting it right. Non-offensive speech needs no legal protections, hence the need for the 1st Amendment.
Austin Karren 6d ago
It's entertaining to see an author for a tech blog criticize Elon Musk for being ignorant. The truth of the matter is that there is a large group of reasonable people who are demonized and have their voices suppressed on a daily basis. There is a major discrepancy between actual public option and the opinions you see represented on Twitter and other platforms. People need their voices back in the public square and that is exactly what Elon is doing.
Tim Schaefer 6d ago
Free speech is not complicated. Only people that need to control speech are the ones with the problem. You can't have FREE speech and censorship, you can have one or another but not both. The US Constitution gives NO ONE the right to restrict free speech. READ THE LAW. PROVE ME WRONG.
jason warren 6d ago
Wow.
I’ve worked with, and talked politics over beers with journalists in tech in cities around the world for over 20 years. Back to Walt, before Kara. Can’t remember a time a writer went ballistic to this degree in a published article on a “news” site.
Was Chop hq’d at Devin’s apartment?
Brian Citizen 6d ago
Wow. I've read some weak arguments before, but I have to say this one takes the cake. Very, very strange -- and extremely silly hyperbole. Not a logical thought in the piece. Just angry, emotionally charged rhetoric.
Take the idea expressed by the author that censorship is only something a government can do. Really? In what universe is that definition something that would pass even a 5-year old's understanding of the word?
Or the emotional argument repeating as some sort of "new" thing that government is stopping the teaching of certain topics. Monkey Trial anyone? The FL government stopping the teaching of gender ideology to kindergartners is entirely reasonable. We have always wanted our government to define what is appropriate and not appropriate to say in our schools! No leading of prayers to Allah or Jesus or God, no copies of porn films in libraries. Yet this author contends suddenly any government stopping any teacher from teaching anything they want has never happened before in human history?
I am sorry to say it bluntly, but this piece reads like the screed of a very emotional, angry anti-Musker. I expect better from techcrunch.
I have no such expectations of TC.