MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 1:43 pm
elonmuskrockefeller wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 1:28 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 1:16 pm
elonmuskrockefeller wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 12:48 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 12:33 pm
elonmuskrockefeller wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 11:16 am
I won't post in too many threads here at Fanlax, but this thread on Musk intrigues me for obvious reasons.
I find it extraordinary that folks come calling for Musk's head when its obvious they don't really know his story (other than what perhaps their favored media organs grind out for them day to day). Someone said he is a sociopath. Really?
Before anyone accuses me of having zero self-awareness of Musk's faults, believe me I can just as easily tell you his frailties (which we all have) as well as his accomplishments.
I note for the Musk haters a lesson. And this is a relatively recent phenomenon, which I think should inform you how history will similarly remember Elon Musk: that's the story of Steve Jobs. Jobs was significantly less popular inside his company than Musk has ever been...many Apple employees literally hated Jobs. The same cannot be said about Musk. The vast majority of Tesla, Boring, and Space-X employees swear by Elon Musk.
And like Jobs, Musk is casually accused (in a snarky way) by his enemies of not being responsible for his company's products:
HE'S NOT AN ENGINEER, they say. Does that point (to the extent it's even accurate...it's not, in both men's cases) even matter at all? These companies are changing the world, with one man's vision steering the way.
Today, ten years or so after his death, Steve Jobs is recalled as a benevolent genius, responsible for changing the entire trajectory of technology. His wife carries on a legacy of philanthropy in his name. His personal legacy grows brighter every day he is dead.
The Musk hatred is undeserved, uninformed, and unwise. He likes free speech; is that really an issue with folks?
An article was posted by one of those (former) employees who knew Musk well...I read it and in response to someone asking what it said, I used the word the writer had used: sociopath.
What does being a sociopath mean?
Overview. Antisocial personality disorder, sometimes called sociopathy, is a mental disorder in which a person consistently shows no regard for right and wrong and ignores the rights and feelings of others.
We know that Musk has Asperger's (which is now reclassified as autism spectrum disorder), which has some features in the difficulties of perceiving the feelings of others. To be clear, this doesn't mean that those with this challenge are sociopaths or psychopaths. They may or may not, just like everyone else.
What is alarming about Musk in particular is his at least seeming disregard for the feelings of others, the damage one can do others by saying things hurtful or damaging...and seemingly little regard for truth...indeed, a seeming predilection for damaging conspiracy theories...under the guise of "free speech". There's way, way too much history of his doing so to be not taken seriously as such.
IF he indeed has little or no regard for the feelings of others or the truth, and now has the power through this huge social media platform to increase the spread of hurtful misinformation,
the only important response we (the USA) should be having is to how to restrict that spread through regulation. Consequences need to be clear, because reliance on his goodwill will not suffice.
Musk clearly understands the benefits of marketing 'social goods' as such and enjoys the rewards for doing so, and so he needs to also understand the consequences of marketing 'social harm'. He needs to not be rewarded for the harm, in the guise of a 'social good' (he and the gullible attempt) of "free speech".
I don't think is is actually a "Musk problem", rather, the 'social harm' is endemic industry-wide when unregulated. These are externalities that need to be regulated in a capitalist society in order for that capitalist society to be at its most productive.
That's a very dangerous thing to say, and I don't think you quite understand the effects.
Just yesterday we saw an incredible story in The Intercept detailing exactly how the federal government's DHS and its Orwellian "Disinformation Governance Board", without any legal authority whatsoever, sought to control social media information.
https://theintercept.com/2022/10/31/soc ... ation-dhs/
This is simply a stunning betrayal of American rights and Democrats should pay at the ballot box as a result.
Everyone on the Internet assumes they know best what's fact and what's fiction, what's information and what's misinformation, when really the only thing ever that clarifies truth is freedom of expression, even when you hate it. To the extent you think otherwise, you reveal yourself as having zero trust in your fellow Americans and the very basic laws and evolution of both truth and science.
You should really think twice before posting something like you did; it's a slippery slope indeed to far worse outcomes, unless I am mistaking what you intended to say.
We entirely disagree.
I want social media companies as well as whoever utilizes them to spread misinformation to be financially (and in some instances criminally) responsible for the consequences of their misinformation.
Ala slander or false advertising of drugs, etc one should be liable for untrue statements that hurt others.
There are people, companies, etc who are profiting enormously by the spread of provably false information. Indeed, they know it to be false or are negligent in their disregard for the truth.
Does it need to be proved as such in court...yes.
Can people/companies defend themselves in court...sure.
But liable.
Same as pollution.
Very dangerous assumptions built into your moral stance here. When a 'Trump-like' figure re-appears on scene, do you want to be the target of
HIS 'Disinformation Board'? I don't.
Just because you dislike a guy like Musk today does not entitle you to run roughshod over a few hundred years of fundamental American rights of speech. It simply doesn't.
Did you bother to read my post...are you Petey?
He ignored the substance of what I wrote the same way.
Liability...in court.
Not some centralized power.
No loss of "free speech", just provably false and damaging speech...unless, you're saying that false advertising and slander should be "free" of liability.
I believe in consequences.
I also believe that our capitalist system is most productive when there are organized protections agains theft and assault, "fences" that are enforced. That includes making sure that the costs of externalities are appropriately distributed.
But then I'm an actual 'conservative'.
Of course I read your post, where you make one good common sense point (ie: slander is actionable in a court of law), but the rest is hyperbole and uninformed.
Your previous post even to that one specifically calls for targeted enforcement and financial penalties of vague speech crimes, directed against Elon Musk (for violations to come, I gather?). He might "hurt" someone with speech, so he should be charged with a crime?
IF he indeed has little or no regard for the feelings of others or the truth... You do add the qualifier, the IF, but then you proceed to make charges against him such as your beliefs are information rather than belief.
seemingly little regard for truth If Elon has such seemingly LITTLE regard for the truth, could you point out when and what he said which is untruthful? Presumably there are hundreds of examples if not thousands if he has such seemingly little regard for the truth. If you say 'he said Paul Pelosi was in a lover''s quarrel, all he said in one tweet was 'perhaps we should not jump to conclusions before the facts are known' (a case where we still don't know the facts). Isn't that a perfectly rational position to take, to wait for the facts to be known? Is it your contention, assuming that one example is your one and only example of his untruthfulness, that Musk be charged with a crime, for simply asking that people wait for the facts of a case before determining the case? If so, wow.