You can now watch my videos ad-free on Nebula! Support the channel by grabbing a full year's membership of Nebula *and* CuriosityStream for just $14.79 here: curiositystream.com/tomnicholas
I genuinely need to join! So many streaming platforms, so expensive, but this is a year for the price of a month of the other ones! Plus, so many awesome CCs on there! And no ads!
@Tom Nicholas So if its all so "complicated" and they are simply "under external pressures" and "earnings", why is public media service of my country, namely RTS, forced on Twitter to wear tag saying "cooperates with Serbian government", as if they are cooperating with Charles Manson, while BBC is not forced to wear any such tag for its connections to the British state? Tech giants' connection and subordination to the security-imperial state is the most worrying part of it, which is disguised as worry for "rights of some minority groups". Both Democrats and Republicans commit the same war crimes around the world, its just that Democratic planes have LGBTQ+, pride flags and BLM stickers all over them. Strategically hypocritical anyway, dont you think?
@Tom Nicholas While "Radio Free Europe" which is literally a CIA remnant of the cold war, who are still framing issues according to "western strategic interests" (un-democratically decided god knows where) have no such tag, mentioning CIA, State Department or super rich foundations which fund them.
The issue here is that far too many people confuse the right to free speech as a right to be heard by a respectful and agreeable audience. That such a right, if it existed, would infringe on the free speech rights of anyone who wished to speak up and disagree, or just didn't want to listen, does not seem to concern those people in the slightest.
A very good point well made. Although whether people make these points by *confusing* free speech and the right to be heard or *wilfully conflating* them might be up for discussion!
Nah. We simply understand the *POLITICAL POWER* that the side with access to social media AND without massive algorithm deranks has. Monumental. Is this monumental political power unfairly destributed, the entire policial so called democratic system becomes a scam. You fuckers simply cant stop strawmanning our argument, since you ALL obv understand what we mean and desperately want to misrepresent us and our argument. You understand the issue. You understand our argument. You understand your privileged position on socialmedia. You understand the aaaaaaaabsolute weakness and unpopularity of your own sides arguments. Dude. *BIDEN IS FINISHING THE WALL!*
@@Tom_Nicholas....Well said! We're living in a time where I'm actually hesitant to say I'm from the U.S. on a channel like this that has a much more internationally diverse group of followers. I can't tell you how tired I get of so many of, not just my countrymen, but people I grew up with, and have known most of my life, just regurgitating "what about my right to free speech!!??" I always say... "Well, what about it, are you in jail? No? Did you get fined or punished in anyway by a government entity for said speech? No? Well then you're first amendment rights were not violated!!" People here can't seem to comprehend that freedom of speech as it is laid out in our constitution, does not free you of the consequences you may face from non governmental places.
To flip the coin under American 1A... I'm just amused that humans let others rule over their society. But I don't care to explain. History has bleed long enough. In the end, who is in control? Ha ha ha ha.
@@Tom_Nicholas Under American 1A... Free Speech is clearly defined and Corporations are just Political BS who control the game along with so many others. Nevermind... Let the corruption be embraced when only fools remain. But it is time to end the deception.... "Hail to Evil.", as the old saying goes. (The proxy wars of information was a warning. What a shame that humans will burn once more... I can't wait to see what will inevitably happen in the next 50 years around the world. If things in this era still exist, that is.)
One day Elon acts like he's playing with Monopoly game money, makes all dollar amounts contain a reference to "420" (cannabis), and then backs out of his offers when he wakes up the next day unstoned, smacking his forehead.
The best things about these (now outdated) Twitter analyses is that both pro-Musk and anti-Musk voices all underestimated his horribleness by at least an order of magnitude.
It’s really fascinating looking at his leaked all-hands, clearly he does understand at some level why content moderation is needed. It seems to me that Elon is a decently intelligent narcissist, and when the truth conflicts with his own feelings, he has the means to reject truth and insulate himself from it. He knows why Twitter has been on life support since his takeover, but still seems unwilling to accept it as fact.
@@zoroark567he has banned a bunch of words and statements using automated content removals and warnings for things he finds offensive (e.g making fun of musk and pretty infamously "cis")
I think what most people on social media platforms miss is that: -You have the right to be treated with dignity once you've voiced an opinion (no harassment/ death threats), but at the same time - You aren't entitled to have your worldview reaffirmed Great video Tom! Keep 'em rolling at a reasonable pace
@Scott Scotty 1st off, in context I think it's fairly reasonable to say that but sure okay fine let's discuss semantics 😂😅 I think it must be a South African thing only I our constitution because I know that South Africans have "the right to dignity". That being said, dignity doesn't cover the concept of trolling and dog-piling that is so prevalent on the net. But I don't understand what you disagree with so would you mind explaining (like with a short example 😅 because I don't know where you're coming from).
@@thewhitefalcon8539 Absolutely. 'I may not agree with what you have to say but I will defend your right to say it.' Thinking genocide is a good idea is a FAR cry from actually perpetrating genocide. In fact very few people support genocide. The second someone suggests such evil action it is almost always drowned out online. What is FAR more common is people so angry they try to paint whoever they disagree with as supporting genocide to justify whatever evil actions they want to perpetrate against that individual who simply disagreed with them. You believe women should have control over their reproductive health? 'You are genociding babies you devil! Now I can dox and bomb you guilt free!" You support a politicians economic policies who has made off color comments? "Clearly you're a deep seated racist who wants to wipe out people of color!" You believe immigrants and even criminals should be treated compassionately and fairly? "You want to wipe out the white race!" Think capitalism sucks? "You want to kill and starve thousands like Stalin!" Etc etc... it's never the perpetrator advocating for genocide - it's always the accuser trying to paint them as such. Almost everyone knows genocide is the fastest way to get the whole world to turn on you.
"Social media wasn't invented with the intention of being a digital town square." This is an important yet often overlooked fact. These sites, which have gobbled up a large portion of people's time and attention on the Internet, are designed first and foremost for just that - gobbling up people's time and attention.
Even if it was designed to be a digital town square. It would be designed as if the private industry had it generally opened to the public unless you break the rules. Like most parks that exist, and even actual town squares where you can get kicked out if you do certain things.
@@DeathProductions200 Exactly. It's a very odd notion, along with being completely ahistorical in every society, that anybody of any background could go into a public space and spout whatever they wanted without either governmental or societal intervention should they contravene the laws/norms of their society. Hell, the very concept of society is the fundamental dictum of having norms that are readily accepted by the majority in order to foster a sense of community, safety, and progess, and those that go against those norms are susceptible to the various methods (rightly or wrongly, from a moral or ethical perspective) that societies deemed necessary to maintain the social fabric of said society. Even the term "ostracize" refers to the Athenian democracy, where a vote of the citizens (male landowners, in this case) could cause someone to be expelled from Athens for a period of 10 years, usually to stop someone from becoming a tyrant, or to punish someone who the Athenian citizens (again, male landowners) felt went against the laws and ideals of Athens. You know what they did in most other societies? Executed those people. So, when I hear complaints about being banned or kicked off of this platform or that platform, all I see is a great deal of societal progress, because not too long ago, in places worldwide, you'd be killed by members of your community and they'd go on living their lives.
@@giovannifitzpatrick1987 You say that as if it excuses the notion though lol. Places like Twitter are still atrocious cess pits of the worst humanity has to offer.
They're communication tools - easier communication tools than having to call someone, or only being able to talk to one person (or a small group) at a time. Twitter can be quite amazing as long as you follow the right people.
Despite wanting to pull out, Musk has now decided to found Twitter, and it was totally of his own volition. The lawsuit for backing down clearly had nothing to do with it and he really cared about MY free speech from the beginning! Just look! He already fired those EVIL l*beral censorshiphiliacs day one! I'm done DEMOLISHING you with facts. I have a date with all 12 of my Discord kittens. How many do you have? Right, 0 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
“The early public sphere presented itself as a mechanism through which all people could converse as equals whilst relying on a limited definition of who counted as people.” Is one hell of a way to describe the origins of the public sphere of the past. Simple yet so accurate. I love it and laughed so hard. 🤣👍
Which pretty much fits the present day reality of social media. Where certain people are free to get trashed and showered with hate speech. Men or particular race and a particular gender.
War is amusing... If only Americans were better... Maybe then, they won't be so easily manipulated. Nevermind... Why do humans even think about their future's end?
@@andreaslahmberg5641 there's a difference between people being dismissive of white men, and being oppressed like your feelings are valid, this isn't saying "suck it up", but that it's not oppression (even if you think it may feel like it); oppression is a specific thing, you can't use it for every time someone's a petty asshole to you
@@andreaslahmberg5641 lol, you think white men have it bad? Please provide proof of a single white man being force to flee their home and live in a hotel for months due to death threats & doxing.
I once heard that it took something like a century for society to adjust to the disruption caused by the printing press. I try to keep in mind that we're only a couple decades in to most people having their very own printing press.
@@JamesDecker7 NFT’s and Crypto are just not efficient enough at serving their purpose , so they will likely, either develop into something better and actually useful or vanish into the depths of history, only remembered by 2120 nerds.
And the top 0,1% made the choice *TO TAKE IT AWAY* from us filthy plebs! Thats the battle, thats why YT search result boosts "authoratative sources" (aka MSM scum) for example. Thats why YT deranks evil wrongthink creators.
He wants _free speech within the digital town square_ to be _owned by a private company._ How anyone falls for this obvious conman is beyond me. His continued adherence to capital over people/ workers should be your first giveaway
@@pataki2666 Liability for what? The owner of a social media platform isn't responsible for what its users say, outside of some extremes perhaps. He absolutely would lose a lot of advertiser support, but he implied he was so rich that he didn't care about that.
It's a bit like how he owns an electric car company and talks about "saving the environment", but also sells his carbon credits to companies that haven't met emissions goals and that was the only time Tesla ever went into profit.
You're probably joking, but I'm pretty sure it's because he became clear on the direct contention between “free speech” and liability the moment the lawyers replaced the yes-men in the room.
@@lindmorn5909 ? *I'm* not sure what your beef is. When I made that comment, Elon had just started his takeover properly and there were Elon stannies in the comments already going "this aged poorly lol". I figured it was worth saying if only to counteract those fools.
Yeah, seeing the part where Musk said that he wants over 1 billion people on Twitter and to make everyone comfortable seems so weird now. He broke multiple EU laws, and Twitter might be banned on EU markets next year. Right-wingers and Hate had a huge increase. Left leaning Journalists got banned for basically nothing, some even for rules that got implemented after their ban. Watching this video now is sooo weird, only a few months went by, but it's like everything Musk said was a lie and he went the complete opposite way.
Musk "I LOVE FREE SPEECH" Employee: says something he doesn't like Musk "I AM FIRING YOU FOR FREE SPEECH!" - that's how it works. Free speech = you have to compliment and kiss his ass 24/7. I ... think thats called censorship.... which isn't "free" at all!
@@jimc9516 The problem there is the fact that platforms are public forums. They get the same protection against trouble for what shit their users say. So it is more like talking shit about the government on a street owned by the government.
@@jimc9516 They don't, it is an analogy like you used. But thems the rules. If you specifically curate what can and can't appear on your platform, not counting things that are illegal, you are a publication, like newspapers and websites. And if you are a publication, you are absolutely on the hook for what is said.
It's a good start point for talking about free speech in modern society and where our ideas of it come from. Elon Musk is a framing device, only slightly important to the discussion being had. He definitely was just looking to liquidate some assets though, on that I definitely agree. Although I wouldn't discount the idea that he sees himself as incredibly influential and important (which he is, but for reasons he doesn't seem to realise) and so would think of himself offloading shares AS saving free speech. He's a clod.
So Elon tried to offload shares by getting himself sued and will likely have to pay billions of dollars in fines? Is this some new genius strategy from Elon Musk where getting fined and losing money is good now?
He never cared about free speech, it's all a publicity campaign for him to pump and dump shit. The fact that the "public sphere" felt compelled to take his nonsense seriously and debated it as if he honestly had some good intentions is depressing.
It's more that he wants transparency and people not having undue power to suppress others, than free speech. And it was doable enough before the market tanked. Now, the old deal would be poisonous.
@@Leto2ndAtreides It's inevitable for markets tank from time to time. Now, there is nothing wrong with wanting to terminate a deal that goes bad; but it's hilarious that he never negotiated a clause that allowed him to legally do so (negotiating clauses that allow one to terminate bad deals is business 101)
Also to let all the Breitbart kind of dummies go wild. Every right has limits or exceptions by law and by morality, and every discussion needs moderation, be it in a class, be it wikipedia, be it any discussion forum. The people who tend to yell the most about freedom of speech in the western world are various kinds of Kremlobots, or conservatives who declare creationism as an equal option to science.
@@Leto2ndAtreides lol you actually believe that? musk doesn't want transparency he wants control. he has never and will never do anything for the good of other people.
You've outdone yourself this time, Tom. This vid was excellent. And it's great to see the convo not through the typical "what's-going-on-in-America" lens, but also, what's the other big player, the European Union, doing about this.
The golden point of the internet in my own life was when I was in highschool in the late 00's when blogging was really big. In particular, you had a music scene which was dominated by bloggers, in which all geographic distinctions with the genre of music I'm thinking of disappeared. South America, Europe, UK, US (east and west coasts), Japan and Australia were all large contributors to this scene, which was almost exclusively made up of amateur and indie artists. I'm just now reading on an artist's page "...was a product of the blog era, riding the heights of Hype Machine..." This scene wasn't killed by other social media outlets though, but by music streaming services which took control of content out of the listeners' hands and placed it in the hands of exploitative, non-indie-heavy algorithm programmers and such.
And now even the sites we think of as Where The Indie Stuff Is still have somewhat of a barrier of entry. Like if you want the pro version of soundcloud or bandcamp you have to pay for it and then those sites are really hard to get recognition on
This shows one of the problems of "Americanization" of concept of Freedom. basically throguh years America (well, USA) branded itself as a "Guide to Freedom" which hurts things at large since it forces people to view concepts of freedom from only americal lenses. The other problem is about people not understanding or willfully missunderstanding difference between harassment and criticism. This one is mainly done to silence other people's opinions and earn "Brownie points" by branding someone who criticises as "the villain of the story".
@@andreaslahmberg5641 Evil smiles... I'm just amused at how manipulated humans are. Fools in a game beyond their reach. Oh... They fear the Government?... Idiots. Any true Monarch would know very well of Mankind and the dangers to consider. But I digress... Today's era reaps what it has sown... A product from those who pull the strings. (Go change the world... Maybe then, one will understand what I mean...)
THIS. "No one will ever tell me what to do" is a very narrow-minded view of freedom many Americans have. Freedom includes things like safety, right to protest, journelistic protection, equal rights, womens rights, etc.
@@cielbie8251 The inverse of 1A is manipulation from Corporations and Politicians etc. Hopefully, the corruption doesn't shatter America but that future is being tested at 2024.
@@cielbie8251 My problem with limiting rights is that people enforcing those limitations usually follow the holy trinity of hypocrisy: -Rules for thee, but not for me -Do as I say, not as I do -It's bad if others do it, good if I'm the one doing it. It's fine if done to others, it's bad if done to me.
A few years ago, the idea that that the government should step in & tell popular Internet sites that they must carry content regardless of their business goals because it's pseudo public & the users have rights would have been considered a radical leftist position on par with nationalizing mineral rights. Now, it's pretty universal among conservatives.
This video's all smart, witty and sophisticated; but its a waste of time. *Power* determines what freedom of speech we have, use and apply in the world; and therefore the *character* of the people who wield that power is all that matters. Nothing else is worth discussing. Unfortunately character, reputation and concepts like honor or human dignity; have all been buried and obscured by social media propaganda and misinformation. And power is at the very heart of this problem. You can only be heard if your voice carries some weight; i.e only if you are rich, famous etc. Power gives people a louder voice and amplifies even the little things utterly ridiculous (but famous) people say. This is the great irony of our social and political world; to be heard you have to become some sort of celebrity; you have to join the ranks of the elite. But the moment you do; your character becomes infected by the very evils plaguing the elite. You end up focusing on defending yourself; your own power base, reputation, etc for fear of losing your power and your voice. You undergo corruption. Preserving your good character is difficult; but its the only way.
@@JackSparrow-re4ql At what point in history have there not been bad people, an elite, and corruption? You're an idiot if you think we can fix the world's problems by just "being better people lol"
@@JackSparrow-re4ql I ean yeah, its hard when at the same time you have to be ready to be at least underhanded and at least know the dirty tricks to be sucessful in the first place in politics and so. Its still good to even if it has the possibility to make people think about it and be better educated to les fall or that propaganda. Thats the other thing wealthy people reallywerent keen on, an educated mass. Education is a longer term but too changes the game at leat somewhat.
@@JackSparrow-re4ql You make a lot of good points. I suppose my point of disagreement relates to something Tom said in his video: That the "public sphere" is owned and operated by a for-profit company. Essentially, I agree with your take as to how social media is currently. But it would be interesting if something akin to Twitter was a basic utility that existed not for profit but just as a medium of public discussion.
He was only ever doing a poorly thought out publicity stunt to distract from his baby momma trial that he may have been forced to be involved in. He's been trying to rapidly back out of the deal since announcing it. He was never buying twitter
Naaah dude. He WAS going to buy Twitter. But after putting pen to paper to buy it for $44 mil the market went bearish and both Tesla and Twitter stocks fell. So essentially he was overpaying for a product whilst at the same time his net worth (collateral to banks he was borrowing from to purchase Twitter) had fallen.
yea. some anarchist forums have been attempted and they generally turn into absolute shit. nazis take over and normal people just don't go on the forums anymore. like, not everyone on 4chan and 8chan is a nazi, but the nazi presence is definitely quite high. too high for many old school users who simply avoid that hell hole now.
Only if we decide that all speech has equal value. No political views that require genocide are not just political views, it's advocating for violence in a way that cannot be avoided and isn't in self defense. Like if you stop being a fascist doing a fascism, historically Antifa stops harassing you. If fascists get their way, undesirables die. Like you can't change your ethnicity or many health disorders....
This is directly related to the “paradox of tolerance,” which posits that absolute acceptance and freedom of speech leads to intolerance and reversals of society. For example, if a person is allowed to be racist with no repercussions, they are allowed to spread racism, and therefore eventually lead to oppression of a certain race. People complaining about “freedom of speech” nowadays are mad that they don’t have the freedom to be hateful or spread their hate. Because the conservative ideology is built on repressing progress, banning hateful language makes spreading the ideology worse. And what’s worse is there are still little regulations of younger people on social media and freedom of speech, which can not only put them in harm of being radicalized, it also leads to many other risks, including cyberbullying, which now occurs at a higher rate than physical bullying
no of course not, someone who wants to put a computer chip in your head and hand it over to the authorities later on in the future introducing the brave new world is not on your side...
Seems to me in general the main issue is that those who are intolerant of others who actually are not a real threat to them, but whom they hate with a passion , want the right to vilify and demonize those that they cant tolerate.
You will note that in real markets, My pillow still exists despite numerous complaints about the inferior product. So we can admit that the market isn't efficient and good products don't always win the market share they deserve. In a real marketplace of ideas, bad ideas would be removed. I don't see why we are still debating whether black people are people or whether the earth is flat or not. The superior idea - the more factually accurate - should have been retained while the idiot "idea" should have been thrown away. So why do we still have to deal with debunked ideas? The losers don't even bring new arguments to their positions. I propose this idea for the marketplace of ideas. We should have the right to kill our enemy if they do not admit they are wrong. The way they acknowledge their wrongness is by creating a 5 part poem with 20 verse couplets (iambic pentameter for extra points) where the loser spends one section praising the winner, another section about how stupid the loser is, and three sections about exactly how stupid his idea was. Failure to make a pleasing poem results in the right of the winner to execute the loser.
They're the same sorts of people who think that Donald Trump is a genius god-emperor who secretly knows all their conspiracy theories are true, and is fighting against the same reptilian baby-eaters that they are. In other words, idiots.
Well...here we are a few months later and he closed the deal! And it has gone even worse than we predicted. After a few days of rampant slurs and hate posts he lost almost all of his advertisers, fired half the staff, cut the maintenance budget by one billion dollars, and the users are fleeing en masse. Most people think it's only a matter of months before the website that was considered "the de facto public square" one month ago goes dark. lol
And yet it’s still here kicking and screaming. Don’t take this comment as support for elon, I don’t care about him or what he does. But it was glorious watching you libs melt down because the people you hate couldn’t get banned for micro aggressions anymore.
@@nicoh848what if a group of people makes repeated death threats towards a child? To a point where said child develops mental issues Speech has real tangible effect and people need to be held responsible for it
@@lem860 Death threats and harrassment are illegal already. The big problem is enforcement. Police forces and courts have largely given up having anything to do with anything online, same with many other regulatory bodies - e.g. lots of what happened during the crypto boom would be completely illegal if done on a regular stock market. Relying on companies to self-regulate to keep their users/customers safe has always been a terrible idea that leads to rampant corruption and harm in the name of higher profits.
A really deep and insightful video on the world of media, I really enjoyed the explanation of the history behind it. As objective as these videos come i think, no opinionated tangents, and is framed in a comfortable manner.
Wow. The twins by yet ANOTHER woman was a new one to me. I made mistake of dating a musk fan before I started learning the sordid muskness over the last year or two. Wish I had - would have been a massive red flag 🚩
My Musk 'red pill' day was the Tham Luang PR debacle: his toy submarine design wouldn't have fitted through the narrowest point to get to the kids, and therefore was dismissed as useless. What was his very adult and rational reaction? Calling the guy in charge of the rescue a 'pedo' (sic). Honestly I wasn't even that familiar with this caricature of an entrepeneur, but I started paying a closer attention to Elon 'I'm a cofounder of Tesla' Musk, and it was downhill from there...
He knocks all these women up because he actually believes the delusion that he's a super special very smart boy. He believes his DNA is amazing and must be carried on at all costs. Coupled with his weird belief that the human population must expand indefinitely and it's no wonder he impregnates every women who gives him the time of day and expects them all to shoot out kids like they're a walking t-shirt cannon. His 70-something year old father is no better; he just had another child too. The whole family is pretty trashy.
Hey, happy you're making videos again. I love watching your long drawn out essays. I sometimes don't agree with some points you make, but your take is always interesting to hear. It's a real pleasure to watch! One technical feedback tho, I think the background music in 5:30 and so on is unnecessary and somewhat distracting (on top of not being that good in itself). I'd rather listen to just your voice.
Democracy doesn't work when the discourse is controlled by profit. FYI, I am a curiositystream subscriber and never watch videos there. If I want to comment or give feedback I need to come back to YT anyway, and since I use an adblocker the experience is pretty much the same. I'm telling you this because I think curiositystream is great and I want it to succeed.
50:00 that EU directive does not apply in Germany, as Germany has “Mitstöhrerhaftung”, which means that forum operators and social media companies in Germany actually are liable for the content users post. That’s also the reason why Germany was one of the first countries where Facebook opened a dedicated moderation office.
Me watching in 2022: Haha what a mess *Musk buys Twitter and immediately starts banning people that oppose him and tweaks the algorithm to increase his own accounts visibility and engagement and hate speech running rampant* Me watching in 2023: Ha… ha…. What a mess.
One thing there is missing from the video is how Western-centric is the policy of GAFA. The example of Myanmar is probably more about the fact that Facebook moderation team for Western countries/languages is orders of magnitude bigger (per user) than that of other countries/languages. So, yeah, probably they didn't want to do anything about that particular topic, but also they probably had no manpower to really enforce anything there. Despite AI developments, there is a requirement of a lot of human work to achieve any kind of effective moderation.
Some would argue that caring about nothing other than increased revenue would constitute a vice... Apparently it even made the top 7 list at some point.
This was great! It really put things in perspective, especially the historical background. In reality we are but in the beginning of this social media age.
"Free speech" is a term that is loosely thrown around a lot. Well, here's the truth: There is no such thing as privately guaranteed free speech. According to the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution, Congress may not abridge (limit) a person's free speech, whether in writing or orally (not "verbally" which simply means using words). Also, not all speech is protected. Obscene material such as child pornography, plagiarism of copyrighted material, defamation (libel and slander), true threats, speech inciting illegal actions or soliciting others to commit crimes, are not protected under the First Amendment. However, "symbolic speech" such as wearing an article of clothing like an armband or a shirt with a written or drawn message on it, publicly burning a flag to make a point, etc. is protected under the 1st Amendment. Expression of opinion in art, music, literature, and theatre, including cinema, is protected. What is meant by "Congress" was later broadened by the courts to include other branches and agencies of the federal government, and ultimately prohibited all governmental entities from limiting speech. Such abridgement of speech no longer requires the governmental entity to make a formal “law” in this regard since actions may also limit speech. In addition, "government" is broadly defined, with a state university, for example, unable to limit speech in ways that a private college might be able to. Private individuals and organizations, such as the company you work for may freely "abridge" your speech and writing when you are on its premises or working anywhere on their behalf. So, if you work for John Jones, Inc. they can shut you up, but, If you work for The Social Security Administration, they cannot. No freedom under the Constitution is absolute and is always subject to limitations under the law. Those are the facts, Jack.
@@JamesDecker7 Well, that's largely true. "Liberal" ideas traditionally don't usually do down well in the military. However, by military law and regulations, political expression and acts are prohibited by those in the military. Being in the military is not like being an ordinary American with all of the Constitutional rights that go with that. No. It's a unique and very different thing. Even though each military service is, of course, a governmental entity, those serving in them are governed by a different standard and a different set of rules, regulations, and laws contained in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) that places limits on a number of rights such as privacy, political and religious expression, free assembly, freedom of action and travel, free speech including what can be said or written about or to superiors and subordinates. Additionally, there are strict rules and laws governing weapons use and possession and personal interaction (fighting, etc.) on military installations and/or when on duty. Even behavior when on leave and/or off the base is strictly regulated. Once a person agrees to be subject to the UCMJ and to obey all legal orders, that replaces the Constitution for the most part.
Wonder if a company will try to expand their definition of when their employees are working/representing them with the goal of restricting their free speech, particularly with the internet being more important over time.
I actually quite like the negative legislative version of freedom of speech. Everyone is guaranteed that their speech (as long as it's not a threat or defamation) will not have LEGAL consequences. That does not mean it will not have SOCIAL consequences. If you express an opinion people find objectionable, you can be sure that they will use their own freedom of speech to react to it. And it will affect people's opinion of you. And if a company like Twitter or RUclips doesn't want to host specific views you're expressing, then they are completely free to. It's their digital space. They own it. They decide what's okay and what isn't. If they don't like the bits and bytes you deposit in their digital space, they will remove it. If you want to post those opinions somewhere, start a website called vitriolbook or sh*ttube and explicitly host people's objectionable opinions. Then people will visit your social media site whenever they want to vent their frustration or express their hateful opinions, or maybe to see what kind of objectionable opinions are popular and reason for worry. And you can sell big data detailing "what people hate". I still think people will prefer a place where people have respectful and intellectual debates about contemporary issues. And if you want to reference a "digital city square"... if someone is angrily shouting their views at passing strangers in a city square, at best they get laughed at and at worst they will succeed in picking a fight. It's a basic concept of social interaction to interact with strangers respectfully because you don't know them or anything about their personal views or experiences. Everyone has their personal reasons for their personal views. Those reasons can be valid or invalid, logical or illogical, empathic or apathetic. But the one thing every reason has in common is that they are alive within the person that holds it. And the only way to challenge it is for them to express it and for others to share with them a different perspective. A concept that I've seen become increasingly rare in my lifetime (I'm 34). When I was a teenager, internet discussions were far less hostile. Sure, there was an occasional heated argument or interpersonal conflict. But the vast majority was intellectuals that wanted to express their views and discover those of others around the world. Every forum I spent time on in those days had moderators and nobody complained about free speech, if a moderator removed a message, the people involved would just continue the discussion in private messages. But now internet and computers are no longer for "nerds". they're mainstream. And don't get me wrong. I'm not some kind of elitist, I'm just a low-class pleb. But there are plenty of people on the contemporary internet with far less class (the other definition) than me.
Good comment, I liked it, tho I don’t agree that social media plaforms should be “completely free” to host or not to host specific views. We are not talking about a site of a random person, but companies so big that had monopolized everything and they even host politician talks. They are some kind of press now, and as the press is subjected to legal limitations and accountability, so should social media platforms imo
The issue is that “social pressure” no longer means just getting shunned by your community (clubs, churches, classmates) people that would know you well enough to approach changing your mind with the nuance that requires. Instead you get dog piled by a million people online that don’t know you, don’t care about you, and just want to virtually punch a nazi. The result is your reputation is ruined, your employment terminated, can’t pay for a home with no income. Murderers are at least offered a room with 3 square meals a day. Cancel culture is the virtual lynch mob.
Imagine the same global digital landscape we have now, except places like YT, Twitter, Reddit etc. exhibit a clear (community) bias towards right and far-right wing politics. Following your reasoning that freedom of speech does not shield you from social consequences, nor does it overrule the freedom of a privately run platform to not platform you, would you be ok with a situation where with people who speak on subjects like pro-LGBTQ rights, women’s rights, minority rights etc. are being disciplined or outright banned for what the dominant conservative zeitgeist considers to be too far from acceptable speech?
@@gabrielebursi5509 There is nothing stopping anyone from creating a competitor to these social media platforms. The reason they hold monopolies is because the user base makes the decision to use them. As for the press argument, I disagree. There are millions if not billions of people expressing themselves on social media platforms. And as human beings, we are all individually responsible for what outside information we accept as true. It is the flipside of the coin. The right to free speech and the necessity of freedom of the press. The responsibility to think deeply about the future. That is what democracy means.
Nice work, Tom. I've wanted someone with reach to articulate several of these points for a long time―for instance, the fact that the "marketplace of ideas" doesn't favor ideas because they are good or true, only because they capture people's attention and motivate them to spread those ideas. In fact, lies have a distinct advantage over truth in the "marketplace of ideas", because they're not constrained by observable reality or even reason. I also have a couple of additional thoughts: When you introduced the liberal origin of the public sphere, some viewers may have said, "WTF?" I said "LFG!" It's useful for everyone to understand that the frameworks that dominate present-day political thought (at least in "advanced" western capitalist societies) weren't handed down from heaven on the first day of creation, and to understand how and why they first came into existence. But this is especially important for people on the political left, who by definition want humanity to grow beyond liberalism. We can't get stuck in what might be called _liberal realism_ (as a companion to capitalist realism). Does it matter who owns social media? As you say, it's not terribly important which individuals own these platforms. What matters is which _class_ owns them, in whose class interests they are operated. Unfortunately, I don't think making the public sphere "public", in the sense of government ownership, will really improve the situation―because (in liberal democracies) the government is itself owned by and operated in the interest of the capitalist class. P.S. It's hilarious that your twin brother Tim has a different last name from you!
Twitter wasn't the first to invent a feed, way before that Livejournal did that, and it's been very much a discussion platform. You had both your friend feed and a global one, the "main page" that featured the most popular posts. It was great, I'm sad it died.
I usually find these big ideas of free speech pretty useless in practice. Most often it's just a placeholder argument when there are much more pressing issues at hand. The "do we want twitter to be a space full of harrasment" thing is a great example of this.
A little harassment is ok. It's the internet. Grow some balls. People need to learn how to live with hurt feelings. Obviously things like calling for violence is over the line along with hate speech (real hate speech, not jokes).
@@kingstarscream3807 Remember this... Is it your liberty (American 1st Amendment) or the liberty of corporations? Who is to say that corporations can one day, change history for evil... In the end... Who pulls the strings?
@@kingstarscream3807 Why settle for worse things? Are you lazy? Are you too weak to stand up for actually good principles and values? Are you afraid you won't be able to continue to be an asshole anymore? Please explain
The tweet at 4:51 "...one where free speech and adhering to free speech is given top priority, one where propaganda is very minimal" is peak irony. If we don't limit speech, anything can be said and given equal platform (for better or worse), which gives space for even more propaganda.
EDIT: LET'S ALL OPERATE ON THE SAME DEFINITION OF SHADOWBANNING TO MINIMISE CONFUSION: "Shadowbanning is the practice of blocking or partially blocking a user or their content from some areas of an online community in such a way that it will not be readily apparent to the user that they have been banned." Shadowbanning is such an interesting concept to me since so many people claim it doesn't exist and yet across multiple platform people from various political backgrounds claim its happening to them." I.e. not just filtering or censorship. Its far more specific than that. Thank you.
political oriented person will check the metric like "like"/dislike/view/replies constantly, and is therefore the first to see pattern of public acceptance and also the first to detect abrupt changes in these pattern. Some might have reasons to blame this on act of shadowbanning.
@@bed2149 no I know, but that's why I commented this. Because I hear such conflicting messages about shadowbanning. I know he was simply pointing out that it was a natural decline in interest
As a political science grad. I get super excited whenever I hear someone reference Isaiah Berlin. I can't of feel that if people were taught the concept of positive vs negative freedoms at the age of 14. That alone would fix so many of our societal problems
The education crisis in America is truly the greatest issue we face in this country. The better people are taught HOW to think, not WHAT to think, the less frequently issues like these will come up.
A compelling argument that I hadn't considered! Having to moderate their own users would cost a lot of money and not exactly profitable. However getting your marketplace ad taken down because you put zero $ as your asking price and that they only allow ads that are for selling things on it is a step to far imo.
What an excellent essay. It might be because I had to watch it in two parts, but I feel your closing statements are particularly brilliant. It may be because collectivising the public sphere is - understatement of the year - really bad for business for the private entities that own it currently, providing about as strong a monetary incentive as there could be to suppress this kind of discourse, but it's an angle I've only very rarely heard discussed at all, and never truly in earnest.
Would be intresting to see an updated version of this now that Elon has owned Twitter for quite a while
2 года назад+8
The height of internet was MsN, forums and IRC chat. Change my mind. Oh and Canada did a big oopsie by not just restricting speech, but demanding that you use certain speech.
changing our MSN Messenger screen names to moody introspective song lyrics to passive aggressively let everyone know our thoughts on that jerk Brad who we definitely don't have a crush on anymore is the apex of enlightened human communication
For what it's worth, at about the 37 minute mark you make a minor error - Yahoo didn't originally start as a search engine, per se, but as a sort of directory listing of pages.
Social media companies need to have user and content creator representatives on the board - we create all of these companies value and we shoud get to decide on these moderation policies (and get a fair share of profits too ofc)
This principle should be much much more elastic than some members of the board! There are numerous bottlenecks in communication flow, vast majority of them can be solved by just proportionalization. The most basic example being unability to reach support after some ban. There should be additional option of payed response from L1 employee, L2 employee, L3 employee... with corresponding price tags. So even in case not everyone can reach for adequate revision of his case, at least it would be publicly known price for such possibility, eliminating any needs for backstage political games of "free speech".
No. We shouldnt. Allow everything that is legally allowed in the given country. Le Fin. Every further limitation/liberalization of freedom of fucking speech, MUST go thru parlaiment and can only be achieved by election. Why on earh would you give *THAT* power to anything not democratically controlled?
i wonder if this video will get a follow up because the situation sure did spice up since then great watch! thank you very much for teaching me basic public speech history lesson :)
The phrase “the rights society gives you” is the difference between American and European’s views on rights. As an American I was taken aback tk by the concept of a society granting you your rights. Rights arnt granted by a society, they are intrinsic to being human beings regardless of if you’re in a society and it’s not that they shouldn’t be taken away, but any government that does is tyrannical and is not a government any citizen should live under. I’ll keep my American perception of rights and I’ll take the immense responsibilities that comes with maintaining it thank you…
Please do a video on Russel Brand, I'd love to see a deep dive on him, I think he's an interesting character who's been about for a long time, and who's got a bit of storied history!
I think his dig at Brand was a bit shallow, he is a lot older and more experienced in life. Not some rich white kid from a privileged background with zero life experience other than Marxism.
@@dogbreath6982 ehh, look I've followed Brand, since I was a teenager, watching MTV back in the day, and now I'm in my mid 30's, I've read one of his biographies... almost 15 years ago, I've enjoyed some of the chap's work, I've enjoyed him speaking truth to power with regards to the Iraq and Afghanistan war, talk about mental health, and enjoyed some of his appearances on comedy quiz shows, particularly when paired up with Noel fielding... I like me an aul iconoclast, here and there. But as of late, particularly with the pandemic, it seems like he's been pandering to an audience that question absolutely everything that come from the msm, which isnt necessarily a bad thing, except when they complete deny or dismiss something with overwhelming evidence, while completely accepting some outlandish nonsense that comes from a random source online. I think Tom Nicholas isnt the type of person to make random off hand comments, and I'd be absolutely keen to see what his take on how new age 'hippy' iconoclast types have weaponized the pandemic, to find niche audiences, and what the impact on culture and society.
@@paddyokearney Don't think you're the oldest and wisest mate, I've got 20 years on you and I was around before MTV was a thing! I can tell right away it's because Brand is no longer far right ( I would say balanced.) you don't like him any longer. Am I right?
@@dogbreath6982 huh? I'm simply pointing out that I've been fairly aware of Brand over the last 2 or so decades, I'm definitely conscious of the fact that I'm certainly not the oldest person on here, neither would I want to be. " I can tell right away it's because Brand is no longer far right ( I would say balanced.) you don't like him any longer. Am I right?" What? you certainly have me flabbergasted there. I think my dislike for him or rather wariness of him is that he's started liking the smell of his own farts a little too much, this 'guru' persona he's adapted is a little unsettling, I preferred him when he was a junky, sex addict who dressed up as Osama bin laden.
This is incredibly tangential, but I wanted to reflect on how human reasoning and our thought process works. It suddenly struck me that; when Tom gave the Titanic/Kermit examples, there must have been people who had heard of one or the other - and that, for those people, the reveal that both examples were genuine would likely have been preempted by their pre-existing knowledge of whichever example they were aware of. It’s interesting to me that we can convey some information about a subject’s likely veracity simply by pairing it with another true subject, and that each example would increase the likelihood of any given viewer cottoning on to the set’s truth or falsehood.
Dude. Just stumbled onto your channel. Great stuff. I love where you ended this one. Great idea and a great question we all need to ponder! Keep up the good work :)
@@ninawth Whatever more closely describes the electric car audience. (I will do some reading, so I use left/liberal in their correct places going forward.)
This video is over an hour long and I could have been as short as "Elon Musk is a con man. he only says he advocates for free speech until someone says something he doesn't like."
@@AviViljoen Because whoever owns it won't want to allow speech that goes against their own views or against them. Elon has been trying hard to take down a Twitter account that provides tracking of his plane, even though it just shares public data that everyone can access. He'll also fire anyone that says anything mean about him. He also hires goons to do smear campaigns on anyone he doesn't like and, most of all, he himself does EVERYTHING to bury people that he wants to silence (pretty much every actual founder of the companies he's worked in). Elon couldn't give a rat's ass about free speech. He was just selling another con.
Hi! I am from Russia, but I run an independent and honest channel in English, I produce videos related to history and politics. I would like to get your assessment of my latest video. I think you will be interested to see. Thank you ☺️
I completely agree that social media platforms are public services and should be owned by the people that uses them. I would like to see a social media platform that applies the 'open source' model.
that will probably never happen, it costs a not insignificant amount of money to maintain the servers for a website like twitter or youtube, someone somewhere would have to pay for it. It makes far more sense to restrict websites to only moderating harmful/illegal conten, or be treated like a publisher.
Early social media were 100% topic oriented. Usenet, IRC & forums were the first platforms for that sort of discussions. Who you are didn't matter at all. Profiles are a later invention.
Are everyone forget this is not first time Elon Musk promised to fight for free speech? Few years ago he already promised that he would create a web site called Pravda in order to make possible for regular people rate how trust worthy are articles, journalists etc. Guess what - nothing happenned.
I think it's a lot simpler than all of this. He doesn't care about free speech or twitter, he just needed to free up some cash as all his wealth is tied up in vastly over-valued Tesla stock. Last time he sold some of it, the price tanked and he got a load of shit because he said in 2013 that his money was the first into Tesla, and would be the last out. Despite neither of these statements being true, the stock price did recover a bit. Fast forward, and he now needs to liquidate some more cash (probably to pay child support for all the kids he breeds but has nothing to do with) and needs an excuse to sell even more stock but without tanking the price and being investigated by the SEC. He offers to buy Twitter for a ridiculously overpriced sum to make them agree, liquidates just under $10 billion to pay for part of it (causing the Tesla price to almost halve) and then tries to back out of the deal using an excuse that wasn't even mentioned in the original deal, which he also chose to forgo due diligence on so it all went through quickly. For these reasons, and because he's an idiot, Twitter are quite rightly attempting to force him to go through with it or pay a huge fine, and I hope the judge in case throws the book at him for it all. He doesn't give a rats ass about twitter, free speech or anything related to the whole situation - just the money and the attention it brought. He had Donald Trump, General Mike Flynn and Mike Pillow all begging him to let them back on it if he bought it - he craves that sort of attention.
![Lethal Company Music Video 🎵 "Follow The Orders" [VERSION A]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QeooZB4Z7RA/mqdefault.jpg)
You can now watch my videos ad-free on Nebula! Support the channel by grabbing a full year's membership of Nebula *and* CuriosityStream for just $14.79 here: curiositystream.com/tomnicholas
I genuinely need to join! So many streaming platforms, so expensive, but this is a year for the price of a month of the other ones! Plus, so many awesome CCs on there! And no ads!
god your hot1
Thank you for representing the decentralized services out there.
Things like Oddysee are becoming more popular by the day!
@Tom Nicholas
So if its all so "complicated" and they are simply "under external pressures" and "earnings", why is public media service of my country, namely RTS, forced on Twitter to wear tag saying "cooperates with Serbian government", as if they are cooperating with Charles Manson, while BBC is not forced to wear any such tag for its connections to the British state?
Tech giants' connection and subordination to the security-imperial state is the most worrying part of it, which is disguised as worry for "rights of some minority groups".
Both Democrats and Republicans commit the same war crimes around the world, its just that Democratic planes have LGBTQ+, pride flags and BLM stickers all over them.
Strategically hypocritical anyway, dont you think?
@Tom Nicholas
While "Radio Free Europe" which is literally a CIA remnant of the cold war, who are still framing issues according to "western strategic interests" (un-democratically decided god knows where) have no such tag, mentioning CIA, State Department or super rich foundations which fund them.
The issue here is that far too many people confuse the right to free speech as a right to be heard by a respectful and agreeable audience. That such a right, if it existed, would infringe on the free speech rights of anyone who wished to speak up and disagree, or just didn't want to listen, does not seem to concern those people in the slightest.
A very good point well made. Although whether people make these points by *confusing* free speech and the right to be heard or *wilfully conflating* them might be up for discussion!
Nah. We simply understand the *POLITICAL POWER* that the side with access to social media AND without massive algorithm deranks has. Monumental.
Is this monumental political power unfairly destributed, the entire policial so called democratic system becomes a scam.
You fuckers simply cant stop strawmanning our argument, since you ALL obv understand what we mean and desperately want to misrepresent us and our argument. You understand the issue. You understand our argument. You understand your privileged position on socialmedia. You understand the aaaaaaaabsolute weakness and unpopularity of your own sides arguments.
Dude. *BIDEN IS FINISHING THE WALL!*
@@Tom_Nicholas....Well said! We're living in a time where I'm actually hesitant to say I'm from the U.S. on a channel like this that has a much more internationally diverse group of followers. I can't tell you how tired I get of so many of, not just my countrymen, but people I grew up with, and have known most of my life, just regurgitating "what about my right to free speech!!??"
I always say... "Well, what about it, are you in jail? No? Did you get fined or punished in anyway by a government entity for said speech? No? Well then you're first amendment rights were not violated!!" People here can't seem to comprehend that freedom of speech as it is laid out in our constitution, does not free you of the consequences you may face from non governmental places.
To flip the coin under American 1A... I'm just amused that humans let others rule over their society.
But I don't care to explain. History has bleed long enough.
In the end, who is in control? Ha ha ha ha.
@@Tom_Nicholas
Under American 1A... Free Speech is clearly defined and Corporations are just Political BS who control the game along with so many others.
Nevermind... Let the corruption be embraced when only fools remain.
But it is time to end the deception.... "Hail to Evil.", as the old saying goes.
(The proxy wars of information was a warning. What a shame that humans will burn once more... I can't wait to see what will inevitably happen in the next 50 years around the world. If things in this era still exist, that is.)
"World's oldest teenager" is probably the best description of Elon Musk yet
Donald Trump is older, but he hasn't reached the maturity of a teenager yet.
@@dalstein3708 Yep
Oldest and richest*
@@dalstein3708 trump is the world's oldest and most orange chubby 5th grader.
One day Elon acts like he's playing with Monopoly game money, makes all dollar amounts contain a reference to "420" (cannabis), and then backs out of his offers when he wakes up the next day unstoned, smacking his forehead.
Describing Bezos as "physical embodiment of divorce" makes the entire video worthwhile by itself
Especially with that photo, I screamed💀
Spoilers
Come on, with that absolutely matter-of-factly introduction of Elon Musk Tom had already achieved that.
@@el_Pumpking Cry
Tesla inc just registered for the trademark "The Greatest Car Ever." Very, very interesting. Brilliant marketing move for the entire brand.
The best things about these (now outdated) Twitter analyses is that both pro-Musk and anti-Musk voices all underestimated his horribleness by at least an order of magnitude.
It’s really fascinating looking at his leaked all-hands, clearly he does understand at some level why content moderation is needed. It seems to me that Elon is a decently intelligent narcissist, and when the truth conflicts with his own feelings, he has the means to reject truth and insulate himself from it. He knows why Twitter has been on life support since his takeover, but still seems unwilling to accept it as fact.
@@zoroark567he has banned a bunch of words and statements using automated content removals and warnings for things he finds offensive (e.g making fun of musk and pretty infamously "cis")
I think what most people on social media platforms miss is that:
-You have the right to be treated with dignity once you've voiced an opinion (no harassment/ death threats), but at the same time
- You aren't entitled to have your worldview reaffirmed
Great video Tom! Keep 'em rolling at a reasonable pace
@Scott Scotty 1st off, in context I think it's fairly reasonable to say that but sure okay fine let's discuss semantics 😂😅
I think it must be a South African thing only I our constitution because I know that South Africans have "the right to dignity". That being said, dignity doesn't cover the concept of trolling and dog-piling that is so prevalent on the net.
But I don't understand what you disagree with so would you mind explaining (like with a short example 😅 because I don't know where you're coming from).
I reaffirm your worldview except... it's not 'most' social media users. It's a small number of very loud and annoying social media users.
Do people who want to do genocide have the right to be treated with dignity?
@@thewhitefalcon8539 Absolutely. 'I may not agree with what you have to say but I will defend your right to say it.'
Thinking genocide is a good idea is a FAR cry from actually perpetrating genocide.
In fact very few people support genocide. The second someone suggests such evil action it is almost always drowned out online.
What is FAR more common is people so angry they try to paint whoever they disagree with as supporting genocide to justify whatever evil actions they want to perpetrate against that individual who simply disagreed with them.
You believe women should have control over their reproductive health? 'You are genociding babies you devil! Now I can dox and bomb you guilt free!"
You support a politicians economic policies who has made off color comments? "Clearly you're a deep seated racist who wants to wipe out people of color!"
You believe immigrants and even criminals should be treated compassionately and fairly? "You want to wipe out the white race!"
Think capitalism sucks? "You want to kill and starve thousands like Stalin!"
Etc etc... it's never the perpetrator advocating for genocide - it's always the accuser trying to paint them as such. Almost everyone knows genocide is the fastest way to get the whole world to turn on you.
@@thewhitefalcon8539 I think that falls under death threats... yeah?
"Social media wasn't invented with the intention of being a digital town square."
This is an important yet often overlooked fact. These sites, which have gobbled up a large portion of people's time and attention on the Internet, are designed first and foremost for just that - gobbling up people's time and attention.
Even if it was designed to be a digital town square. It would be designed as if the private industry had it generally opened to the public unless you break the rules. Like most parks that exist, and even actual town squares where you can get kicked out if you do certain things.
@@DeathProductions200 Exactly.
It's a very odd notion, along with being completely ahistorical in every society, that anybody of any background could go into a public space and spout whatever they wanted without either governmental or societal intervention should they contravene the laws/norms of their society. Hell, the very concept of society is the fundamental dictum of having norms that are readily accepted by the majority in order to foster a sense of community, safety, and progess, and those that go against those norms are susceptible to the various methods (rightly or wrongly, from a moral or ethical perspective) that societies deemed necessary to maintain the social fabric of said society.
Even the term "ostracize" refers to the Athenian democracy, where a vote of the citizens (male landowners, in this case) could cause someone to be expelled from Athens for a period of 10 years, usually to stop someone from becoming a tyrant, or to punish someone who the Athenian citizens (again, male landowners) felt went against the laws and ideals of Athens. You know what they did in most other societies? Executed those people. So, when I hear complaints about being banned or kicked off of this platform or that platform, all I see is a great deal of societal progress, because not too long ago, in places worldwide, you'd be killed by members of your community and they'd go on living their lives.
@@giovannifitzpatrick1987 You say that as if it excuses the notion though lol. Places like Twitter are still atrocious cess pits of the worst humanity has to offer.
They are designed to sell audiences to advertisers.
They're communication tools - easier communication tools than having to call someone, or only being able to talk to one person (or a small group) at a time.
Twitter can be quite amazing as long as you follow the right people.
Elon Musk protecting free speech is like Jeff Bezos protecting worker rights... it's all hot air
Elon Musk protecting free speech is like Elon Musk protecting worker rights... It's all hot shit.
@@runklestiltskin_2407 Couldn't agree more
Be careful musk fans might get mad
Mr NDA himself
twitter never was about free speech
Wow... Twitter came really close to being founded by Elon Musk...
It's going to be, by force.
Despite wanting to pull out, Musk has now decided to found Twitter, and it was totally of his own volition. The lawsuit for backing down clearly had nothing to do with it and he really cared about MY free speech from the beginning!
Just look! He already fired those EVIL l*beral censorshiphiliacs day one! I'm done DEMOLISHING you with facts. I have a date with all 12 of my Discord kittens. How many do you have? Right, 0 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
That aged well
@@kevin-hp8ey my joke is eternal.
Rare Elon musk W
“The early public sphere presented itself as a mechanism through which all people could converse as equals whilst relying on a limited definition of who counted as people.”
Is one hell of a way to describe the origins of the public sphere of the past. Simple yet so accurate. I love it and laughed so hard. 🤣👍
Which pretty much fits the present day reality of social media. Where certain people are free to get trashed and showered with hate speech. Men or particular race and a particular gender.
War is amusing... If only Americans were better... Maybe then, they won't be so easily manipulated.
Nevermind... Why do humans even think about their future's end?
@@andreaslahmberg5641 there's a difference between people being dismissive of white men, and being oppressed
like your feelings are valid, this isn't saying "suck it up", but that it's not oppression (even if you think it may feel like it); oppression is a specific thing, you can't use it for every time someone's a petty asshole to you
@@andreaslahmberg5641 lol, you think white men have it bad? Please provide proof of a single white man being force to flee their home and live in a hotel for months due to death threats & doxing.
I once heard that it took something like a century for society to adjust to the disruption caused by the printing press. I try to keep in mind that we're only a couple decades in to most people having their very own printing press.
Just think how long it will take to ….snigger….adjust to bitcoin and NFTs….RoFLOL…and emojis…
I’ll see myself out.
@@JamesDecker7 NFTs will literally be the death of the internet I swear.
Interesting point. The social networks of tomorrow might still also be quite different from Facebook, Twitter etc.
@@JamesDecker7 NFT’s and Crypto are just not efficient enough at serving their purpose , so they will likely, either develop into something better and actually useful or vanish into the depths of history, only remembered by 2120 nerds.
And the top 0,1% made the choice *TO TAKE IT AWAY* from us filthy plebs!
Thats the battle, thats why YT search result boosts "authoratative sources" (aka MSM scum) for example. Thats why YT deranks evil wrongthink creators.
He wants _free speech within the digital town square_ to be _owned by a private company._
How anyone falls for this obvious conman is beyond me. His continued adherence to capital over people/ workers should be your first giveaway
His intended audience knows what he's dogwhistling - he just wants racists and homophobes to feel free to harass people
For the sake of argument: What does Musk have to lose by allowing less stringent rules on Twitter?
@@kingstarscream3807 Liability and all that
@@kingstarscream3807 the real question is what he has to gain, which is greater fame and popularity.
@@pataki2666 Liability for what? The owner of a social media platform isn't responsible for what its users say, outside of some extremes perhaps.
He absolutely would lose a lot of advertiser support, but he implied he was so rich that he didn't care about that.
It's a bit like how he owns an electric car company and talks about "saving the environment", but also sells his carbon credits to companies that haven't met emissions goals and that was the only time Tesla ever went into profit.
That wouldn't surprise me the least. Is that so?
@@SirArghPirate yep, you can look it up I think it was mutiple billions they have made from selling carbon credits
@@SirArghPirate Some More News "Elon Musk is Not Your Friend"
Also ruining nature by farming battery materials with child workers
@@mookinbabysealfurmittens Common Sense Skeptic too. The channel is the best extensive Elon deep dive I've seen on RUclips.
Let it be noted I'm calling it now, he's pulling out because he realized he couldn't convince people he founded Twitter.
Ah no, the fanatical fanboys would attack you. They all believed that he founded Tesla.
You're probably joking, but I'm pretty sure it's because he became clear on the direct contention between “free speech” and liability the moment the lawyers replaced the yes-men in the room.
Why do you not like him?
@@chuckbass7276 because he's a bad person to grossly oversimplify.
It was, most likely, just a publicity stunt, Musk never planned to buy Twitter to begin with.
This genuinely aged well, actually. It might age even better in coming times.
Exceedingly so
@@franky1650 Holy crap. Coming back to this now is surreal.
@@Cerise4697 I'd like to see a follow up video!
@@lindmorn5909 ? *I'm* not sure what your beef is. When I made that comment, Elon had just started his takeover properly and there were Elon stannies in the comments already going "this aged poorly lol". I figured it was worth saying if only to counteract those fools.
Yeah, seeing the part where Musk said that he wants over 1 billion people on Twitter and to make everyone comfortable seems so weird now.
He broke multiple EU laws, and Twitter might be banned on EU markets next year. Right-wingers and Hate had a huge increase. Left leaning Journalists got banned for basically nothing, some even for rules that got implemented after their ban.
Watching this video now is sooo weird, only a few months went by, but it's like everything Musk said was a lie and he went the complete opposite way.
Musk "I LOVE FREE SPEECH"
Employee: says something he doesn't like
Musk "I AM FIRING YOU FOR FREE SPEECH!"
- that's how it works. Free speech = you have to compliment and kiss his ass 24/7. I ... think thats called censorship.... which isn't "free" at all!
I think he recently tweeted that he’s gonna hire a hotshot team of libel lawyers, haha…
@@Tom_Nicholas you have an awesome comment section man. I'm still here and the video wrapped up 15 minutes ago.
As the right loves to say (about the left) "rules for thee, but not for me"
Ironic, really
@@jimc9516 The problem there is the fact that platforms are public forums. They get the same protection against trouble for what shit their users say.
So it is more like talking shit about the government on a street owned by the government.
@@jimc9516 They don't, it is an analogy like you used.
But thems the rules. If you specifically curate what can and can't appear on your platform, not counting things that are illegal, you are a publication, like newspapers and websites.
And if you are a publication, you are absolutely on the hook for what is said.
Elon wasn’t trying to save free speech 😂 he wanted to offload some shares of Tesla without consequence from the market
Yea - Musk is so scummy!
THIS!
Correct
It's a good start point for talking about free speech in modern society and where our ideas of it come from. Elon Musk is a framing device, only slightly important to the discussion being had. He definitely was just looking to liquidate some assets though, on that I definitely agree. Although I wouldn't discount the idea that he sees himself as incredibly influential and important (which he is, but for reasons he doesn't seem to realise) and so would think of himself offloading shares AS saving free speech. He's a clod.
So Elon tried to offload shares by getting himself sued and will likely have to pay billions of dollars in fines?
Is this some new genius strategy from Elon Musk where getting fined and losing money is good now?
He never cared about free speech, it's all a publicity campaign for him to pump and dump shit. The fact that the "public sphere" felt compelled to take his nonsense seriously and debated it as if he honestly had some good intentions is depressing.
It's more that he wants transparency and people not having undue power to suppress others, than free speech. And it was doable enough before the market tanked. Now, the old deal would be poisonous.
@@Leto2ndAtreides It's inevitable for markets tank from time to time. Now, there is nothing wrong with wanting to terminate a deal that goes bad; but it's hilarious that he never negotiated a clause that allowed him to legally do so (negotiating clauses that allow one to terminate bad deals is business 101)
Also to let all the Breitbart kind of dummies go wild. Every right has limits or exceptions by law and by morality, and every discussion needs moderation, be it in a class, be it wikipedia, be it any discussion forum. The people who tend to yell the most about freedom of speech in the western world are various kinds of Kremlobots, or conservatives who declare creationism as an equal option to science.
@@Leto2ndAtreides He doesn't want transparency, he wants to silence his critics because more and more people are turning on him and his fake charade.
@@Leto2ndAtreides lol you actually believe that? musk doesn't want transparency he wants control. he has never and will never do anything for the good of other people.
I'm glad you refrained from doing a French accent again, I'm still recovering from your last attempt.... Great video Tom, as always, bravo!!
I love your vids!
Over a year later, he bought Twitter and made it SOOOO much worse
Watching this video four months later when Musk has announced changes and reverted them on a daily basis, and this essay has already aged like wine.
i mean how could you save something that you weren't trying to save in the first place
Fax
Exactly
@Mota bhalu god a laugh out of me
You've outdone yourself this time, Tom. This vid was excellent. And it's great to see the convo not through the typical "what's-going-on-in-America" lens, but also, what's the other big player, the European Union, doing about this.
Banning memes
@@cindybindy3327 people have been saying this is happening for nearly a decade and yet all the memes are still here...
I don't like the eu but cmon
The golden point of the internet in my own life was when I was in highschool in the late 00's when blogging was really big. In particular, you had a music scene which was dominated by bloggers, in which all geographic distinctions with the genre of music I'm thinking of disappeared. South America, Europe, UK, US (east and west coasts), Japan and Australia were all large contributors to this scene, which was almost exclusively made up of amateur and indie artists. I'm just now reading on an artist's page "...was a product of the blog era, riding the heights of Hype Machine..." This scene wasn't killed by other social media outlets though, but by music streaming services which took control of content out of the listeners' hands and placed it in the hands of exploitative, non-indie-heavy algorithm programmers and such.
And now even the sites we think of as Where The Indie Stuff Is still have somewhat of a barrier of entry. Like if you want the pro version of soundcloud or bandcamp you have to pay for it and then those sites are really hard to get recognition on
This shows one of the problems of "Americanization" of concept of Freedom.
basically throguh years America (well, USA) branded itself as a "Guide to Freedom" which hurts things at large since it forces people to view concepts of freedom from only americal lenses.
The other problem is about people not understanding or willfully missunderstanding difference between harassment and criticism. This one is mainly done to silence other people's opinions and earn "Brownie points" by branding someone who criticises as "the villain of the story".
Everyone understands this concept. Some choose to use those tactics to further their personal and waaaaay more foten political goals.
@@andreaslahmberg5641
Evil smiles...
I'm just amused at how manipulated humans are. Fools in a game beyond their reach.
Oh... They fear the Government?... Idiots.
Any true Monarch would know very well of Mankind and the dangers to consider.
But I digress... Today's era reaps what it has sown... A product from those who pull the strings.
(Go change the world... Maybe then, one will understand what I mean...)
THIS. "No one will ever tell me what to do" is a very narrow-minded view of freedom many Americans have.
Freedom includes things like safety, right to protest, journelistic protection, equal rights, womens rights, etc.
@@cielbie8251
The inverse of 1A is manipulation from Corporations and Politicians etc.
Hopefully, the corruption doesn't shatter America but that future is being tested at 2024.
@@cielbie8251 My problem with limiting rights is that people enforcing those limitations usually follow the holy trinity of hypocrisy:
-Rules for thee, but not for me
-Do as I say, not as I do
-It's bad if others do it, good if I'm the one doing it. It's fine if done to others, it's bad if done to me.
A few years ago, the idea that that the government should step in & tell popular Internet sites that they must carry content regardless of their business goals because it's pseudo public & the users have rights would have been considered a radical leftist position on par with nationalizing mineral rights. Now, it's pretty universal among conservatives.
And it's entirely because they want more platforms for their hate speech.
This video was epic. The script, the preponderance of costumes. Video essay gold.
Thank you so much tom!
This video's all smart, witty and sophisticated; but its a waste of time. *Power* determines what freedom of speech we have, use and apply in the world; and therefore the *character* of the people who wield that power is all that matters.
Nothing else is worth discussing. Unfortunately character, reputation and concepts like honor or human dignity; have all been buried and obscured by social media propaganda and misinformation.
And power is at the very heart of this problem. You can only be heard if your voice carries some weight; i.e only if you are rich, famous etc. Power gives people a louder voice and amplifies even the little things utterly ridiculous (but famous) people say.
This is the great irony of our social and political world; to be heard you have to become some sort of celebrity; you have to join the ranks of the elite. But the moment you do; your character becomes infected by the very evils plaguing the elite. You end up focusing on defending yourself; your own power base, reputation, etc for fear of losing your power and your voice. You undergo corruption. Preserving your good character is difficult; but its the only way.
@@JackSparrow-re4ql At what point in history have there not been bad people, an elite, and corruption? You're an idiot if you think we can fix the world's problems by just "being better people lol"
@@JackSparrow-re4ql I ean yeah, its hard when at the same time you have to be ready to be at least underhanded and at least know the dirty tricks to be sucessful in the first place in politics and so.
Its still good to even if it has the possibility to make people think about it and be better educated to les fall or that propaganda. Thats the other thing wealthy people reallywerent keen on, an educated mass. Education is a longer term but too changes the game at leat somewhat.
@@JackSparrow-re4ql You make a lot of good points. I suppose my point of disagreement relates to something Tom said in his video: That the "public sphere" is owned and operated by a for-profit company.
Essentially, I agree with your take as to how social media is currently. But it would be interesting if something akin to Twitter was a basic utility that existed not for profit but just as a medium of public discussion.
He was only ever doing a poorly thought out publicity stunt to distract from his baby momma trial that he may have been forced to be involved in. He's been trying to rapidly back out of the deal since announcing it. He was never buying twitter
We know..but funny how the right wingers bought in to that 😂😂
@@leonh9930 to be fair, a lot on the left reeing about it too. There's no good side and bad side at this point 🤣
@@TheScience69 the reason why i think its funny on the right winger side is cos they think he is their messiah.. Clearly they dunno who dis guy is..
@@leonh9930 yeah, that's true I'll give you that 🤣
Naaah dude. He WAS going to buy Twitter. But after putting pen to paper to buy it for $44 mil the market went bearish and both Tesla and Twitter stocks fell. So essentially he was overpaying for a product whilst at the same time his net worth (collateral to banks he was borrowing from to purchase Twitter) had fallen.
i don't think it's possible for a single platform with a single functionality to facilitate all the things we want from the ideals of free speech.
yea. some anarchist forums have been attempted and they generally turn into absolute shit. nazis take over and normal people just don't go on the forums anymore.
like, not everyone on 4chan and 8chan is a nazi, but the nazi presence is definitely quite high. too high for many old school users who simply avoid that hell hole now.
Only if we decide that all speech has equal value. No political views that require genocide are not just political views, it's advocating for violence in a way that cannot be avoided and isn't in self defense. Like if you stop being a fascist doing a fascism, historically Antifa stops harassing you. If fascists get their way, undesirables die. Like you can't change your ethnicity or many health disorders....
This is directly related to the “paradox of tolerance,” which posits that absolute acceptance and freedom of speech leads to intolerance and reversals of society. For example, if a person is allowed to be racist with no repercussions, they are allowed to spread racism, and therefore eventually lead to oppression of a certain race. People complaining about “freedom of speech” nowadays are mad that they don’t have the freedom to be hateful or spread their hate. Because the conservative ideology is built on repressing progress, banning hateful language makes spreading the ideology worse. And what’s worse is there are still little regulations of younger people on social media and freedom of speech, which can not only put them in harm of being radicalized, it also leads to many other risks, including cyberbullying, which now occurs at a higher rate than physical bullying
Underrated comment
@@hydrogen3266 EXACTLY!!!! couldn’t have worded it better.
I can answer that question in less than an hour;
Elon Musk couldn't save freedom of speech because that was never his goal or intention.
no of course not, someone who wants to put a computer chip in your head and hand it over to the authorities later on in the future introducing the brave new world is not on your side...
Thanks, but I'll watch it anyway.
Exactly. He doesn't care about free speech, he wants to ensure a platform for hate speech.
@@amazingspiderladhe definitely accomplished that goal. Now nearly every tweet is infested with blue check marks saying the most diabolical garbage.
Seems to me in general the main issue is that those who are intolerant of others who actually are not a real threat to them, but whom they hate with a passion , want the right to vilify and demonize those that they cant tolerate.
Solid take
‘Oldest teenager’, I laughed so hard. 😂
It could be worse. He could be the world's oldest toddler, like a certain former president.
So did I. I was either on a train.
"the market place of ideas" is such a long phrase said so often by the most annoying debate lords that I personally refer to it as "idea mart"
You will note that in real markets, My pillow still exists despite numerous complaints about the inferior product. So we can admit that the market isn't efficient and good products don't always win the market share they deserve.
In a real marketplace of ideas, bad ideas would be removed. I don't see why we are still debating whether black people are people or whether the earth is flat or not. The superior idea - the more factually accurate - should have been retained while the idiot "idea" should have been thrown away. So why do we still have to deal with debunked ideas? The losers don't even bring new arguments to their positions.
I propose this idea for the marketplace of ideas. We should have the right to kill our enemy if they do not admit they are wrong. The way they acknowledge their wrongness is by creating a 5 part poem with 20 verse couplets (iambic pentameter for extra points) where the loser spends one section praising the winner, another section about how stupid the loser is, and three sections about exactly how stupid his idea was. Failure to make a pleasing poem results in the right of the winner to execute the loser.
I can't even handle how based this is.
Why do people think Musk is intelligent, he's been outsmarted by even Twitter and recently even Trump outsmarted Musk
An autistic nerd manchild appeals to autistic nerd manchildren
They're the same sorts of people who think that Donald Trump is a genius god-emperor who secretly knows all their conspiracy theories are true, and is fighting against the same reptilian baby-eaters that they are.
In other words, idiots.
@@criticalevent very true
No one wins in a battle of wits between Musk and Trump. lol
A certain percentage of the population has no critical thinking skills or interest in developing any
Well...here we are a few months later and he closed the deal! And it has gone even worse than we predicted. After a few days of rampant slurs and hate posts he lost almost all of his advertisers, fired half the staff, cut the maintenance budget by one billion dollars, and the users are fleeing en masse. Most people think it's only a matter of months before the website that was considered "the de facto public square" one month ago goes dark. lol
And yet it’s still here kicking and screaming. Don’t take this comment as support for elon, I don’t care about him or what he does. But it was glorious watching you libs melt down because the people you hate couldn’t get banned for micro aggressions anymore.
Freedom of speech ≠ Freedom of consequences.
Just can’t be legal consequences.
@@nicoh848what if a group of people makes repeated death threats towards a child? To a point where said child develops mental issues
Speech has real tangible effect and people need to be held responsible for it
@@lem860 Death threats and harrassment are illegal already. The big problem is enforcement. Police forces and courts have largely given up having anything to do with anything online, same with many other regulatory bodies - e.g. lots of what happened during the crypto boom would be completely illegal if done on a regular stock market. Relying on companies to self-regulate to keep their users/customers safe has always been a terrible idea that leads to rampant corruption and harm in the name of higher profits.
A really deep and insightful video on the world of media, I really enjoyed the explanation of the history behind it. As objective as these videos come i think, no opinionated tangents, and is framed in a comfortable manner.
Wow. The twins by yet ANOTHER woman was a new one to me. I made mistake of dating a musk fan before I started learning the sordid muskness over the last year or two. Wish I had - would have been a massive red flag 🚩
Liking him was a reasonable enough thing before he called the guy a pedo for not using his dumb submarine.
My Musk 'red pill' day was the Tham Luang PR debacle: his toy submarine design wouldn't have fitted through the narrowest point to get to the kids, and therefore was dismissed as useless. What was his very adult and rational reaction? Calling the guy in charge of the rescue a 'pedo' (sic). Honestly I wasn't even that familiar with this caricature of an entrepeneur, but I started paying a closer attention to Elon 'I'm a cofounder of Tesla' Musk, and it was downhill from there...
He knocks all these women up because he actually believes the delusion that he's a super special very smart boy. He believes his DNA is amazing and must be carried on at all costs. Coupled with his weird belief that the human population must expand indefinitely and it's no wonder he impregnates every women who gives him the time of day and expects them all to shoot out kids like they're a walking t-shirt cannon. His 70-something year old father is no better; he just had another child too. The whole family is pretty trashy.
This desperatley needs a weekly update at this point.
Update, 88% off twitters staff have either left or been fired
Someone said that's a good thing cuz he let go of all the woke ppl that censure others...
The history of the internet is playing out before my eyes. Thanks for documenting this.
I'd definitely listen to Tom drunkenly ranting about how Beowulf in problematic
Hey, happy you're making videos again. I love watching your long drawn out essays. I sometimes don't agree with some points you make, but your take is always interesting to hear. It's a real pleasure to watch!
One technical feedback tho, I think the background music in 5:30 and so on is unnecessary and somewhat distracting (on top of not being that good in itself). I'd rather listen to just your voice.
Democracy doesn't work when the discourse is controlled by profit.
FYI, I am a curiositystream subscriber and never watch videos there.
If I want to comment or give feedback I need to come back to YT anyway, and since I use an adblocker the experience is pretty much the same.
I'm telling you this because I think curiositystream is great and I want it to succeed.
50:00 that EU directive does not apply in Germany, as Germany has “Mitstöhrerhaftung”, which means that forum operators and social media companies in Germany actually are liable for the content users post. That’s also the reason why Germany was one of the first countries where Facebook opened a dedicated moderation office.
Me watching in 2022:
Haha what a mess
*Musk buys Twitter and immediately starts banning people that oppose him and tweaks the algorithm to increase his own accounts visibility and engagement and hate speech running rampant*
Me watching in 2023:
Ha… ha…. What a mess.
One thing there is missing from the video is how Western-centric is the policy of GAFA. The example of Myanmar is probably more about the fact that Facebook moderation team for Western countries/languages is orders of magnitude bigger (per user) than that of other countries/languages. So, yeah, probably they didn't want to do anything about that particular topic, but also they probably had no manpower to really enforce anything there. Despite AI developments, there is a requirement of a lot of human work to achieve any kind of effective moderation.
Some would argue that caring about nothing other than increased revenue would constitute a vice...
Apparently it even made the top 7 list at some point.
Good idea! Let’s maybe make some money with that idea! Endless money!!!
Rumour has it that this top 7 only applies to capitalists and cardinals. I admit I haven't visited church too often.
This was great! It really put things in perspective, especially the historical background. In reality we are but in the beginning of this social media age.
This aged well. Considering "free speech" to Elon is "pay-me-$8-a-month-to-get-your-posts-prioritized speech"...
my headcanon is that the "costumes" are how Tom actually dresses, and "normal" clothes are how he was dressing for the videos
What i like about you is deep and profound analysis of topics, so expect masterpiece this time
"Free speech" is a term that is loosely thrown around a lot. Well, here's the truth:
There is no such thing as privately guaranteed free speech. According to the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution, Congress may not abridge (limit) a person's free speech, whether in writing or orally (not "verbally" which simply means using words).
Also, not all speech is protected. Obscene material such as child pornography, plagiarism of copyrighted material, defamation (libel and slander), true threats, speech inciting illegal actions or soliciting others to commit crimes, are not protected under the First Amendment.
However, "symbolic speech" such as wearing an article of clothing like an armband or a shirt with a written or drawn message on it, publicly burning a flag to make a point, etc. is protected under the 1st Amendment. Expression of opinion in art, music, literature, and theatre, including cinema, is protected.
What is meant by "Congress" was later broadened by the courts to include other branches and agencies of the federal government, and ultimately prohibited all governmental entities from limiting speech.
Such abridgement of speech no longer requires the governmental entity to make a formal “law” in this regard since actions may also limit speech. In addition, "government" is broadly defined, with a state university, for example, unable to limit speech in ways that a private college might be able to.
Private individuals and organizations, such as the company you work for may freely "abridge" your speech and writing when you are on its premises or working anywhere on their behalf. So, if you work for John Jones, Inc. they can shut you up, but, If you work for The Social Security Administration, they cannot.
No freedom under the Constitution is absolute and is always subject to limitations under the law. Those are the facts, Jack.
Excellent breakdown
@@ShirleyTimple Thank you. Just FOS 101.
Try figuring out what you can say in a uniformed service (hint, anything is ok as long as it’s on the right).
@@JamesDecker7 Well, that's largely true. "Liberal" ideas traditionally don't usually do down well in the military. However, by military law and regulations, political expression and acts are prohibited by those in the military.
Being in the military is not like being an ordinary American with all of the Constitutional rights that go with that. No. It's a unique and very different thing.
Even though each military service is, of course, a governmental entity, those serving in them are governed by a different standard and a different set of rules, regulations, and laws contained in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) that places limits on a number of rights such as privacy, political and religious expression, free assembly, freedom of action and travel, free speech including what can be said or written about or to superiors and subordinates.
Additionally, there are strict rules and laws governing weapons use and possession and personal interaction (fighting, etc.) on military installations and/or when on duty. Even behavior when on leave and/or off the base is strictly regulated. Once a person agrees to be subject to the UCMJ and to obey all legal orders, that replaces the Constitution for the most part.
Wonder if a company will try to expand their definition of when their employees are working/representing them with the goal of restricting their free speech, particularly with the internet being more important over time.
I actually quite like the negative legislative version of freedom of speech. Everyone is guaranteed that their speech (as long as it's not a threat or defamation) will not have LEGAL consequences. That does not mean it will not have SOCIAL consequences. If you express an opinion people find objectionable, you can be sure that they will use their own freedom of speech to react to it. And it will affect people's opinion of you. And if a company like Twitter or RUclips doesn't want to host specific views you're expressing, then they are completely free to. It's their digital space. They own it. They decide what's okay and what isn't. If they don't like the bits and bytes you deposit in their digital space, they will remove it.
If you want to post those opinions somewhere, start a website called vitriolbook or sh*ttube and explicitly host people's objectionable opinions. Then people will visit your social media site whenever they want to vent their frustration or express their hateful opinions, or maybe to see what kind of objectionable opinions are popular and reason for worry. And you can sell big data detailing "what people hate". I still think people will prefer a place where people have respectful and intellectual debates about contemporary issues.
And if you want to reference a "digital city square"... if someone is angrily shouting their views at passing strangers in a city square, at best they get laughed at and at worst they will succeed in picking a fight. It's a basic concept of social interaction to interact with strangers respectfully because you don't know them or anything about their personal views or experiences. Everyone has their personal reasons for their personal views. Those reasons can be valid or invalid, logical or illogical, empathic or apathetic. But the one thing every reason has in common is that they are alive within the person that holds it. And the only way to challenge it is for them to express it and for others to share with them a different perspective. A concept that I've seen become increasingly rare in my lifetime (I'm 34).
When I was a teenager, internet discussions were far less hostile. Sure, there was an occasional heated argument or interpersonal conflict. But the vast majority was intellectuals that wanted to express their views and discover those of others around the world. Every forum I spent time on in those days had moderators and nobody complained about free speech, if a moderator removed a message, the people involved would just continue the discussion in private messages. But now internet and computers are no longer for "nerds". they're mainstream. And don't get me wrong. I'm not some kind of elitist, I'm just a low-class pleb. But there are plenty of people on the contemporary internet with far less class (the other definition) than me.
very well said
Good comment, I liked it, tho I don’t agree that social media plaforms should be “completely free” to host or not to host specific views. We are not talking about a site of a random person, but companies so big that had monopolized everything and they even host politician talks. They are some kind of press now, and as the press is subjected to legal limitations and accountability, so should social media platforms imo
The issue is that “social pressure” no longer means just getting shunned by your community (clubs, churches, classmates) people that would know you well enough to approach changing your mind with the nuance that requires. Instead you get dog piled by a million people online that don’t know you, don’t care about you, and just want to virtually punch a nazi. The result is your reputation is ruined, your employment terminated, can’t pay for a home with no income. Murderers are at least offered a room with 3 square meals a day. Cancel culture is the virtual lynch mob.
Imagine the same global digital landscape we have now, except places like YT, Twitter, Reddit etc. exhibit a clear (community) bias towards right and far-right wing politics. Following your reasoning that freedom of speech does not shield you from social consequences, nor does it overrule the freedom of a privately run platform to not platform you, would you be ok with a situation where with people who speak on subjects like pro-LGBTQ rights, women’s rights, minority rights etc. are being disciplined or outright banned for what the dominant conservative zeitgeist considers to be too far from acceptable speech?
@@gabrielebursi5509 There is nothing stopping anyone from creating a competitor to these social media platforms. The reason they hold monopolies is because the user base makes the decision to use them.
As for the press argument, I disagree. There are millions if not billions of people expressing themselves on social media platforms. And as human beings, we are all individually responsible for what outside information we accept as true. It is the flipside of the coin. The right to free speech and the necessity of freedom of the press. The responsibility to think deeply about the future. That is what democracy means.
REALLY looking forward to a part 2 of this video. please!!!
This video aged well.
Another amazing video Tom, thanks again for all your diligent work to really take apart the ideas behind these events! 🙂
Excited for this one! You're definitely on your way to a million subs!
Wow, I’ve been watching you since you still had “What The Theory” and it’s amazing to see how far you’ve come man, good video!
Nice work, Tom. I've wanted someone with reach to articulate several of these points for a long time―for instance, the fact that the "marketplace of ideas" doesn't favor ideas because they are good or true, only because they capture people's attention and motivate them to spread those ideas. In fact, lies have a distinct advantage over truth in the "marketplace of ideas", because they're not constrained by observable reality or even reason. I also have a couple of additional thoughts:
When you introduced the liberal origin of the public sphere, some viewers may have said, "WTF?" I said "LFG!" It's useful for everyone to understand that the frameworks that dominate present-day political thought (at least in "advanced" western capitalist societies) weren't handed down from heaven on the first day of creation, and to understand how and why they first came into existence. But this is especially important for people on the political left, who by definition want humanity to grow beyond liberalism. We can't get stuck in what might be called _liberal realism_ (as a companion to capitalist realism).
Does it matter who owns social media? As you say, it's not terribly important which individuals own these platforms. What matters is which _class_ owns them, in whose class interests they are operated. Unfortunately, I don't think making the public sphere "public", in the sense of government ownership, will really improve the situation―because (in liberal democracies) the government is itself owned by and operated in the interest of the capitalist class.
P.S. It's hilarious that your twin brother Tim has a different last name from you!
^
This was prophetic. You have outdone yourself.
Twitter wasn't the first to invent a feed, way before that Livejournal did that, and it's been very much a discussion platform. You had both your friend feed and a global one, the "main page" that featured the most popular posts. It was great, I'm sad it died.
Watching this 4 months later is… interesting to say the least.
I usually find these big ideas of free speech pretty useless in practice. Most often it's just a placeholder argument when there are much more pressing issues at hand. The "do we want twitter to be a space full of harrasment" thing is a great example of this.
Free speech is pretty important, but it is quite distinct from your right to whinge on about unpopular things on twitter.
A little harassment is ok. It's the internet. Grow some balls. People need to learn how to live with hurt feelings. Obviously things like calling for violence is over the line along with hate speech (real hate speech, not jokes).
@@kingstarscream3807
Remember this... Is it your liberty (American 1st Amendment) or the liberty of corporations?
Who is to say that corporations can one day, change history for evil...
In the end... Who pulls the strings?
@@kingstarscream3807 Why settle for worse things? Are you lazy? Are you too weak to stand up for actually good principles and values? Are you afraid you won't be able to continue to be an asshole anymore? Please explain
@@nobodynoone2500 "Freedom of speech only counts for things that I think are important"
You called it bro
The tweet at 4:51 "...one where free speech and adhering to free speech is given top priority, one where propaganda is very minimal" is peak irony. If we don't limit speech, anything can be said and given equal platform (for better or worse), which gives space for even more propaganda.
EDIT: LET'S ALL OPERATE ON THE SAME DEFINITION OF SHADOWBANNING TO MINIMISE CONFUSION:
"Shadowbanning is the practice of blocking or partially blocking a user or their content from some areas of an online community in such a way that it will not be readily apparent to the user that they have been banned."
Shadowbanning is such an interesting concept to me since so many people claim it doesn't exist and yet across multiple platform people from various political backgrounds claim its happening to them." I.e. not just filtering or censorship. Its far more specific than that. Thank you.
I dont think he was saying it does exist he was just saying it clearly wasn't happening there
Elon is all for shadowbanning. He explicitly says so at the 1:00:50, when he's talking about freedom of reach
It's for real..
political oriented person will check the metric like "like"/dislike/view/replies constantly, and is therefore the first to see pattern of public acceptance and also the first to detect abrupt changes in these pattern. Some might have reasons to blame this on act of shadowbanning.
@@bed2149 no I know, but that's why I commented this. Because I hear such conflicting messages about shadowbanning. I know he was simply pointing out that it was a natural decline in interest
As a political science grad. I get super excited whenever I hear someone reference Isaiah Berlin.
I can't of feel that if people were taught the concept of positive vs negative freedoms at the age of 14. That alone would fix so many of our societal problems
The education crisis in America is truly the greatest issue we face in this country. The better people are taught HOW to think, not WHAT to think, the less frequently issues like these will come up.
A compelling argument that I hadn't considered! Having to moderate their own users would cost a lot of money and not exactly profitable. However getting your marketplace ad taken down because you put zero $ as your asking price and that they only allow ads that are for selling things on it is a step to far imo.
What an excellent essay. It might be because I had to watch it in two parts, but I feel your closing statements are particularly brilliant. It may be because collectivising the public sphere is - understatement of the year - really bad for business for the private entities that own it currently, providing about as strong a monetary incentive as there could be to suppress this kind of discourse, but it's an angle I've only very rarely heard discussed at all, and never truly in earnest.
Would be intresting to see an updated version of this now that Elon has owned Twitter for quite a while
The height of internet was MsN, forums and IRC chat.
Change my mind.
Oh and Canada did a big oopsie by not just restricting speech, but demanding that you use certain speech.
changing our MSN Messenger screen names to moody introspective song lyrics to passive aggressively let everyone know our thoughts on that jerk Brad who we definitely don't have a crush on anymore is the apex of enlightened human communication
Like they are doing in America
For what it's worth, at about the 37 minute mark you make a minor error - Yahoo didn't originally start as a search engine, per se, but as a sort of directory listing of pages.
Social media companies need to have user and content creator representatives on the board - we create all of these companies value and we shoud get to decide on these moderation policies (and get a fair share of profits too ofc)
This principle should be much much more elastic than some members of the board! There are numerous bottlenecks in communication flow, vast majority of them can be solved by just proportionalization. The most basic example being unability to reach support after some ban. There should be additional option of payed response from L1 employee, L2 employee, L3 employee... with corresponding price tags. So even in case not everyone can reach for adequate revision of his case, at least it would be publicly known price for such possibility, eliminating any needs for backstage political games of "free speech".
@@shivanshu6204 >asking
Who said we're asking.
@@shivanshu6204 uh oh! Edgelord alert!
@@shivanshu6204 You come off as special.
No. We shouldnt. Allow everything that is legally allowed in the given country. Le Fin.
Every further limitation/liberalization of freedom of fucking speech, MUST go thru parlaiment and can only be achieved by election.
Why on earh would you give *THAT* power to anything not democratically controlled?
The problem is that too many people confuse "freedom of speech" with "freedom from consequence".
This video has aged like a fine vine Tom
Fine wine doesn't age in 3 months. Odd comparison.
@@PowerScissora fine vine, on the other hand, became a classic the moment the platform died. Thus the comment is still accurate, heh.
When you asked "I hope it was worth your time" at the end of the video I was like.
"-Worth it? I think I need a smoke."
i wonder if this video will get a follow up because the situation sure did spice up since then
great watch! thank you very much for teaching me basic public speech history lesson :)
Another fantastic video, Tom! Great script, reading, and editing. Held my attention, despite RUclips ads and my ADHD. 😎👍 Sharing!
This aged incredibly well lol
The phrase “the rights society gives you” is the difference between American and European’s views on rights. As an American I was taken aback tk by the concept of a society granting you your rights. Rights arnt granted by a society, they are intrinsic to being human beings regardless of if you’re in a society and it’s not that they shouldn’t be taken away, but any government that does is tyrannical and is not a government any citizen should live under. I’ll keep my American perception of rights and I’ll take the immense responsibilities that comes with maintaining it thank you…
Thanks for the sublime work! This ist a precious contribution as always. Love your commitment and your delivery. Fantastic.
Thank you Sam! I’m really glad you liked it!
This has aged like only the finest of wine
Please do a video on Russel Brand, I'd love to see a deep dive on him, I think he's an interesting character who's been about for a long time, and who's got a bit of storied history!
I think his dig at Brand was a bit shallow, he is a lot older and more experienced in life. Not some rich white kid from a privileged background with zero life experience other than Marxism.
@@dogbreath6982 ehh, look I've followed Brand, since I was a teenager, watching MTV back in the day, and now I'm in my mid 30's, I've read one of his biographies... almost 15 years ago, I've enjoyed some of the chap's work, I've enjoyed him speaking truth to power with regards to the Iraq and Afghanistan war, talk about mental health, and enjoyed some of his appearances on comedy quiz shows, particularly when paired up with Noel fielding... I like me an aul iconoclast, here and there.
But as of late, particularly with the pandemic, it seems like he's been pandering to an audience that question absolutely everything that come from the msm, which isnt necessarily a bad thing, except when they complete deny or dismiss something with overwhelming evidence, while completely accepting some outlandish nonsense that comes from a random source online.
I think Tom Nicholas isnt the type of person to make random off hand comments, and I'd be absolutely keen to see what his take on how new age 'hippy' iconoclast types have weaponized the pandemic, to find niche audiences, and what the impact on culture and society.
@@paddyokearney Don't think you're the oldest and wisest mate, I've got 20 years on you and I was around before MTV was a thing! I can tell right away it's because Brand is no longer far right ( I would say balanced.) you don't like him any longer. Am I right?
@@dogbreath6982 huh? I'm simply pointing out that I've been fairly aware of Brand over the last 2 or so decades, I'm definitely conscious of the fact that I'm certainly not the oldest person on here, neither would I want to be.
" I can tell right away it's because Brand is no longer far right ( I would say balanced.) you don't like him any longer. Am I right?"
What? you certainly have me flabbergasted there. I think my dislike for him or rather wariness of him is that he's started liking the smell of his own farts a little too much, this 'guru' persona he's adapted is a little unsettling, I preferred him when he was a junky, sex addict who dressed up as Osama bin laden.
This is incredibly tangential, but I wanted to reflect on how human reasoning and our thought process works. It suddenly struck me that; when Tom gave the Titanic/Kermit examples, there must have been people who had heard of one or the other - and that, for those people, the reveal that both examples were genuine would likely have been preempted by their pre-existing knowledge of whichever example they were aware of. It’s interesting to me that we can convey some information about a subject’s likely veracity simply by pairing it with another true subject, and that each example would increase the likelihood of any given viewer cottoning on to the set’s truth or falsehood.
Dude. Just stumbled onto your channel. Great stuff. I love where you ended this one. Great idea and a great question we all need to ponder!
Keep up the good work :)
Is it just me or has Musk lost fans on the left and right recently? Like he's just ticking everyone off.
He had fans on the left??? Or did you mean liberals?
@@ninawth Whatever more closely describes the electric car audience. (I will do some reading, so I use left/liberal in their correct places going forward.)
I have never known a leftist that liked Elon Musk.
Very educative and insightful deep dive into the history of free speech before and during the Internet and social media epoch!
This video is over an hour long and I could have been as short as "Elon Musk is a con man. he only says he advocates for free speech until someone says something he doesn't like."
*almost 2 years later*
*sigh*... simpler times. 😒
Amazing video as always! The most thorough discussion on the topic I've ever heard
I said this when it was announced and I'll say it again: it is impossible to have "free speech" on a platform owned by a single person
Why?
@@AviViljoen Stop asking questions you already know the answer to.
@@AviViljoen watch the video. @1:07:25
@@AviViljoen Because whoever owns it won't want to allow speech that goes against their own views or against them. Elon has been trying hard to take down a Twitter account that provides tracking of his plane, even though it just shares public data that everyone can access. He'll also fire anyone that says anything mean about him. He also hires goons to do smear campaigns on anyone he doesn't like and, most of all, he himself does EVERYTHING to bury people that he wants to silence (pretty much every actual founder of the companies he's worked in).
Elon couldn't give a rat's ass about free speech. He was just selling another con.
such a good video. And i love the way you write and present the information. going to binge your channel. :D
Hi! I am from Russia, but I run an independent and honest channel in English, I produce videos related to history and politics.
I would like to get your assessment of my latest video. I think you will be interested to see. Thank you ☺️
I completely agree that social media platforms are public services and should be owned by the people that uses them.
I would like to see a social media platform that applies the 'open source' model.
that will probably never happen, it costs a not insignificant amount of money to maintain the servers for a website like twitter or youtube, someone somewhere would have to pay for it. It makes far more sense to restrict websites to only moderating harmful/illegal conten, or be treated like a publisher.
Early social media were 100% topic oriented. Usenet, IRC & forums were the first platforms for that sort of discussions. Who you are didn't matter at all. Profiles are a later invention.
We need an update!
Appreciate all the effort you put in your videos.
🇨🇳❤
Are everyone forget this is not first time Elon Musk promised to fight for free speech? Few years ago he already promised that he would create a web site called Pravda in order to make possible for regular people rate how trust worthy are articles, journalists etc. Guess what - nothing happenned.
I think it's a lot simpler than all of this. He doesn't care about free speech or twitter, he just needed to free up some cash as all his wealth is tied up in vastly over-valued Tesla stock. Last time he sold some of it, the price tanked and he got a load of shit because he said in 2013 that his money was the first into Tesla, and would be the last out. Despite neither of these statements being true, the stock price did recover a bit.
Fast forward, and he now needs to liquidate some more cash (probably to pay child support for all the kids he breeds but has nothing to do with) and needs an excuse to sell even more stock but without tanking the price and being investigated by the SEC. He offers to buy Twitter for a ridiculously overpriced sum to make them agree, liquidates just under $10 billion to pay for part of it (causing the Tesla price to almost halve) and then tries to back out of the deal using an excuse that wasn't even mentioned in the original deal, which he also chose to forgo due diligence on so it all went through quickly. For these reasons, and because he's an idiot, Twitter are quite rightly attempting to force him to go through with it or pay a huge fine, and I hope the judge in case throws the book at him for it all.
He doesn't give a rats ass about twitter, free speech or anything related to the whole situation - just the money and the attention it brought. He had Donald Trump, General Mike Flynn and Mike Pillow all begging him to let them back on it if he bought it - he craves that sort of attention.
Great comment, you're someone who sees through all that BS!
With musk making reporting misgendering impossible now by outright removing the option, this video has aged very well