Althouse | category: Elon Musk



an endless succession of beans and nuts.

"It can no longer be denied"/"Free speech" is right wing.

I'm trying to read "Twitter Is a Far-Right Social Network/It can no longer be denied" by Charlie Warzel at The Atlantic.
Truth Social, a website backed in part by Donald Trump, says it encourages “an open, free, and honest global conversation without discriminating on the basis of political ideology.” This language is indistinguishable from the way that [Tucker] Carlson spoke of [Elon] Musk’s Twitter, arguing that “there aren’t many platforms left that allow free speech,” and that the site is “the last big one remaining in the world.” 
If it acts like a right-wing website and markets itself as a right-wing website, it just might be a right-wing website....

Warzel is hoping for the worst for Twitter, and it's a hope that we've seen since the beginning of the Musk takeover. A free speech policy will drive out the liberals and lefties, and without lefties to kick around, righties won't be happy:

A culture war is no fun if there’s no actual conflict.... Social-media platforms that cater to the right’s ideology eventually become tired and predictable—the result of the same loud people shaking their fist at digital clouds....

It's odd, isn't it? Lefties abandoned Twitter because they wanted their antagonists excluded, and now righties will leave because they want their antagonists present and actively fighting them. According to Warzel.

Is this at the core of the seeming left/right difference on the value of free speech — whether you want to say what you have to say without heckling and harassment from people who disagree with you or whether you want a feisty, real-time debate? 

"Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis will announce he is running for president during a discussion with Twitter CEO Elon Musk... "

NBC News reveals.

This is supposed to happen at 6 ET tomorrow.

Why Elon?

The launch will closely tie together the billionaire tech mogul with one of the Republican Party’s rising stars. Musk has been an admirer of DeSantis, who also regularly chides corporate media. Last year, Musk said he would support the governor if he were to run for president.... It’s not clear if Musk will formally endorse DeSantis on Wednesday....

You'd think Elon Musk would want to maintain a position of cruel neutrality. 

A strange but intriguing grammatical error in a Supreme Court opinion.

From yesterday's unanimous opinion, Twitter v. Taamneh, written by Justice Thomas:
The plaintiffs (who are respondents) contend that they have stated a claim for relief under §2333(d)(2). They were allegedly injured by a terrorist attack carried out by ISIS. But plaintiffs are not suing ISIS. Instead, they have brought suit against three of the largest social-media companies in the world—Facebook, Twitter (who is petitioner), and Google (which owns YouTube)—for allegedly aiding and abetting ISIS.

You'd think the proximity of "Twitter (who...)" to "Google (which...)" would set off somebody's grammar alarm. They're both corporations and — though it's sometimes said jocosely or not that "corporations are people" — they're not human beings and they don't get "who."

It's an outright error, but I'm interested in why something worked on by so many industrious writers and editors would fail to catch it. I came up with 2 ideas:

1. The previous sentence begins "The plaintiffs (who are respondents)...." These parties are human beings, so "who" is the correct word. Then you might imagine, when you get to the next sentence, that "Twitter (who is petitioner)" looks nicely parallel. They're the parties to the case before the Court — the petitioner and the respondents — so you might be lulled into feeling good about seeing "who" in both parentheticals. But then what about "Google (which...)"? You'd think that would tip you off. Did they notice and think but Google is not a petitioner? That would be odd!

2. Maybe Twitter — unlike Google — really does feel like a person. It's entirely owned by Elon Musk, so you might think "Twitter" is just another name for the human being known as Elon Musk, thus making "who" the correct word.

It's still an error, of course!

"The whole work-from-home thing, it's sort of like, I think it's, like, there are some exceptions, but I kind of think that the whole notion of work-from-home is a bit like, you know, the fake Marie Antoinette quote, 'Let them eat cake.'"

"It's like, it's like really? You're gonna work from home and you're gonna make everyone else who made your car come work in the factory? You're gonna make people who make your food that gets delivered – they can't work from home? The people that come fix your house? They can't work from home, but you can? Does that seem morally right? That's messed up.... It's a productivity issue, but it's also a moral issue. People should get off their goddamn moral high horse with this bulls–t because they're asking everyone else to not work from home while they do. It's wrong."

Said Elon Musk, in a CNBC interview, quoted in "Elon Musk condemns working from home as 'morally wrong': Tesla CEO says it's not just about productivity but the unfair notion that service workers still have to show up to get the job done" (Daily Mail).

By "the unfair notion," the marginally literate Daily Mail means "the notion that it's unfair." The notion isn't unfair! It's a notion about what's unfair. Is it unfair for some jobs to be done from home when some jobs can't be done from home?

Let's take a closer look at Musk's rhetoric: "You're gonna work from home and you're gonna make everyone else who made your car come work in the factory?" Who's the "you"? The head of the company, the one with the power to "make" people come into work, or the people who want to work from home and need the company to permit it? There are 2 different "you"s.

Musk is throwing around the concept of "morality," but it's a pompous makeweight argument, I suspect. The real reason is something more practical, isn't it? There's so much talk in the morality mode these days, and yet you look around, and you don't get the feeling it's coming from people who are motivated by virtue for its own sake.

Making it a crime not to censor.

Here's Jonathan Turley in "The Tower for Twitter? UK Minister Calls for Jailing Social Media Bosses Who Do Not Censor Speech":

[A]fter Musk decided to buy Twitter, Hillary Clinton called upon European countries to force social media companies to censor Americans. The European Union quickly responded by threatening Musk and other executives. Now, Technology and Science Secretary Michelle Donelan has announced plans to jail social media executives if they fail to censor so-called “harmful” content on their websites. The government, of course, will determine what is deemed too harmful for citizens to see or hear....

The bill focuses on "'all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify hatred' based on various progressive characteristics, including transgenderism."

Elon Musk is "personally" paying for blue check subscriptions for LeBron James, William Shatner, and Stephen King.

The Verge reports.

Now you know who are the truly elite of this world.

The sportsman, the actor, and the writer.

Not politicians and journalists. And certainly not every sportsperson, showbiz character, and creative scribbler.

Just these very grand characters — James, Shatner, and King.

Musk tweets: "I’m paying for a few personally."

I'd like to see the full list. Or maybe not. If he shows the list, others will say, I belong in that set. But James, Shatner, King — who can say "I'm with them"?
Is it true, as Greenwald puts it, that "this NYT tech reporter doesn't know or care"?

Report "Althouse"

Are you sure you want to report this post for ?