cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/20134417
this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2024
558 points (98.9% liked)
Enough Musk Spam
2214 readers
41 users here now
For those that have had enough of the Elon Musk worship online.
No flaming, baiting, etc. This community is intended for those opposed to the influx of Elon Musk-related advertising online. Coming here to defend Musk or his companies will not get you banned, but it likely will result in downvotes. Please use the reporting feature if you see a rule violation.
Opinions from all sides of the political spectrum are welcome here. However, we kindly ask that off-topic political discussion be kept to a minimum, so as to focus on the goal of this sub. This community is minimally moderated, so discussion and the power of upvotes/downvotes are allowed, provided lemmy.world rules are not broken.
Post links to instances of obvious Elon Musk fanboy brigading in default subreddits, lemmy/kbin communities/instances, astroturfing from Tesla/SpaceX/etc., or any articles critical of Musk, his ideas, unrealistic promises and timelines, or the working conditions at his companies.
Tesla-specific discussion can be posted here as well as our sister community /c/RealTesla.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't want the government deciding who is or is not a "legitimate political opponent". That double-edged-sword swings both ways and cuts very easily.
I think there are a few simple criteria to discriminate between legitimate opponents and others: spreading disinformation, bad faith, populism, the absence of a coherent political discourse, etc. If a government identifies illegitimate opponents based on these criteria, I'm ok with that.
So, what makes you think these accounts were legitimate political opponents?
Neat - let's go with that.
According to Trump the MSM is "fake news" and thus spreading disinformation. We'll shutdown CNN and MSNBC immediately and levy heavy fines on other stations that continue to spread dangerous content. It's also a fact that he won the 2020 election and people claiming otherwise are also spreading dangerous misinformation that threatens our democracy - they should be silenced as well - to protect the nation.
Good plan. This will go well.
It's funny that you never even try to defend any of these accounts. The best way to show that Brazil is in the wrong would be to show that the people being banned were posting true statements.
Why would you think that I would? Have you not understood literally anything I've been saying?
What a remarkably simple view of the world you have. It's like you think this is a sitcom plot. Do you want Musk to wear black and the judge to wear white so that you have an easier time recognizing who is the villain?
As I said in my original post - both sides can be wrong. One side being wrong doesn't make the other side right.
Your argument that other people are engaging in black and white thinking when you take the position that the possibility of injustice makes justice unobtainable is funny.
Explain how that's my position. Please use references to support your argument.
Because that's not my position. Nor have I stated it as my position. I recommend searching for the word "risk" when reading my prior comments.
EDIT: Oh - sorry... I guess I'm just off-topic in here. ELON BAD LOL
Sure: you disregard this specific case and only bring up other hypothetical cases to prove why this is unjust. Like you just did in the comment I replied to.
And you extrapolated that to "the possibility of injustice makes justice unobtainable".
If you really care - and I suspect you don't because you're just another lemmykin who just wants to jump on somebody who disagrees with you and "be right" - I'm saying the risk involved with state-sponsored censorship is higher than the risk associated with allowing misinformation to be spread.
This is why I say the original case largely doesn't matter - because my position doesn't depend on the veracity of the claims being made. I'm arguing about what a state should and should not be allowed to do. Because the state is sometimes led by people who define truth very differently from how I would want.
You think this translates to "the possibility of injustice makes justice unobtainable"???
Yeah, it's a black and white position. You specifically are saying the state is unable to obtain justice because of the "risk". You preclude the possibility of justice being obtained. I'm pretty amazed you can find so many ways to say the same thing and not realize that. But hey, I'm sure it's just everybody else being irrational right?
Do you think "black and white" just means that I have an opinion that I feel is correct?
How did you even possibly get this from what I've said? I feel that allowing free speech is justice.
Not one person has yet actually asked me to clarify my position. You've all only told me what I really mean. So yes - it is everyone else being irrational.
This is how people figure out how each other think, calm down.
It does seem you are saying governments shouldnt be permitted to seek justice against misinformation because doing so puts a greater injustice on the public as a whole.
Thats me rephrasing your point from earlier to see if I understand it right, so if I have it wrong feel free to explain.
Please clarify your position?
...crickets...
So.... After being asked by multiple people to clarify your position, you're not going to after all?
Cool story, bro.
You seem to believe that Trump saying "fake news!" is enough to consider that something is actually fake news. Anyone with a bit of critical thinking can verify this kind of affirmation and decide for themselves whether Trump is right or wrong. There's a difference between a truth and a belief, but your argument seems to equate the two.
If a judge in Brazil says an account should be banned because it spreads disinformation, I can go and check what was posted and decide if it's indeed disinformation. Now I might not have time to verify every affirmation like this so I tend to trust the judicial system of any country by default, unless I have reason to believe they can't be trusted.