[gambler]

Ellen Pao literally wrote an op-ed arguing this in Washington Post. This was before he bid for the company, just because he was invited to sit on the board!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/04/08/musk-twitt...

"Musk’s appointment to Twitter’s board shows that we need regulation of social-media platforms to prevent rich people from controlling our channels of communication."

...said a multi-millionaire in a newspaper owned by a multibillionaire.

There were also hundreds of notable comments and dozens of articles to that end across the usual websites. People should stop doubling down on their lies and just admit that their past positions weren't based on any real principles.

[Traster]

That's not a 180. To show a 180 you need to show Ellen Pao also saying that “it’s a private company, they can do what they want”.

I don't think that was ever Ellen Pao's position. What you've done is taken two groups of people:

* People think that twitter is private and should do whatever it wants (hence can moderate if they like),

* People that think twitter has a big public influence and therefore has a responsibility to act in a certain way (ie, moderate a certain amount)

And claimed that these two positions are in opposition and therefore hypocritical. But there is no hypocrisy because they're not the same people, they just disagree.

[defen]

https://twitter.com/ekp/status/1322641942463700992

A straightforward reading of that tweet is "It's a private company, they can remove hate and harassment if they want."

[Traster]

I read that tweet as "People on this platform say that Twitter shouldn't remove hateful content because of the first amendment, but here's people literally breaking first amendment and you all seem to be quiet". She's not saying "Twitter can do what they want" she's saying "YOU say twitter is bound by the first amendment but don't actually seem to support the first ammendment"

[defen]

Her tweet from 1.5 years ago argues that the First Amendment does not prevent companies from removing hate from their platforms. That is true. Private companies can remove hate from their platforms and no one's first amendment rights have been violated.

Her WaPo editorial from 2.5 weeks ago argues that even though the First Amendment exists, the government should force Twitter to remove hate from their platform.

One could simply turn the charge of hypocrisy back on Ellen Pao - if she cares so much about the first Amendment (see the tweet that preceded the one I linked), why does she want the government to regulate speech on social media?

[Traster]

I don't think that's right, her tweet was saying "This is the standard you set, where are you". She's not endorsing it, she's saying you* endorse this standard, you defend it.

[snarf21]

Murdoch isn't already a rich person controlling large channels of communication? Bezos isn't already a rich person controlling a large channel of communication?

All of these channels are controlled by rich people. Who is controlling the lobbyists? Who is financing political parties/campaigns. This is the cost of oligarchy. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. I don't know how we get out of this spiral. I think a huge tax on digital ad revenue would help make these channels more organic and less contentious but I really don't know.

[Ensorceled]

Yes, we KNOW, we're upset at "yet another billionaire" gaining control of a "yet another communication channel".

Why is everybody assuming we are all hypocrites who are 100% in support of the status quo?