undefined | Better HN

0 pointsD13Fd3y ago0 comments

I don't particularly care about Musk and I don't use Twitter. I also think the decision to ban a page that makes already-public information about a specific person's jet's location very-much-more-public is pretty easily supportable.

But even so, I find the hypocrisy pretty interesting here. This person bought a company for $44b to improve transparency, specifically said he wasn't going to ban this account to show his commitment to transparency, and then his new company banned the account about a month later. Not only that, but the company didn't ban the related accounts showing the location of others who didn't happen to buy the company out of their commitment to transparency.

Come on, that's interesting no matter what your view on the individual.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

nightski3y ago· 1 in thread

Agreed interesting for sure, and definitely hypocritical. I'm just pointing out why it might not matter to those clamoring for freedom of speech in support of Musks takeover.

ModernMech3y ago

The thing is, there were two kinds of people clamoring for freedom of speech in support of Musk's takeover: those with genuine concerns, and those who were disingenuous and were mad that Twitter wasn't a safe space for people with certain views. Those in the former camp wanted to restore a balance to Twitter, while those in the latter camp preferred to reshape Twitter in their own political image.

Through his actions, Musk has shown himself to be in the latter camp. Those in the former camp should be just as mad about post-Musk Twitter as they were about pre-Musk Twitter. Problem is I don't see many people (here on HN at least) saying "Wow, I thought Musk would fix Twitter but this is not what I expected when he said he supported free speech!" To me, that shows maybe a lot of people were in the latter camp all along, and are pleased things are working out just as they expected.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse