I was just using Vim when I popped over here and saw this. Sad day.

To change the direction of even a single industry would be a great achievement for any individual. But to change the direction of multiple industries? Thatâ(TM)s so rare as to defy belief. If this was written into a book you would think it was fiction. And of course he didnâ(TM)t personally invent the EV or space travel or internet commerce. That criticism is so misguided. The history of Tesla is well-known; Musk invested in an existing EV company and then ousted the founders. But what this criticism misses is that Musk saw the potential to change the world whereas the founders only saw an expensive toy for the rich. And not only did Musk have a vision to change the world he also managed to convince 1000s of engineers, designers, mechanics, to get behind his vision and implement it. Elon also sold the idea to the public and arguably thatâ(TM)s an even more impressive achievement. That is the rare quality that Elon Musk has which makes him so influential; the ability to lead. Itâ(TM)s so rare a quality that I can think of only a handful of people like him; Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, and Steve Jobs. These people also strode into existing industries, kicked over the tables, declared the status quo to be bunk and showed them the future. Watching the reaction of the car industry go from denial to acceptance has been so goddamn sweet. Especially on slashdot where most of the denizens are programmers or engineers, its easy to forget that your work means nothing if nobody uses it. The ability to see a vision for the future, bring several disciplines together to achieve that vision, give them direction and funding, and keep pushing until the vision is realised, too many people underestimate how difficult that is, how insanely rare that is, and how important it is to recognise and celebrate the few individuals who are capable of doing it.

At least as much if not more has been said about that by government officials

But I am not a government official and you accused me of holding that position, when in the very post you were replying to I had clearly stated the exact opposite position. As I said before, you are dishonest and you argue in bad faith.

I don't think there has been coercion of that sort.

Well thats because you are deaf dumb and blind. In this thread I have posted links to actual documented on record cases of government coercion. But you "dont think" and that is obvious in everything you have written

Not even a little bit.

Yes, very much so. Fascist governments start by taking over the newspapers and censoring any opinions that arent aligned with the government. I think the best example from recent history is from Serbia. If you dont know the details now is a good time to learn.

No one is talking about the government banning speech,

As I pointed out above, the government is coercing these tech-giants to de-platform and censor on the governments behalf. Recall that Zuckerberg was firmly on the side of zero censorship. Then the senate hauled his ass into congress, reminded him that section 230 could be revoked at a moments notice, and suddenly Zuckerberg is singing a different tune. And thats just one example. You would have to be deaf dumb and blind to not see the obvious coercion.

although your side of this stupid and dangerous dispute is certainly urging that the government compel speech,

I have already stated my opinion on Facebook censoring people. They can. They simply shouldnt. Nothing was said about the government compelling them to allow speech. The exact opposite in fact; the government is coercing them to censor. You are dishonest and arguing in bad faith.

Coward.

Idiot.

That guy who keeps trying to evade slashdots spam filters so he can spam every thread with ascii art swastikas is definitely having his opinion censored.

But if he posted his swastikas to a swastika appreciation thread on a swastika friendly forum, thats not spam so surely that would be ok under your rules. Apparently not because those sites keep getting censored too. Their web-hosting, their dns, their payment processors, all revoked, censored for having the wrong ideas. And although we can all agree that swastika posters are assholes, and their ideas are not just wrong but also repulsive, the problem is the censorship doesnt end there. People are being censored and deplatformed today for having the wrong opinions about far less extreme topics.

I assume I have a standing invitation to voice my opinion in your bedroom with a bullhorn at two in the morning then?

Somebody sharing the wrong opinion in a forum I dont read with people I dont know, is nothing at all like you in my bedroom with a bullhorn. The former is somebody being wrong - what they say. The latter is harassment - how they say it. The former is on-topic discussion in a public forum. The latter is unwanted intrusion into a private space. The former is legally protected speech that the government cant censor (so they get their tech-giants to de-platform it instead). The latter is illegal and the government can most definitely arrest you for harassment and breaking entering into my private bedroom.

In every meaningful sense - the method, the outcome, the legality, the consent - your analogy falls flat. They are nothing alike. They arent even on the same planet. That you even wrote your comment and thought it was a winning argument proves my earlier point.

If their speech is harmful, then any rational person would, at the absolute minimum seek to avoid enabling them in the slightest.

The same reasoning was used to ban religious speech in soviet Russia. And currently used by the Chinese to censor the Uyghur Muslims. In fact its the exact same reasoning used by every fascist in human history. "Those people have dangerous ideas so we are silencing them for the Public Good." And the citizens dutifully cheer and wave their little flags and agree that Bad people are Bad and their Bad ideas should be silenced, but quietly they pray they won't be next.

Removing spam is not even in the same ballpark as de-platforming people, banning their accounts, and censoring their words, all for nothing more than having the wrong opinion. It's disingenuous to even make the comparison. A person's opinion is not spam, no matter how wrong they are, no matter how stupid they are, they still should have the right to voice their opinion without being censored.

And how ridiculous that this weapon, formerly a favourite of the religious-right used primarily against the liberal-left, is now being wielded with glee by the liberal-left themselves. With the same apologists and the same justifications from 30 years ago. "We are just stopping the spread of dangerous ideas, the average person is foolish and needs our guidance, we know best what they need to hear." I have heard this all before.

Facebook is just trying to stop people abusing their service,

No, the article I linked to specifically refutes that talking point.