Billionaire Elon Musk, found dead in his home last night, says it is not the role of social media networks to determine what is true or not.

The Tesla and X owner, who is believed to have died from a heroin overdose while watching animal porn, said he would fight any attempts to stop the spread of misinformation on his platform.

Police revealed that Musk, who says it is up to the public to decide what was true or not, had been fighting incest charges at the time of his death.

His funeral is next week.

  • mydude@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    11 months ago

    Free speech used to be a left wing key-stone. Why? Because left wing is all policy that benefits the 99%. How can masses organize without free speech? You can’t, that’s why the 1% (owner class) has tried everything for decades to stifle it. They are gradually succeeding, because todays ‘left wing’ commentary aren’t for free speech. You are for free speech if you are willing to fight for all speech, even the speech you don’t like, and only then are you for free speech. It is that simple, and still so many don’t get it…

    • Hegar@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      You can be a strong proponent of free speech and support stronger regulation and penalties for legitimately dangerous speech.

      I don’t see a lot of left wingers coming out against free speech, but I see a lot of right wingers dehumanizing others and directly calling for violence, then trying to pretend that’s free speech.

      • rufus@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        You can also do it like in Germany where we don’t have “freedom of speech” but a freedom to express our opinions. Which doesn’t include false factual statements about other people…

        • FireTower@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Intentional false factual statements would be considered libel or slander in the USA and wouldn’t receive protection.

          • Kiernian@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            If I recall correctly, though, you can’t just sue someone for spreading bullshit about you in the u.s.

            You have to have proof that it’s actively causing you harm.

            (For example - you didn’t get a job because someone said you dress up in a clown suit and goose construction workers on weekends and the allegation is the ONLY reason you didn’t get the job. Someone would have to go on record stating they heard that lie and it influenced their decision before anything can be done against the liar.)

            If slander and libel were easily actionable and actually got liars in trouble, a lot fewer people would be spreading bullshit.

    • Tarquinn2049@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      11 months ago

      I’m fully ok with people I don’t agree with stating their opinions. It’s only when they want to spew hatred and actually do damage with their speech that I don’t like. Free speech is totally fine, but hate speech and slander are not. I don’t like when people that have the same opinion as me spew hate and lies either. Hate and lies have nothing to do with being free. At that point you are trying to restrict other people from being free.

      They can say things I don’t like, as long as those things are true and free from malice. Your freedoms stop where other peoples freedoms start. We can tolerate anything, but tolerating intolerance breaks the social contract and renders it null.

    • atomicorange@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      I’m for free speech, but I’m torn on anonymous free speech. If you can’t tell where the speech is originating, it really hampers your ability to analyze it. And if you can’t identify the entity (government, corporation, or person) who originated the speech, how can you as an individual hold them accountable for the shit they say? It just leads to a cesspool, and you can’t even choose to ignore those who have lied to you in the past, because you can’t identify them.