This is such an instructive story in how social media messes up discourse. Yes, fine-tuned shadow banning of stuff one does not like politically is BS (point taken, Musk). But promoting a bunch of randos with personal endorsement so they run important debates is also a very questionable service to democracy (see https://www.cip.uw.edu/2023/10/20/new-elites-twitter-x-most-...). Overreacting to some of the stuff that then floats to the top on the part of advertisers and commentators is again not right, but calling this reaction "blackmail" is probably a little over the top. So what have we learnt? Make time for reading paper books and sniffing the flowers sometimes maybe?
"[C]alling this reaction 'blackmail'" isn't "a little over the top," it's petulant and incoherent. The basic idea of blackmail is "I know a secret about you and I'll reveal it if you don't give me money."
Musk's present position is that he keeps saying and promoting repulsive stuff in public and so some advertisers prefer to stop supporting or being associated with his business. This isn't remotely like "blackmail": the repulsive stuff is all public to begin with.
The Sorkin guy said maybe advertisers don’t want to be associated with it, and he said “let’s see what the courts say“.
So he’s going to sue people for not advertising with him? How can anyone who says this kind of thing claim to believe in free markets, libertarianism or capitalism?
I'm not sure, but he could be referring to the case filed against Media Matters. In any case, you're right, nobody will be forced to come back and yelling the f-word after them will likely not persuade anyone either. I think Musk has principles, but they reliably go down the pipes when he's losing it, which seems to happen regularly.
True, but... personally, I've never been in the position of having 40 billion dollars vaporize because of my bad decisions. I like to think (or hope) that I would stick to my principles in such a situation, but I can't be sure I would...
40 billion is a ton in absolute terms but is only, I don't know, 1/7th his total wealth. Many people have had that kind of loss without turning into raving lunatics.
Correct, and the basic pattern persists: Someone in a larger group of people does something objectionable, and this is then attributed to one "side" in the debate (fundamental attribution error). This transgression of the "side" is then interpreted as being indicative of its intentions (ultimate attribution error). The imagined intention is then being fought with polemic and exaggerations. I'll stick with my flowers and I appreciate your correction.
No, you're as wrong as he is about blackmail. The links you cite show that.
There is no coercion. Your first wikipedia link says "[c]oercion involves compelling a party to act in an involuntary manner by the use of threats." Saying, effectively, "I no longer wish to be associated with you" is not a threat.
It's also not extortion. Your second link says "[e]xtortion is the practice of obtaining benefit (e.g., money or goods) through coercion."
Again, there is no coercion, and advertisers choosing not to advertise on his platform are not "attempting to gain benefit" at all. They are trying to avoid what they perceive as harm to themselves.
He is not "off by a hair," and neither are you. You're both miles away from even being able to see the ballpark.
> "I no longer wish to be associated with you" is not a threat.
Some people take this as a threat, because they believe they have a right to force you to listen to their opinions. To my eye, this belief is what caused Musk to buy Twitter in the first place. I think it’s breaking his brain that he still can’t get what he wants out of Twitter after spending $44 billion on it and reshaping it in his image. Must be tough.
If somebody walks past a shop and does not buy the wares on offer because they are offended by the horrible decor, I assume, under this definition, this will be called coercion in that that they 'coercing' the owner to change the decor?
