- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or # to comment.
Person hired as meat puppet mouth piece for owner continues to defend owner.
Details at 11.
For $6 Million a year, fuck yeah I’d consider it myself. You don’t even look bad if you fuck it up because the world’s richest fuckwit outshines every possible fuck up every step of the way.
i would gladly get paid 6 million to defend…Almost anyone.
[[if the glove does not fit, you must aquit intensifies]]
Me : shakes 6 mils in front of Lemmy
Lemmy:
Yo, yo, that silly mustachioed motherfucker wasn’t the only one! That motherfucker got elected!
So, really, it wasn’t Hitler that is to blame, it’s the people that elected him.
(Now, I’m writing that in response to the chain of ideas where if there’s enough money involved, people would defend anyone. I would think that I’m writing this as a form of continuing the push the absurdity to the next level rather than making a serious defense would be obvious. But people are fucking idiots, so someone would take it seriously. If you were that person until you read this, fuck you lol. )
If you were that person until you read this, fuck you
For 6 million dollars?
Naturally :)
For a few weeks, maybe. That’d be long enough for me to get ahead.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” - Upton Sinclair
Yaccarino said she is “immensely proud to lead this company,” and told employees they should feel the same. “You’re at X because you have the courage and conviction to build and operationalize the most consequential platform that exists. That’s quite an enviable position to be in,” Yaccarino wrote.
Meanwhile in March…
Elon Musk fires senior Twitter employee who slept in office to meet deadlines
It’s almost as if they will say anything.
Let’s be real, you’re at X because you’re on a visa and can’t leave without being kicked out of the country.
Yay import labor to lower internal ability of workers to negotiate for the sake of larger global control!
Yep, it’s like it’s her generously compensating job compels her or something.
Who’d have thunk it?
(For real though, what did people expect her to say?)
operationalize
they workshopped it and found that the word had the right balance of motivation & positive vibes while conveying little meaning.
You think every english teacher ever is just giving up? We dont seem interested in using this language very well.
😂
Quick! Be proud to work there before you’re laid off.
She’s a pathetic weasel who gets paid handsomely to talk absolute horseshit and shill for her boss.
honestly I’d do it.
Same. It wouldn’t make us good people worthy of respect and admiration, but it would make us rich.
Don’t pretend you wouldn’t for that paycheque
Not a chance in hell I’d even consider it.
Same. I hate people like that, no way in hell I’d let myself become like them. They’re absolute scum, fucking over other people for their own personal gain
Hello fellow person of moral integrity! Nice to meet ya!
Nah, I’m a terrible liar even if I liked doing it.
And this is an actual thing - spokespeople are generally female now as we as humans have a greater capacity for empathy and more inherent respect for women. At one point spokes people were all men… And nowadays, even the most evil companies push the women out front so that they can be a bit more evil for a just a little bit longer before the shit hits the fan.
Basically evil people, male and female, will still do the same shit, lying dishonest job, so long as they are paid for it. We just cut the women a lot more slack.
deleted by creator
Imagine if your job was to defend this over-privileged man-child.
These sycophants never get the reward they dream of either. They always just get tossed aside at the first slip up.
They always just get tossed aside at the first slip up.
… with a bonus of a few billion.
Unless if they’re a Trump sycophant.
i dont understand the second word in your second sentance. Is that a name of an alien? Like xenomorph? What does it look like?
sycophant /sĭk′ə-fənt, sī′kə-/ noun
A person who attempts to gain advantage by flattering influential people or behaving in a servile manner. A tale-bearer or informer in general. A parasite; a mean flatterer; especially, a flatterer of princes and great men.The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition
I’m amazed at this shitty comment.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sycophant
In this case, either:
One who uses obsequious compliments to gain self-serving favour or advantage from another; a servile flatterer
or
One who seeks to gain through the powerful and influential
NOBODY has done more damage to free speech rights than the fucking fascist free speech grifters like Musk, Jones, Shapiro, Peterson, and every other loud outhed pussy-assed radical fascist shitbag. Free speech was a regular, normal thing in the US until they showed up around 1992. Thanks to those assholes I am now ALL FOR regulated speech whether by legal means or baseball bat. Their entire motivation is to complain about free speech, gain power with this basic ideal, and then remove ALL rights from others, including and especially gun rights and free speech.
Take them out first
So your free speech is free speech, theirs is not. You don’t ever think you are maybe just as fascist as they are?
deleted by creator
Can never seem to understand this reasoning. Musk seems to largely have solved the censorship problem on twitter, which could be regarded as a vital piece of modern dempcracy (along with the rest of the internet, which mostly suffer from said censorship).
While at it he weeded out some traitors, who actively sabotaged during this period. Im well aware that corporate takeovers arent something “good”, but this one actually seems to make free speech a first class value.
This censorship is imposed by advertisers, which is somehow celebrated. Were talking disney, coca cola, whatever… These all want to control what you can or can not hear, and people are celebrating it?
The proper response to advertisers trying to co trol democracy is absolutely “go fuck yourself”, this should be the norm.
He’s absolutely free to say that. The advertisers are also absolutely free to decide they don’t want to do business with him anymore. That’s not censorship, it’s the market and freedom of association.
this is insightful into what right wingers think freedom is. To wit: only for them.
The reason you can’t seem to understand this is not only because you are stupid, it’s also because you don’t want to.
How in the fuck do you reach the conclusion that a guy who uses money to crush free speech and censor his critics on xitter has “solved the censorship problem”??
Man, I dont see how you pussy-assed cucks can look at yourselves in the mirror every morning.
it’s because comment OP is a right wing shithead and, like all right wing shitheads, believes his freedom to force others to do what he wants is the only freedom that matters.
what’s your actual solution here, that advertisers should be forced to advertise on twitter next to objectionable content? that some people get to say or do whatever they want without consequence and others should be forced to endorse it? where in the fuck did you get the idea that refusing to buy ad space on twitter is somehow an assault on democracy?
Freedom of speech only restricts the government, not private institutions or individuals. We might value it and protect it to some degree privately, but those parties are not restricted the same way the government is.
Please explain in detail how advertisers could possibly have the power of censorship. Am I “blackmailing” Japan if I dont buy tofu? Do you or Musk know what any of those words actually mean?
Advertisers, please do this to YouTube too. I need the dislike count back.
There’s a browser extension for that: https://www.pcmag.com/news/browser-extension-brings-back-dislike-count-to-youtube-videos
By the way, where’s the clarification that Musk said he should’ve posted? He endorsed a white supremicist conspiracy (on accident, surely!). Called it foolish – no, not because he endorsed Nazis, but because now his haters have more ammo. (???) Half a month has passed. It’s petty, because I wouldn’t believe his story even if it were airtight, but he could at least try.
Lol you know he’d just double down. You can tell because he doesn’t say ‘what I said was wrong’ he says: ‘I should have said more’.
He apparently posted something, which said he was talking about the first part and wasn’t really paying attention to the second part and didn’t agree with that.
Which might even be true but would still suck
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Musk spoke about two weeks after he posted a favorable response to an antisemitic tweet, causing an advertiser backlash that added to X’s already significant financial struggles.
“Our mission at X is bold: to be an open platform without censorship of thought—one that provides people information and the freedom to make up their own minds,” she wrote.
“X sits in a one-of-a-kind constellation of companies that are changing the world—from helping to conserve the planet through Tesla’s electric vehicles, to exploring new planets with SpaceX, to the seamless global connectivity of Starlink, to the potential of transforming lives with Neuralink, to responsibly reimagining the benefits of AGI through xAI.”
Yaccarino also defended Musk publicly in a post on twitter.com, writing that the X owner "offered an apology, an explanation and an explicit point of view about our position.
On November 15, Musk replied, “You have said the actual truth” to an X post that said Jewish communities are “pushing hatred against whites.”
At the DealBook interview, he called the post “foolish” and said, “I should in retrospect not have replied to that one person and should have written in greater length what I meant.”
The original article contains 486 words, the summary contains 194 words. Saved 60%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Good bot
CEO is just a musk suck up.
I pity the ceo who has to cleanup after him
Never pity a CEO. Ever. They make a quarter of a million doing less than you with only a golden parachute.
They make a quarter of a million…
You haven’t seen CEO compensation lately. She makes between $6-12m depending on bonuses and stock options.
$6-12m depending on bonuses and stock options.
Considering the ad revenue I think it will be closer to 6…still a good payday.
Yeah I was thinking small times. Sigh
Yup. By all accounts she’s been a shitty boss everywhere she works, with a penchant for dealing with bad news by sticking her head in the sand. Big Trump fan too.
How is it you can tell a trump tard by the way they look. It’s just as powerful of effect as gaydar.
I dunno, being a CEO is a stressful job, the buck stops with you ultimately. Yes they’re paid very well, which counters this a bit!
lol, fucking please. The buck stops with them? So when they over hire and fuck up profits do they get fired or is it all the staff? And when they do get fired do they get packages for fucking up? What about regular employees? Get outta here with that ignorant nonsense.
They often do get fired, yes. See WeWork or Uber.
I think the problem is that most often the buck doesn’t stop with them. They always find a way to find a scapegoat instead. If they were 100% liable for anything wrong the company does, we’d be on the right path. But it’s always a “rogue employee”.
They got fired in both WeWork and Uber…
“stressful”
Yeah, they barely make $40K/year…
Doesn’t make the job less stressful though?
wearenotthesame.jpg
You also realise not all CEOs earn stupid money? The CEO of my company with about 100 employees certainly isn’t earning millions. It also doesn’t matter how much you get paid, a stressful job is still stressful.
Most jobs are stressful.
I don’t. She took the job and got that shit sandwich all to herself.
Nobody put a gun to her head to take this gig, she knew or should have known what she was getting into.
Edit - I never read any comments since the first two.
Edit - it’s ironic that the uncompromising ideology of the left is making Trump 2.0 inevitable. Absolute shame. Read the room folks.
Edit - next day: wow, 60 downvotes. I must have hit a nerve close to truth to illicit a response beyond indifference. 16 upvotes, decent ratio. I’m pretty sure that speaking in support of speech protections will become more of a freedom of religion issue in the years to come, as post-Marxist critical theory takes on more and more of a dogmatic, theological place in intellectual society. I can assure not each of you is at the end of their political and ideological journeys, and happy to have planted this seed. May it bloom. -Omar
…
Lemmy might hate me for this… Musk is right on speech. It’s not often that those in power will have the moral compass to justly decide what ideas can be said and what cannot. Without free speech protections, none of the LGBTQIA+ movement, or other social movements, would have taken hold. It sucks that extremists will espouse hurtful views, but it’s absolutely critical that the speech of minority voices be protected. What will the world be like if the assholes win and say the only legal speech is something that would completely abhor us today. Look at speech in Russia. I believe the country has just designated LGBTQIA+ activists terrorists. What will happen if the wrong people get power in the USA or Europe?
Edit: I’m not going to reply any more. I’ve said my piece.
Edit: one more edit for the downvotes. Someone you don’t like can have a correct idea. Someone who you admire can have the wrong idea. There’s an argument that speech protections should extended into the defacto town squares (short of harassment, etc…), and because of the reasons I stated above, it’s an important humanitarian issue. I’m not some asshole troll trying to stir anything up, just wanted to voice an idea I feel is important. Wish you all well.
Another edit 30 mins later: I’m an HSP with PTSD, so as much as I would like to chat and learnt some other perspectives, my nervous system has a hard time with stimulation when I don’t feel safe that I can be speaking to someone in good faith. I understand this may seem counterintuitive to my argument, but I still think speech protection is an important humanitarian issue that is worth dealing with speech I don’t agree with.
Edit: 1 hour later. Well, I never thought it would get this much disapproval. May you all live life with wisdom and honor and light. And may you never be silenced in your pursuit of justice. Peace.
He has the right to free speech, and advertisers have the right to walk. What’s your point
I agree with you. Except, many don’t - look at Europes speech laws.
You’re genuinely just talking out of your ass here. There’s a difference between “freedom of speech” and freedom from consequences. Quit lying to yourself
Oh, please don’t involve Europe. The US is an ultimate “can’t do or say things” place right now.
I mean, there are countries where people don’t have any rights, but US is a country with major problems, bust still somehow considering itself “a free country”Europe is dozens of countries, each with their own laws. So which ones are you referring to?
deleted by creator
He owns a major social network and his remarks are regularly repeated in the press. Who or what is harming his free speech? The constitutional right to free speech is protection from the government punishing someone. The advertisers are exercising their right to be associated or not with what happens on “X”.
Yeah, some Yung Fucky Dee rapper can flip birds all day, catering to his fans, but he won’t expect that Disney will offer him a collab project. There’s a completely different level of requirements for being a successful major social network owner/ceo
Free speech is certainly under threat. Arguments against free speech have never been as popular as they are now in the U.S., for instance.
It doesn’t sound like you know what “free speech” means and you didn’t address anything I said about it.
“Who or what is harming his free speech” - I never made that claim. You’re talking to your own mind, not mine, and trying to incite a response in me with your dismissive tone. Have a nice day.
What? Anyway, I can’t really tell what you’re saying. Hope you have a lovely day too.
I don’t agree with the guy above, but what he’s saying is, that he never commented on Musk’s free speech. He’s talking about free speech in general for the regular users on social media platforms.
And I have no idea where he’s going with the Europe talk. Sounds like he never lived there, that’s for sure.
The gist is hate speech is not protected in some European countries. For instance it is straight up illegal to be a Nazi and say Nazi propaganda in Germany.
The fear is the “left” is going to ban hate speech and they won’t be able to say racist and sexist things anymore.
I read it more and gathered that, but it still makes almost no sense as there’s the huge distinction between government restricting your speech and other people reacting to it. Plus, Musk is nowhere near a champion of “free speech” and to think he represents the principle in good faith is a severe delusion.
Free speech is in no shape or form under threat here in the USA. People standing up to bigots is not an attack on free speech.
deleted by creator
Elon is not free speech, he regularly bans, fires or bullies anyone that disagrees with or makes fun of him.
Elon is free to say or agree with whatever wild point of view he chooses and advertisers are free to decide they don’t want their brand associated with that kind of take. That isn’t a free speech issue, it’s the free market that Elon pretends to love in action.
He doesn’t want free speech, he wants consequence free speech which has never been a thing.
If you look at musjs actions, he shuts down speech he doesn’t like. He is only a proponent of free speech that benefits him.
I agree, minority voices should be able to freely say what they want. Nobody has the right to force others to listen, though.
The principle of free speech is good, but it too has limits. Musk is not a proponent of free speech and Twitter is no longer useful for activists or political organisation. Probably why the totalitarian governments invested in it. To shut down that type of use.
I am a huge proponent of free speech personally, and I exercise it regularly. However, I do not believe it is a right to be able to force your speech into places it is not wanted.
Free speech should also include other people’s right to be free from your speech, if they so wish. It is not a right to force your speech onto others against their will.
In actual fact, it is only one thing, and that’s the letter of the law. Congress shall make no law that infringes. It says nothing about corporations or individuals, who have the right to do as they wish. And frankly, if you want to fuck up some corporations, we’d probably be happy to help with that. Don’t listen to conservatives trying to say woke is censorship. It’s a lot more complicated than that, as usual.
Feel free to pm me a reply if you’d like to have your say, but rather not engage in public.
Why don’t you want to engage in public? Just curious, I don’t have any contentious viewpoint to express
I was extending the offer to the person I was replying to. As they were taking heat from several different people, which can be a stressful situation, they rather reasonably decided to stop replying.
In the event that he had something he wished to say to me, but did not want to come back to the thread, I extended an invitation to pm me, if he wished.
That’s all. I don’t personally need to pm, but thought I’d be polite.
Oh I see, in my app your comment shows up as a top level comment not a direct reply to someone. But that explanation makes sense !
Entirely sure that lgbtqia people were actively silenced despite “free speech” laws in America and were arrested and beaten plenty for it
Fwiw, you got my up vote for contributing an honest opinion to the thread. Totally excellent in that regard.
Where I disagree is in thinking that muskrat is making decisions based on a moral compass defending free speech. He will gladly suppress speech he doesn’t like, given a chance.
I would also point you towards the so called tolerance “paradox”. There must be limits to what is tolerated, or the whole thing breaks down. And that’s coming from someone that’s pretty damn tolerant of extreme speech as a matter of principle. But the truth is that musk has free speech. He has publicly made statements, and has not received governmental interference in his ability to say dumb shit. Nor have any of the idiots spewing bigoted rhetoric.
I will also exercise my free speech and say that I will gladly put my foot up the ass of anyone that says the same shit as musk approved of in my presence. Freedom of speech does not equate freedom from consequences of speech. That includes my preference for kicking the shit out of bigots, advertisers backing away, etc.
Edit: I would also encourage anyone finding this to go and upvote the person I’m responding to. They made a comment in good faith, that was on topic and honest. That should be an opportunity to have a good conversation about it, no matter how many times it’s been covered before. It’s an important conversation to repeat. The boundaries of one of the core human rights (that of freedom of speech/expression) is too important to not merit repeated discussion.
The limits are violence, no? The point of free speech is that the government doesn’t get to use violence against you for words. When that turns into actions such as violence or credible threats, then self defence and law enforcement come into play.
If you meant that their intolerant language should warrant intolerance from you, then great, that’s covered under free speech. But that’s not what you mean, you want to respond to intolerant language with violence and want to pick which language is intolerant enough.
Ah, I’d say that when it’s the government, any application of the power of state against speech has to be rigorously prevented. Not just violence.
I’m not claiming perfection for myself, I do hold contradictory beliefs (on the surface anyway, underneath they’re extensions of a more complex thought process). But, yeah, there’s a point at which intolerance becomes such a threat to a stable society that only eradicating it when it arises is going to allow for stability. Once you get into nazi territory, all bets are off for me.
@elonjet et al would like to have a word. Musk and free speech is a good example of preaching water and drinking wine.
I have a suggestion which makes Lemmy a better place: go to settings and look for “Show scores”. Disable it and then forget those numbers exist.
Lemmy is even worse than than Reddit when it comes to sharing a different opinion. Don’t even try that here. I also do agree Trump will get elected again mainly because the left continues to silence the right. So instead of communication, people from the left have no issues doing whatever it takes to silence voices they dont like. And they call it free speech lmao. This is why I left Democrat and became a Republican. Though last time I refused to vote for Trump, this time I will. Cause the yinyang is broken. We need a balance.
Lemmy is even worse than than Reddit when it comes to sharing a different opinion.
No, it’s better in at least one way, at least for now. On Lemmy, there’s no such thing as ban evasion. If you hurt a mod’s feelings on Lemmy, you might get banned from your current account. But you can make a new account (possibly on the very same instance, but at least on another), and go on, hopefully with more strategically thought out commenting.
On Reddit, if you get a strong enough ban from a sub, it follows you everywhere. Their ban evasion algorithms are pretty good. For instance, I got a ban from r/libertarian (imagine that, yea? I think I criticized a pro-Trump article or something a bit too harshly). I try sometimes to get back there with new accounts, from new IP addresses and new email addresses, but the system detects me every time. Perhaps some fingerprinting that I’m too dumb or unmotivated to properly evade.
On Lemmy, most you get is people bitching at you and downvotes. You can block the people and you can hide the scores.
deleted by creator
