[robswc]

How is "retaliating against criticism" contradictory to free speech?

I could certainly argue with someone on HN but also say their banning is unjust (if I felt that it was).

This has been a "solved" issue for centuries.

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/01/defend-say/

[andrewflnr]

Your comment is baffling. You ask, 'How is "retaliating against criticism" contradictory to free speech?', then spend the rest of your comment explaining why it's good to not retaliate against criticism.

Did you mean to ask and answer your own question? If that was your intent it sure wasn't clear. Do you not know what "retaliate" means, even with the context clue of threatening lawsuits against journalists? Is your first paragraph meant to be entirely causally disconnected from the rest? If so I kind of have to respect it, but it would sure help to give us some clues because that is not a conventional writing structure. What, in short, are you trying to say?

[robswc]

There is nothing contradictory about retaliating against criticism.

>Do you not know what "retaliate" means

I'm using the actual definition, which I assumed you were too?

"make an attack or assault in return for a similar attack."

If someone were to criticize you, you can "retaliate" while also believing said person should be kicked off the platform. I'm doing it right now.

>threatening lawsuits against journalists

https://www.google.com/search?q=elon+musk+threaten+lawsuit+j...

I can't find anything about this, except for a FastCompany article which I can't access atm because their website is down.

[p49k]

Retaliation with the intent to silence critics is acting to undermine free speech. He could, for example, welcome the criticism and respond with facts.

[robswc]

>Retaliation with the intent to silence critics

which critics?

When I search for this, I get this article:

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/25/elon-musk-and-free-speech-tr...

Which is full of honestly ridiculous examples like "he told an analyst to shut up and stop asking boneheaded questions." Or "he told his followers to edit his wikipedia page" ...?

The "best" examples are of workers are are currently in litigation.

Everything else, I see no reason why one couldn't support free speech on a social platform while also requiring beta testers to sign NDAs.

>welcome the criticism and respond with facts Do you have examples of where/when this could have been done?

At the end of the day, I feel like a lot of this just comes from the fact that when one supports free speech, it comes with a *. It's easier to say "I support free speech" vs "I support the idea people should be able to post their opinions online without being banned (this doesn't mean anyone can post live execution videos or organize crime, etc)."