I'm having trouble seeing even reach the level of Bruce Schneier's Movie Plot threats much less the level where it would warrant restricting someone's ability to share public information. We were, after all, tediously reassured that Musk's deep and heartfelt belief in the sanctity of free speech extended even to the point of not restricting people who made specific threats to attack the U.S. system of government, so it seems quite disingenuous for him to then turn around and block people to prevent comments which might hurt his feelings.
It’s also very telling that his acolytes think this ineffectual attempt at protection justifies restricting speech but someone who actually incited a violent attack against the U.S. system of government should have their platform amplified again. If we’re concerned about violent mobs, wouldn’t you start with the people who’ve actually led one?
And just on this very website I have been told by very vocal Elon fanboys that "you either support free speech or you don't, no halfway points about it" when I tried to explain why banning/muting hateful rhetoric may be necessary in a social media.
Free speech absolutism has always been a fake frame since it is actually “legal speech absolutism” even according to Musk.
I didn’t say anything about absolutism - my take on free speech is that “doxxing” speech like the GPS coordinates of an individual, particularly when it is not newsworthy or connected to current events, doesn’t do anything to contribute to the marketplace of ideas beyond increasing personal risk to that person, and therefore is under motivated from the perspective of the principle of free speech.
