[rosenjcb]

Does anyone else feel like he's going to start doing petty shit like banning people he doesn't like (e.g. that musk flight tracker account)? He talks a lot about free speech but he has a track record of limiting speech on the platform (blocking multiple people) and off (making the founders of Tesla sign a hush contract).

[thepasswordis]

As opposed to petty things like banning the sitting president of the united states?

[rootusrootus]

Why should a politician get special privileges?

[rosenjcb]

I'm confused, are you talking about banning Trump (after he lost the election)? I'm not saying the decision is right or wrong, but Twitter thought a long time about it. I'm pretty sure the board wanted him banned even earlier, but they waited for the right moment.

[clay10]

It would be contradicting everything hes currently saying. I don't think him blocking people from his account is indicative that he would ban those same people from the platform, nor do I consider it "limiting speech on the platform".

[darknavi]

Perhaps. But it's his (or his investors) 40 billion to burn. I'd hope that spending that much money makes you think twice about being a petty ass.

[rosenjcb]

His whole life he's had to listen to shareholders. This is his one chance to just say "Fuck it" and just do whatever he wants. I would hope the businessman and him would prevent him from doing this. However like most gag orders he imposes, it would be completely hidden from us. He won't be tweeting about it.

[memish]

No.

There is a difference between choosing who to follow, who to mute, who to block and Twitter deciding these things for you. He's advocating the former, not the latter.

[rosenjcb]

Well, he decided that the whole world shouldn't hear about how the original founders of Tesla were removed and replaced with Musk. However, I can appreciate the distinction between muting people on your own threads vs removing people from the entire platform.

[beeboop]

No