On conservative and libertarian stupidity

[Parodite]

Elon Musk is sitting on Xi poo's lap trying hard not to offend sugah daddy. While claiming AI is an existential threat and that "we" better escape planet earth with rockets to The Promised Lalaland somewhere in interstellar space. What reasons are left to still take him seriously.

Conservatives seem not able to update their maps of reality anymore. Their last version is like 15 years old. They want to conserve things long gone, navigate a landscape that no longer exists.

But it is easy fun to look at woke progressives who navigate maps of completely imaginary landscapes. Maybe Elon can fly them to Lalaland, allowing conservatives to focus again on being the adult in the room without distractions.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

Twitter can either be liveleak/ 4chan or it can be a public platform with families and businesses involved.

Australian government is just expecting them to want to be the latter.

Arguing for live assaults and murders on your news feed is not a conservatism i would care for.

_----

It would have been censorship to bury the story, but that didnt happen.

The strom is over the gory footage

I think the storm is over sedition, which is part of the point about attempting to shock people. And no, I think it naive to say that the story wouldn't have been buried without the shock value. Not only do we see it all the time with politically damaging stories; we also know that official media (especially with the dawn of the internet) is a coordination machine to a lot of people that do not have my best interests in mind be they in business or NGOs or gov't.

On the other hand, you are totally right that gore and guts by similarly unsavory characters who will easily turn on me at the drop of a hat; sowers of sedition are never to be trusted.

I remember, and I think everyone remembers, that the liveleaks/4channers/something awful kids weren't just a corner of the internet in the old days the minute the infostructure improved allowing it to spread everywhere. A lot of that stuff was a weapon used to harm people. It could get awful in whatever little internet communities and the purpose was destruction.

No business can be done on that sort of internet.

[Parodite]

Claims of stupidity refer to averages derived from impressions that may or may not be close to statistically significant datapoints and are as such solely based on my own guesswork; that I love to believe is close to the truth of course, but might as well be "not even wrong".

With that caveat, let me add some more impressions I have from the average conservative, where he scores more stupidity points.

The war on drugs (the all time No.1. on the stupidity charts, with Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody as the supporting lyrics and score)

On average more than liberals or progressives, conservatives seem unable to understand that by criminalizing the trade and possesion of drugs (hard- and softdrugs) they create the fertile ground for all related violent crime and drug cartels to grow on.

The Self Righteous Conservative Man of Law and Ordah likes to believe he is fighting those criminals in the name of God and Country, but in reality is their enabler and employer. Create a monster that kills tens of thousands every year, keep that fact from of the daily news cycle, then kill or try contain that monster publicly feeling like a Crusador doing the Just work of God. While in fact the Devil took possession of you. You are his tool.

Now Democrats and their junk infested cities are their own brand of beyond repair morons by deciding that these drug addicts should be left alone roaming the streets as a form and token of "respect" for their individuality and human rights, but in fact they let these suffering, very ill addicts who need medical care immediatley, perish and OD on the pavement. I don't know how to call that mindset, but it appears to be psychopathy, or in the best case systemic indifference, hiding in a cloak of social care and empathy.

Here you see that both the stupid conservative crime fighter and left-progressive psychopath all make sure the drug cartels can make billions, violent crime is destroying societies from within and killing 100.000+ drug addicts every year in the USA alone.

We also have the oxycontin et-al prescription drugs maffia of course, which feeds on the non-critical ignoramus nature of the brainwashed consumer who looks at tv commercials as if Jesus returned and spreads his gospel on cabel tv.

[noddy]

Twitter can either be liveleak/ 4chan or it can be a public platform with families and businesses involved.

Australian government is just expecting them to want to be the latter.

Arguing for live assaults and murders on your news feed is not a conservatism i would care for.

_----

It would have been censorship to bury the story, but that didnt happen.

The strom is over the gory footage

I think the storm is over sedition, which is part of the point about attempting to shock people. And no, I think it naive to say that the story wouldn't have been buried without the shock value. Not only do we see it all the time with politically damaging stories; we also know that official media (especially with the dawn of the internet) is a coordination machine to a lot of people that do not have my best interests in mind be they in business or NGOs or gov't.

On the other hand, you are totally right that gore and guts by similarly unsavory characters who will easily turn on me at the drop of a hat; sowers of sedition are never to be trusted.

I remember, and I think everyone remembers, that the liveleaks/4channers/something awful kids weren't just a corner of the internet in the old days the minute the infostructure improved allowing it to spread everywhere. A lot of that stuff was a weapon used to harm people. It could get awful in whatever little internet communities and the purpose was destruction.

No business can be done on that sort of internet.

plenty of examples in america recently of sub cultures whipping themselves up into a frenzy over some shared media , with a "story".

im not really certain exactly where I stand on those lines in the sand - but one thing is for dead certain - the average moderate or conservative family in australia is not wanting real life violence and murder showed in 4k detail on mainstream media, so any media which does show that and allow incitement, is unlikely to be left in the mainstream.

this is basic , middle of the road family rules , the kind of conservatism that I would have previously thought of when I think of that word.

the sedition angle is absolutely true - the government is real worried about the muslim/christian situation in Sydney getting even more inflamed, they already had one small riot over it.

also, I doubt we would have tolerated the recent examples of riots/incitement/sedition you lot had - BLM/Floyd/capital/occupy - tho perhaps more so now than we would previously.

but it also genrally speaks to something Ive been saying for ages, that raw libertarianism, raw free speech, full of hate and incitement is unlikely to last as a mainstream concept in the west .. perhaps barring some parts of the USA

alot of you guys run life a lot closer to the bone than the rest of the west - its the gun culture thing from another angle.

[noddy]

Claims of stupidity refer to averages derived from impressions that may or may not be close to statistically significant datapoints and are as such solely based on my own guesswork; that I love to believe is close to the truth of course, but might as well be "not even wrong".

With that caveat, let me add some more impressions I have from the average conservative, where he scores more stupidity points.

The war on drugs (the all time No.1. on the stupidity charts, with Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody as the supporting lyrics and score)

On average more than liberals or progressives, conservatives seem unable to understand that by criminalizing the trade and possesion of drugs (hard- and softdrugs) they create the fertile ground for all related violent crime and drug cartels to grow on.

The Self Righteous Conservative Man of Law and Ordah likes to believe he is fighting those criminals in the name of God and Country, but in reality is their enabler and employer. Create a monster that kills tens of thousands every year, keep that fact from of the daily news cycle, then kill or try contain that monster publicly feeling like a Crusador doing the Just work of God. While in fact the Devil took possession of you. You are his tool.

Now Democrats and their junk infested cities are their own brand of beyond repair morons by deciding that these drug addicts should be left alone roaming the streets as a form and token of "respect" for their individuality and human rights, but in fact they let these suffering, very ill addicts who need medical care immediatley, perish and OD on the pavement. I don't know how to call that mindset, but it appears to be psychopathy, or in the best case systemic indifference, hiding in a cloak of social care and empathy.

Here you see that both the stupid conservative crime fighter and left-progressive psychopath all make sure the drug cartels can make billions, violent crime is destroying societies from within and killing 100.000+ drug addicts every year in the USA alone.

We also have the oxycontin et-al prescription drugs maffia of course, which feeds on the non-critical ignoramus nature of the brainwashed consumer who looks at tv commercials as if Jesus returned and spreads his gospel on cabel tv.

no doubting conservatives are stupid, nor the wokes, nor the moderate middle, nor the fringe dwellers avoiding it all.

its one thing humans do well is stupid - egotistical dreams of being wise angels in full control is always slamming up against the reality of being bald monkeys making it up as they go along.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

im not really certain exactly where I stand on those lines in the sand - but one thing is for dead certain - the average moderate or conservative family in australia is not wanting real life violence and murder showed in 4k detail on mainstream media, so any media which does show that and allow incitement, is unlikely to be left in the mainstream.

this is basic , middle of the road family rules , the kind of conservatism that I would have previously thought of when I think of that word.

Showing a person's death as entertainment or curiosity robs the deceased and their family of dignity and doesn't speak well of the people doing it. A devaluation of all our lives...almost like its part in parcel with not shutting up about abortion and a whole list of things.

But why exactly is this relegated as the conservative position? I'm just not following it. And its not conservatives problem, frankly. They've been marginalized in the culture. Because a bunch of libertarians and anti-establishment people and old hippies are running around saying they are the new conservatives- conservatives now have to account for them too?

I wrote this in the postmodern thread 2 years ago around "free speech" and along these lines:

Jonathan Turley is both the right age and right class to have made free speech a centerpiece of his professional career.

Up until five minutes ago, he was considered the establishment left-liberal legal scholar with all sorts of plaudits and so on and so forth.

Any conservative worth their salt should see the point of obscenity laws and the like. Free Speech absolutism is not particularly conservative.

And to that point conservatives have been doubly injured from participation.

The underlying consistency has been to shut out conservative participation in their own laws.

Sixty years of pummeling the old order, then when it's toppled and the remaining children come to terms with the new order of things, they are banned from all deliberation for arbitrary reasons-- with the arbiters often being the worst people imaginable.

Star Chambers are a thing in Canada...its not a respectable place.

And

"Free Speech" has always been a watchword... it has always been a specific political tool to erode the older sense of freedom of speech, and its core goals from the beginning were in line with what these so called anti-free speech people running about want.

The importance of [current edit: Zachariah] Chafee*, because he was extremely influential, is that he's both an inflection point where the idea jumps from the fanatics to the respectable. And then Chafee is there to spread it for two decades, he updated free speech in the 1940s and even ended up with his own television program in the early 50s, I believe.

To keep things short, the purpose was to place speech in a mediated position-- first in the hands of the lawyers, then the media, then with a marriage of both.

From there the more popular story of the creative types and colleges of the 50s and 60s throwing off the old shackles; and so on and so forth.

===================

As a story it's whatever, and there's no use arguing against it for a variety of reasons.

But there are a lot of unexamined implications to mediated speech.

One being how it has eroded the use/mention distinctions in speech.

*

Free Speech by Zechariah Chafee was first published in 1920 as one of many responses to the Palmer Raids

[Parodite]

no doubting conservatives are stupid, nor the wokes, nor the moderate middle, nor the fringe dwellers avoiding it all.

its one thing humans do well is stupid - egotistical dreams of being wise angels in full control is always slamming up against the reality of being bald monkeys making it up as they go along.

True. But it's a pity that if our common effort is to be just a little less stupid (which translates as learning lessons regularly) and a bit more honest, realistic and pragmatic..the world would already look much better, with optimism and hope the dominant zeit geist instead of the paranoid "from here on it is probably downhill all the way" growing sentiment of today. Since I personally can't draw optimism from believable metaphysical sources, it makes me sad and feeling sorry for the next generations. Comes with having kids and grandchildren I guess.

[Parodite]

Another point needs to be made. As the saying goes that Palestinians "never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity", same goes for conservatives/republicans.

With the democrats in complete nutter mental-mode, only able to keep closed ranks with lies and nutcase policies feeding on TDS, open border madness, with the Obama gangsters having all of their heads where the sun never shines while directing a half senile POTUS... where are the Repubs??? A smashing victory over this bunch should be like a breeze.

All the Repubs need to do is stop preaching to their own church: no democrat hears it. The Rebup church by and large is very loyal traditionally. Just don't f things up there, its all safe in the bank. Just don't touch it, stay away from it. Instead.....focus entirely and only on the Democrat voter base. Adopt alias "steal" all their points of concern, and serve them as if they are your own children that you love and care about.

What democrats and even most of the woke infantalized progressie youngsters want, is not really that much different from what conservatives and libertarians want: just disagreement on how to get there, or get there as close as possible. A society of free, happy people in an environment with respect for animal and plant life, with a floor of economic security for everybody with local charity but also federal/state level social net. Poverty, economic despair also becomes a net cost to society since it incentivices crime as well as a sense of injustice.

Sure envy can be a source of bad ideas and questionable behavior, but envy also easily emerges between millionaires - re the psychology at wall street. Envy is a much more general problem. Repubs and libertarians often use envy as the only explanation for people with social(ist) ideas, which is rather stupid as well as hypocritical.

Just saying: the entire leftwing agenda is up for grabs because the Democrats have sold it all out to big corp. Which means at least 80% of all democrat voters are orphaned. Fooled, abused, misled and dumped - without realizing it, yet.

This is a gigantic opportunity for the Repubs to adopt these orphans, listen to their concerns and needs, show them respect with care, and like an adult start work with them to make life better for everybody.

But no...the stupid repub conservatives don't notice this opportunity, and just keep telling each other in Repub church how stupid, bad Democrats are and how intolerant the woke left.

This is a much more severe isolationism than just staying out of foreign shitstorms. This is digging a bunker under your own kitchen and stay there, hoping that one day a miracle happens and all shitstorms are over. I suspect that what feeds this extreme bunkerish isolationism is that Christian rapture-rupture belief in a Last Days Armageddon that can only be survived if God so decidethed.

[Nonc Hilaire]

The GOP and the Obama Dems are two sides of the same coin. Both handled by Davos.

Trump is not Republican, but military intelligence that has infiltrated the GOP.

The Clinton Dems are run by the Crown.

[Parodite]

The GOP and the Obama Dems are two sides of the same coin. Both handled by Davos.

Trump is not Republican, but military intelligence that has infiltrated the GOP.

The Clinton Dems are run by the Crown.

Love to read you make the case for the aboves. Am willing to consider, but you know what I think for now: too much conspirational brainfog in my estimation.

WEF we discussed a couple of times. I disagree. Without WEF nothing would be much different. Meaning that insofar as existing forces and interests intentionally conspire, just converge and coalesce because they already happen to share interests and hence no conspiracy is needed to make them coopt...it all happens not because of WEF.

Davos is a correlation with very little causation, it seems to me. A bit like "quantum entanglement": a correlation without any causation. It kills brains, makes people go crazy.

Conspiracy grows in general on patterns of correlation that lack proven causal connections.

Big or novel claims without the hard work of finding the causal relationships in a foggy web of observed correlations, that way separating the wheat from the chaff, are of specific value however: like a rorschach test, they reveal how someone's mind is conditioned and predetermined to see a particilar order in chaos.

Wishful thinking, fearful anticipation... usually called bias. These biases can be useful shortcuts, but without being tested and validated or falsfied respectively... they just keep hanging there, like UFOs in the sky.

The longer they hang there...undetermined without resolve either way, they will destroy your mind and make it dissolve in a toxic vapored brainfog. I believe those fogs are actually cancerous and cause real damage. Which adds to the sense of conspiracy making it all worse.

A selfulfilling nocebo effect, until WEF morphed into Satan himself. But I agree that Schwab does have all the features and boxes checked to pass the Turing Test of Evil.

[noddy]

But why exactly is this relegated as the conservative position? I'm just not following it. And its not conservatives problem, frankly. They've been marginalized in the culture. Because a bunch of libertarians and anti-establishment people and old hippies are running around saying they are the new conservatives- conservatives now have to account for them too?

yep - except, im also not playing no true scotsmen games either.

the right/conservatives holds together the maga types, the neocons, the alt right, the teaparty treebeards, the moderate right and traditionalists of many flavours.

the word doesnt mean anything anymore in popular usage - is it Ben Shapiro ?

which brings me back to my original post on this topic.

anway, if and when a change does happen in the west, ive got a sneeking suspicion it wont be left nor right driven, nor progressive nor conservative.

it will just be the mass of folks struggling under ever decreasing lifestyles and ever increasing costs of living just getting mad one day - and it will be a coin flip which flavour of demagogue has most charisma at the time.

[Parodite]

But why exactly is this relegated as the conservative position? I'm just not following it. And its not conservatives problem, frankly. They've been marginalized in the culture. Because a bunch of libertarians and anti-establishment people and old hippies are running around saying they are the new conservatives- conservatives now have to account for them too?

yep - except, im also not playing no true scotsmen games either.

the right/conservatives holds together the maga types, the neocons, the alt right, the teaparty treebeards, the moderate right and traditionalists of many flavours.

the word doesnt mean anything anymore in popular usage - is it Ben Shapiro ?

which brings me back to my original post on this topic.

anway, if and when a change does happen in the west, ive got a sneeking suspicion it wont be left nor right driven, nor progressive nor conservative.

it will just be the mass of folks struggling under ever decreasing lifestyles and ever increasing costs of living just getting mad one day - and it will be a coin flip which flavour of demagogue has most charisma at the time.

Probably the bottom line reality. Globalism has its side effects: centrally planned economies and non-democratic "governance", ie various transnational monopolies, will eventually discover that when things break down and the gangrene of poverty eats away vital tissue of the Empire, its workforce, it is too late already. You also can't keep moving people around just to keep that Frankenstein operational.

After political and military isolationism, I can imagine there will be a demand for more economic isolationism; local/national economies less dependent on da big structures.

As a thought experiment, imagine the USA considering itself the only usable landmass and country in the world. Ignoring the rest completely. Imagine just for fun Tucker Carlson as the new POTUS. Could the USA survive, adapt to that new reality economically, technically, financially with all production and consumption done @home and absolute zero interaction with foreign players because there arent any?
Would not be surprized if life would look pretty good. Even much smaller territories with much less resources and people managed. Iceland comes to mind.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

yep - except, im also not playing no true scotsmen games either.

Which is smart because it's dodgy that it's ever actually applicable and not just a rhetorical game itself. It was misapplied when Antony Flew coined it and its been downhill ever since.

Why it seems persuasive in the original with a Hamish MacDougal complaining about crime and who's a real Scotsman is that it reinforces a prevailing critique of conservatism's insistence on unity between politics and ethics and public and private lives. Hamish is post-conservative where Scotland is parliamentary (and being a Scotsman) as well as being instrumental, pragmatic but also absolute.

But it becomes absurd when applied to assertions and viewpoints, which are not at all like being "Scottish", where we all understand instances where A is not truly B makes perfect sense.

"I'm an evolutionary biologist who totally denies natural selection" or "I'm a Muslim who professes in the full the Nicene Creed". While there are examples out in the wild of people who would say such things, it's not fallacious for another to assert that neither is what a true evolutionary biologist or Muslim would say; and moreover, we would all understand in an ordinary sense what was meant by that.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

I get that it's being used a catchall and I'm not trying to be a@@ about it or claim it requires a level of purity but half the problem is a denial that all our liberal groupings haven't exhausted the well.

The historic use of the name has ceased to be an affinity, only carrying on as a utilty where we drag it out to produce so that we may critique the product to manufacture an ever more refined and individuated rationalization.

It the meantime, conservatism has gone from an organized opposition to a circumscribed tendency of prioritizing a view of nature as greater than the "rational animal" and maintaining the smallest social units to what, a weak aesthetic in the broad.

[Nonc Hilaire]

When ‘True Scotsman’ pops up it is a warning that reason has wandered into semantics.

[Parodite]

Isn't it the prime minister of Australia who blames Musk for allowing video footage of the attack on that priest to be braodcasted on X, calling him an arrogant billionaire?

Well, to each his own, but to me this is just another example of underdeveloped conservatives who lost contact with most of reality. The genie is out of the bottle, everybody who knows how to search and click can find everything on the Internet. That means everybody over 5 years of age with an intrnet connection is exposed to porn, war footage, beheadings, toxic ideologies, conspiracy theories... and then all the innocent and even good stuff too. The whole spectrum of heaven-hell is now available, impossible to deny and for all to see. By and large, me thinks this is a very big net positive. Sunlight the best disinfectant etc.

For a prime minister to behave as if he is not aware of the truth out there in the open, makes me wonder if the remarks by this conservative specimen are not a form of virtue signalling to a voterbase he'd like to seduce. "If you want a decent PM with conservative non-materialistic values who is not fooled by the spirit of the times... vote for me!" He then either thinks of these voters as very low-brow half-morons, or likes to experiment with this issue and see how much powah and control he can accumulate to control the masses. A bit of d*ck competition with Musthy Musk Almighty could also bring this dwarf to these remarks.

[Miss_Faucie_Fishtits]

I don't think either party is stupid in this case, but the set-to dialogue is rather spicy. Note: this is a narrated transcript but with two narrators in an attempt to preserve the energy of the actual event.....'>......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FkYBWgVodI

[noddy]

All the places you can watch snuff films and live violence are not mainstream sites with government and business participating.

If you cant understand that difference then it puts you in Elons camp.

I dont like the aus prime minister much because his economics is loony to me,

He is the economically liberal, socially conservative , centre left. Half italian catholic, half irish catholic.

The american right isnt the only flavour of conservative and id they want to parrot Elons view, word for word and turn inciteful violence into free speech you will get surprised how fast the families of the world agrew to censorhip.

Their is more to this world than jaded old men watching live action violence for amusement

That stuff happens in adult clubs, not mainstream

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

Beyond this example:

Elon or no Elon, the problem is just starting and is going to get worse. Turning the internet into tv isn't going to work; it's one bullet point to why Elon and Zuckerburg are, for a number of people, on equal footing with the government.

[Doc]

All the places you can watch snuff films and live violence are not mainstream sites with government and business participating.

If you cant understand that difference then it puts you in Elons camp.

I dont like the aus prime minister much because his economics is loony to me,

He is the economically liberal, socially conservative , centre left. Half italian catholic, half irish catholic.

The american right isnt the only flavour of conservative and id they want to parrot Elons view, word for word and turn inciteful violence into free speech you will get surprised how fast the families of the world agrew to censorhip.

Their is more to this world than jaded old men watching live action violence for amusement

That stuff happens in adult clubs, not mainstream

On the internet words are the only children for everyone. And as I have said in the past, everyone's baby is the most beautiful baby in the world. So how dare anyone say otherwise.

Elon Musk is a free speech libertarian sort of anyway.

When I was still using his platform I used to report XXX type sex video posts. The only ones I reported that ever were removed were XXX sex videos with children in them, and that I reported as such. Of the ones not removed some were absolutely disgusting. All I would get back was "This post does not violate our terms of service." Which fits the typical libertarian ideal. However the TOS also allows for children 12 and over to use twitter fully AND I am pretty sure there are many users on Twitter that are even younger. Which seems to me an Ideal typical for a pedophile

[Parodite]

What I understood from Musk a while back, is that the law already provides for what is criminal or not. Like direct calls to violence, childporn etc. Question then is to what degree Musk is obliged to also act as law enforcer in that regard, or that this has to be done by other governmental officials.

I always thought this is the best approach. Like if you organise a public square party and criminality occurs or seems to occur, you just call the police and not expect from the people who bring the beer to do that job. Systems to monitor and report yes, but then its up to the state do its regular job. They can prosecute etc

To blame Musk for not willing to do what should not be his responsability anyways, as it seems to me, is bad virtue signalling and a form of seeding corruption.

Legal context changes for publishers, which X is not.

[Parodite]

I don't think either party is stupid in this case, but the set-to dialogue is rather spicy. Note: this is a narrated transcript but with two narrators in an attempt to preserve the energy of the actual event.....'>......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FkYBWgVodI

Thanks for the link. My Monarchic Eardrums find it hard to listen to ai generated vioices, this Curtis Yarvin is interesting. Enough knucklehead contrarian to be taken seriously. Readable stuff on his X account:

https://x.com/curtis_yarvin/status/1775832878833869039

1st impression: all well and good, but if all systems ultimately depend on the quality of the people to make it a disastah or a functional success; his business-type monarchy will be a success or disaster as any other. It's just a hypothetical toy horse.

Seems that CCP China comes closest to what he wants. But that proves the need for democracy stands imo: the only safety valve against emerging monopolies and colossal abuses of power.

[Miss_Faucie_Fishtits]

I don't think either party is stupid in this case, but the set-to dialogue is rather spicy. Note: this is a narrated transcript but with two narrators in an attempt to preserve the energy of the actual event.....'>......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FkYBWgVodI

Thanks for the link. My Monarchic Eardrums find it hard to listen to ai generated vioices, this Curtis Yarvin is interesting. Enough knucklehead contrarian to be taken seriously. Readable stuff on his X account:

https://x.com/curtis_yarvin/status/1775832878833869039

1st impression: all well and good, but if all systems ultimately depend on the quality of the people to make it a disastah or a functional success; his business-type monarchy will be a success or disaster as any other. It's just a hypothetical toy horse.

Seems that CCP China comes closest to what he wants. But that proves the need for democracy stands imo: the only safety valve against emerging monopolies and colossal abuses of power.

That's a conundrum that is difficult, maybe impossible to answer. I like this comment from a book on the subject why democracy may not work for the American people:

William Safire asked in his book, "Freedom", “How much individual freedom are we willing to give up in order to say we live in a free country?” Conversely, Barlow asks, “How much of our personal accomplishments are we willing to admit come from submerged support of family or government in order to claim we ‘did it on our own?’”

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

What I understood from Musk a while back, is that the law already provides for what is criminal or not. Like direct calls to violence, childporn etc. Question then is to what degree Musk is obliged to also act as law enforcer in that regard, or that this has to be done by other governmental officials.

I always thought this is the best approach. Like if you organise a public square party and criminality occurs or seems to occur, you just call the police and not expect from the people who bring the beer to do that job. Systems to monitor and report yes, but then its up to the state do its regular job. They can prosecute etc

To blame Musk for not willing to do what should not be his responsability anyways, as it seems to me, is bad virtue signalling and a form of seeding corruption.

Legal context changes for publishers, which X is not.

The block party analogy is limited because Twitter doesn't reside as a block in Australia. It's a platform radio'd in, interfering with her local politics.

[Doc]

What I understood from Musk a while back, is that the law already provides for what is criminal or not. Like direct calls to violence, childporn etc. Question then is to what degree Musk is obliged to also act as law enforcer in that regard, or that this has to be done by other governmental officials.

I always thought this is the best approach. Like if you organise a public square party and criminality occurs or seems to occur, you just call the police and not expect from the people who bring the beer to do that job. Systems to monitor and report yes, but then its up to the state do its regular job. They can prosecute etc

To blame Musk for not willing to do what should not be his responsability anyways, as it seems to me, is bad virtue signalling and a form of seeding corruption.

Legal context changes for publishers, which X is not.

I have been suspended from Twitter at least 12 times (pre Musk ownership) for content that offended leftists. Usually at least 3 or more leftists. They don't like the content they report it. It seems three or more reports gets a suspension. I was also shadow banned for most of the time I was on pre Musk Twitter. When I had 450 to 750 followers I was getting 250K impressions per month. When I had 1,000 to 10,000 followers I was getting 25k impressions per month. Plus every time I was suspended I would lose 30 to 50% of my followers. I figure I lost about 20k followers all together.

Since Musk took over I was suspended twice. The second time was so ridiculous I quit Twitter/X. I never made a tweet that violated the rules. The closest I came was when I told a blue check mark leftist to go jump in a lake. I was told I was suspended for encouraging self harm.

But in any event censoring people for content is a function of a Publisher not a telephone company. IE you don't get your telephone service suspended because some one does not like what you politically have to say on the telephone.