EFF is leaving X
eff.org699 points by gregsadetsky 3 hours ago
699 points by gregsadetsky 3 hours ago
My grandparents were pretty WASPy, conservative people who lived in northern Idaho. And they hated the white supremacist/neonazi groups up there with a burning passion. They were of an age to remember people going off to fight in Germany and Asia against that kind of ideology.
They would have been absolutely appalled and ashamed to see a business leader throwing those salutes and backing it up with talk of a "white homeland" and similar comments.
I find it deeply dismaying that people consider that "just politics" or that opposing it is "ideological". We can argue all day about the proper rate of corporate taxation or debate the best way to implement environmental regulations, and I will not consider you a bad person if you disagree with me. But the kind of crap coming out of that guy? That's beyond politics.
I live in Idaho I know loads of people and family who I would have bet would reject what is happening in today’s Republican Party but man was I wrong. With very few exceptions they gobble it up.
North Idaho specifically has been a hub for white power movements for a while: https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2024/mar/27/north-idaho-an...
Business leader? I think you meant senator: https://m.youtube.com/shorts/ZiZS_xApoM0
There’s a reason for why you are comparing still shots to the actual video of Musk saluting the crowd nazi style.
This is not the America I know and love. You must remember that Musk is a foreigner (South African, and did not immigrate as a child with his parents in pursuit of the American dream) as is Murdoch (Fox News). They are in the business of making profits here, and do not share our values. I despise both men, because they did not honor American values, and amplified a minority that does nto represent the America we all love
I'd suggest you dig a little deeper into American history. For example, "America First" isn't a new slogan. It's been used in its current sense for at least a century. Murdoch via Roger Ailes poured oil on the fire, but that was only possible because the sentiment already existed here and always has.
Unfortunately this is true. Around a year, or two years ago the WaPo (back before it was a total shill, yes it was still bad but... you know) had an article about how all the rhetoric from the far right in the US was almost, word for word, what was said a little more than 100 years ago. It was downright scary. Some part of the US has _always_ been that way. Maybe someone can find the article.
Seriously, our constitution was literally written to embolden a minority of slave owners and make sure that the people could not hold them accountable due to the structure of the government.
It was always a colonial white nationalist state and it took a civil war + second founding before people weren't treated as property. It then took nearly another 100 years before all peoples in this country could vote.
We're literally the first generation of Americans who grew up with nearly total emancipation + universal suffrage and we still have people fighting to bring back polling taxes and removing citizenship.
LOL
American values?
Manifest destiny? Trail of tears? Japanese internment camps? Madison Square Garden Nazi rallies in the 1930s?
I'd argue that at least 30% of Americans throughout history have been white supremacists. Heck, the country was founded by rebelling against the British, that amongst other measures (many to do with taxes) wanted to limit Western expansion against non White peoples.
Shouldn't like, half of Oklahoma - LEGALLY - belong to Native Americans? Based on treaties the US has signed.
Yeah Elon was my hero for a long time. He had a terafab announcement talk the other day and the concept is very exciting so I started watching it, but I just couldn’t get past the first five minutes because well… he’s a Nazi.
Yeah, similar situation for me. All the promises of an optimistic sci-fi future become hollow when one remembers that the person espousing them is openly and actively opposed to those optimistic ideals.
Even just the disingenuous boosting of obvious lies that are convenient to his worldview (claiming genuine curiosity), by a supposedly intelligent man, is gross enough.
[flagged]
I'm going to assume good faith on your part, and that you're ignorant of specific things Elon has said and done in support of white supremacy in general, and promoting antisemitism in particular.
A quick Google produces a pretty good summary: https://share.google/aimode/rL9lSxwPyJaxdFsap
There's also his history of obsessing about race, especially "preserving" the white race: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/feb/12/elon-musk...
Elon has frequently lied about George Soros paying activists, and espoused the "white replacement theory", which is that Jews are conspiring to "dilute" and replace the white population.
He has also platformed literal white supremacists on X -- at the same time he has silenced his own critics. If Elon isn't a literal Nazi, he supports ideologies that are 100% compatible with Nazism.
This is a controversial opinion, but I do think that there are objectively right and wrong sides of political ideologies.
At its core, there's nothing wrong with conservatism. Wanting to preserve traditional cultural and social values; the nuclear family with a father and mother figure; theology as the moral backbone—all of these are reasonable ideas. But somewhere along the way this got associated with xenophobia, racism, bigotry, intolerance, hatred, and all kinds of evil shit, which goes against even the teachings of their holy scriptures. How people can hold these conflicting viewpoints is beyond me. Either they're using this ideology as an excuse for their heinous thoughts and behavior, or they're intellectually incapable of introspection and critical thinking. Maybe both.
I'm moderately left leaning, and the extreme left has also undoubtedly lost the plot, but at least that side espouses tolerance, humanism, and some ideas that I find appealing but don't consider essential to humanity, such as secularism, skepticism, liberalism, etc. There are objectionable ideas on the left as well, but these are often a reaction to the intolerance of the other side, and rarely a product of the ideology itself. I do think this is needed to a certain extent, as complete tolerance is a weakness that opportunistic people will exploit (paradox of tolerance).
So to me it's clear that one side is on the right side of history, and the other one isn't. One is trying to move us towards a better future and well-being for everyone, while the other is sabotaging this to destroy and hoard riches for a few.
I'm still unable to process that people like Trump, Putin, Orbán, et al, are able to not only be successful, but to accumulate unimaginable wealth and power. It's not only that I disagree with their politics. It's that I'm baffled by the fact that we put people like this in power, and that the majority are unable to see the harm they're doing to the world, only so that they can enrich themselves and their very close inner circle. These are signs that humanity is still held back by some deeply rooted social traits which I'm not sure we'll be able to overcome before it's too late. Part of me is also disturbed by the negative role technology is playing in all of this, yet we're all entranced by its appeal to do anything about it.
One of the five fundamental pillars of conservative thought, as phrased by wikipedia (which is itself merely paraphrasing Russel Kirk, a foundational of post-war American conservativatism), is:
> A conviction that society requires orders and classes that emphasize natural distinctions.
Racism and bigotry are not errant additions to conservatism, they're a logical extension of one of its foundational pillars. (Though that is not to say that the left is not without its racism in bigotry as well, it's just less of a natural fit)
[flagged]
Anyone who doesn't think what Musk did was a Nazi salute, I encourage you to watch the video over and over, enough times so that you can memorize and replicate it, then go into work and do it in front of your manager, and see what happens.
Of course, as expected, the Elon Musk Defense League showed up right on time. Does he give out $100 for every post defending his honor online?
he literally paraphrased the 14 words after doing it
"It is thanks to you that the future of civilization is assured."
it's an absolute joke anyone disputes what he did
It's even clearer if you put it next to a clip of Hitler.
https://www.reddit.com/r/gifs/comments/1i6par1/elon_musk_vs_...
100% agree, for anyone that hasn't seen the clip, saved you some time googling:
https://www.foxnews.com/media/elon-musk-cory-booker-made-sim...
"Oh, I must have missed seeing you at the corporate retreat! Put yourself on my calendar so we can talk about your promotion."
I think there are better things to focus on about Elon Musk, like his role in getting Trump elected, the misinfo tweets he reposts with "Exactly" and "Concerning" (where the top community note trivially debunks the tweet -- he doesn't care whether it's real), making a stink about the Epstein files until he was cool with Trump again, promoting right-wing slop like Gunther Eagleman, changing Twitter in general like how you can freely say the n-word now, how he went about DOGE, what he promotes vs what he's silent on.
But I've yet to see someone show video of a prominent democrat doing the same salute as Musk. Which is probably why it's left as an exercise for the reader to find.
That said, we don't need to speculate about his salute when you can look directly at the slop he posts on Twitter.
[flagged]
“If you ignore the ways they’re different, they’re the same”
Those are different gestures. Musk is clearly forcefully throwing out his harm, mimicking the Nazi salute. Booker is moving his arm from his chest to a waving motion, using two hands instead of one at some points.
I guess we're at "it's your fault for having eyes" part of the defense of the action.
It seemed pretty blatant to me if you watch the whole video, the chest pound and the clear arm/hand extension really makes it difficult to see as anything else.
It was distinctly different from the stills of other politicians waving that often get used as comparison by trolls trying to defend it... when you compare videos the difference is not even questionable.
[flagged]
They are very demonstrably not making the same movement and I strongly feel like it would take someone trying to reason backwards from a predetermined conclusion to see this
[flagged]
(better comparison)
https://redstate.com/bobhoge/2026/01/02/hypocrisy-on-full-di...
They are not "exactly" the same. There's a symbolic reason you keep your hand flat, rigid, and parallel to the arm, in a salute.
I find it hard it hard to believe anyone apart from you would see this as remotely the same thing.
My friend, please reflect on who in this exchange might be easily manipulated by clips on the internet.
Only one of the individuals in this comparison has a Wikipedia page dedicated to the event and coverage of it.
When have they done that?
Also, when have they joked about it being a Nazi salute after the fact like Elon Musk did? https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1882406209187409976
>What about when Zohran Mamdani or AOC or Kamala makes the EXACT SAME MOTION?
If they did, they'd make international news for the same reason.
They did not. A freeze frame of someone waving their hand ain't remotely close to the specific "from my heart to the stars" gesture that Elon Musk did twice in a row.
Which doesn't even matter as much as his long, established history of pushing white-supremacist views, supporting white supremacist movements, and using neo-nazi dog whistles (like posting 14 flag emojis at 14:14PM EST).
Personal question: are you a bot?
[flagged]
Your comment on vagueness misses its mark.
> business leader throwing those salutes and backing it up with talk of a "white homeland"
It is not every commenter's duty to cite their sources when you have the ability to easily infer the context and search the internet. These are very well documented actions that they refer to. Your attempts to drive sentiment through casting doubt are noticed.
>What do you mean _exactly_? Covering your statement is a shroud of vagueness doesn’t help form an opinion, only infuse more polarisation
Oh come on. Everyone who's been paying attention enough to warrant having opinions on the subject knows what the reference is to.
But if you just came out of a cryogenic freeze, they're talking about:
1. Elon Musk appearing to be giving a Nazi salute at Trump's inauguration [1]
2. Elon Musk espousing and propagating white supremacist views nearly on a daily basis[2]
3. Elon Musk openly supporting borderline Neo-Nazi[3][4] German AfD party[5]
4. Elon Musk promulgating the myth of "white genocide"[6]
I guess if you somehow missed all of that over the past few years, you wouldn't know what the parent comment is about.
But in that case, you shouldn't be taking a part in this conversation, or opining about what would "infuse[sic] more polarisation".
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VfYjPzj1Xw
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/feb/12/elon-musk...
[3] https://www.tpr.org/podcast/the-source/2024-07-31/frontline-...
[4] https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/dangerous-liais...
[5] https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/25/europe/elon-musk-germany-afd-...
[6] https://www.bbc.com/audio/play/p0lhfn68
[3]
[flagged]
He's most definitely talking about a white homeland [1][2]
[1] https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1962406618886492245 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remigration
"Whites are under threat" + "immigrants are bad" ~= white homeland. Strip away the name and his posts could be any generic white supremacist.
Here it is:
https://xcancel.com/elonmusk/status/2030202550259962338
That's just disgusting stuff. Gutter white nationalism.
I can't believe you're making me defend Tucker Carlson of all people, but he's pointing out that races should be treated equally. (Apparently in response to someone's statement he considered racist? I don't know or care enough to find out.)
But at least I see where you're making the connection to the phrase "white homeland" even though neither of the people involved are calling for that. Thanks for the link.
[flagged]
I personally am not interested in the bigots of previous generations making those decisions any more than I want contemporary ones to.
> Not sure their ideology was such a win.
South Africa's transition away from being a nuclear apartheid state was an objective win for everyone, everywhere.
[flagged]
> It's grossly unfair to conflate white nationalism and white supremacy
No, it isn't. It's a distinction without a difference.
I know exactly how my grandparents would've reacted because I've seen it first-hand, and it's ugly and carries precisely zero validity. It's not to be emulated any more than someone who was born in 1850's skepticism towards automobiles and airplanes is.
You can call it white nationalism if you like but you are spouting the exact same talking points as white supremacists, you just prefer to buy it under a different brand.
This feels like the "technically it's hebephilia" argument in that drawing the distinction just makes your argument weaker for regular people.
> It's grossly unfair to conflate white nationalism and white supremacy. Your grandparents lived in a state that was close to 100% european descent
Why do you think that makes a difference?
Hint: white supremacy (believing whites are superior).
As someone who is so white they glow in the dark, no. They are exactly the same.
You don't speak for me, and I find you embarrassing.
What exactly would happen according to you? The state in question got more Mexicans or South Americans which are also descendants of European colonists? Almost every American have European heritage. In my opinion this doesn't make much sense for Americans.
What exactly means to be culturally white in US?
You can be racist and still hate fascism and Nazis.
Everyone should hate fascism and Nazis.
Just like how the "antifascists" who stormed the beaches of Normandy would support the "antifascists" of today! "my grandpa was antifa!!"
It's grossly dishonest to conflate a complexion with an ethnicity. 'White' is a complexion, not a culture.
For most of the past five centuries, the people you're lumping into this thing called 'white' would've considered it fighting words to do so.
Part of the replacement is declaring white Americans don't have a culture. Would you say the same about black Americans?
There's no 'white' culture, there is modern North American culture and it's not something that belongs to a particular complexion. It's norms and traditions. These aren't remotely under threat of extinction from 'race mixing.'
The things that are under threat are the contemporary cultural values of openness and acceptance of other cultures/relgions/traits. These are truly valuable, positive aspects that stand out in contemporary American and European societies, and these are the things that are legitimately under threat, ironically, by those who attempt to normalize racism and xenophobia.
USA has a long history of erasing culture. If there is a lack of “white” culture it’s more the fault of other white people not “woke” culture. EVERYTIME there’s a new ethnic minority in USA they’re forced to assimilate through persecution and through the school systems.
White Americans descend from a number of cultures that voluntarily moved here and involve food that thinks pepper is spicy.
Slavers deliberately mixed different groups of kidnapped Africans so they had no shared language and sold their children so they couldn't pass anything on to the next generation.
We are not the same.
Politics is all-encompassing. You don’t get to declare your beliefs privileged and above contestation. We always have to fight these battles.
> I find it deeply dismaying that people consider that "just politics" or that opposing it is "ideological". We can argue all day about the proper rate of corporate taxation or debate the best way to implement environmental regulations, and I will not consider you a bad person if you disagree with me. But the kind of crap coming out of that guy? That's beyond politics.
Elon's behavior is truly disgraceful, but spouting dumb shit is not "beyond politics".
You wish to lead with "dumb shit" in framing why people have a problem with Elon Musk? Why not lead with the Nazi salute at the presidential podium? That would more quickly get to the point.
Nazi salutes are protected speech and not "beyond politics". Yes it's disgraceful, and it's reasonable to leave his platform. But it qualifies as "dumb shit".
I think the point is to distinguish ‘political opinions that I am comfortable disagreeing with people about, and can still be friendly with people who strongly disagree with me’ and ‘morally unacceptable opinions that I will neither listen to nor associate with anyone who hold them’.
There are many political opinions that I strongly believe in that I am comfortable disagreeing with people on. I believe everyone has a right to health care, and that society should guarantee basic necessities for everyone. I even feel that belief is a morality based belief. However, I can accept people disagreeing with me, and can accept that there are some strong arguments against my belief, and that good people can disagree with my position.
On the other hand, if someone believes that certain races should not have the same rights, or that women should be given less agency than men, I will not entertain that argument or accept that it is just a political dispute. That is a fundamental moral issue, and is beyond JUST politics.
Protected speech can be beyond politics. Politics doesn't subsume all protected speech.
We do not need help understanding why rhetoric like that is ugly.
My issue with comments like this is that they substitute moral sorting for understanding. Their main effect is to provoke disgust, identify the villain, and let readers affirm that they are on the right side. That emotional reaction is sincere.
It also shrinks the debate space for real understanding and real debate, because once a thread is framed that way, disagreement starts to look like sympathy and nuance starts to look like evasion. The tribalism kicks in and polarization continues.
The more useful discussion is what exactly is being signaled here, why it is being signaled now, who it is meant to reach, what norms it is testing, and what response that calls for.
Sorry, hard disagree. Bad faith entirely precludes debate because debate is about updating and improving a position through exchanges of views, and that starts with the ability and willingness to budge from said position in the first place.
Which incidentally means that there is by definition no debating tenants of a position that can't survive one minute of good faith review. They're not there to debate. They're there to drown out and silence a truth about material reality that they're upset about.
It's a useful comment because it reflects a lot of our experiences, including mine. It's more than disgust, it's also dismay, sadness, and (hopefully) a kind of grim determination to roll up your sleeves and address the problem. When systems were working well for 80 years then a group of people who have taken over those systems and made them break. It's not something you want to deal with. It was a solved problem, and it feels like a waste of time. Like a broken sewer system at your corporate hq.
What you're talking about is part of the "rolling up your sleeves" step. What motivated those people to break things for no apparent gain to themselves or the world? Usually it boils down to unmet emotional needs plus a charismatic, ambitious leader who amplifies and harnesses those emotions for personal power and profit. This is one possible, if unlikely, insight that might prevent some damage.
However 99% of the time people have to learn for themselves. This means letting them break these delicate systems and suffering the consequences. Then society learns their lesson for 2 or 3 generations, and forgets it again by the 4th generation. In some cases (Germany) they may have learned it for 5 or 6 generations, but they'll forget too.
There is no debate. He’s a Nazi and Nazis are bad. There’s nothing to debate.
Ultimately this approach is what's lead us to a progressively rising right wing.
If you refuse to engage in democratic systems you lose by default.
I'm still not sure why Harris didn't fight to appear on JRE.
Hilary Clinton made the same mistake. And the same mistakes are being made in Europe.
If we turn our back on the voting population you have to accept that someone else who reaches out to them gets their vote.
It’s helpful to me when the folks that believe there should be debate about literal Nazism speak up. The fact that they are among us and are at all levels of our society is concerning, and the fact they are comfortable speaking up is a sign we haven’t done enough to eradicate conditions that allow this ideology to thrive.
Well, all of these are politics and ideology. It's OK to have an ideological bent of some sort or other. You can indeed be highly intolerant of those who are intolerant in certain ways. You can hate certain kinds of hate. And you can call out greedy callous bastards wherever you see them. It's basically being discerning.
GP is saying neo-Nazis are "not just politics, but also something worse". You're not really disagreeing with them, maybe just missing their point about some ideologies being worthy of planned exclusion from a civilized society. Aka the paradox of tolerance. That's what makes some political stances "not just politics".
I find a lot of the paradox-ness goes away when one look at such arrangements a peace-treaties. (Or at least, it gets subsumed into a much broader set of dilemmas.)
Just because Country A "wants peace" doesn't mean they do nothing as Country B gets taken over by revanchists declaring the treaty evil and massing troops the borders.
I view this paradox as just an effect of poor framing. We should not look at it as “I am against intolerance/hatred/XYZ”, but “I want to minimize intolerance/hatred/XYZ.” The first focuses on local, case-by-case contexts, the latter in aggregate. Some XYZs, in some contexts, have properties that make them effective local tools to mitigate themselves in an aggregate context, which is probably a better candidate paradox here.
But since when did using a business's product come to require sharing (or not sharing) political views with the business's owner? Seems to me that this is what has changed.
PS. It's amazing to me, and worrying, the anger and vituperation this position is provoking. It was once almost consensus. To take the obvious parallel, buying a newspaper did not imply agreement with the reactionary press baron who owned it.
In the case of X, the business owner is aggressively pushing his political views on users by heavy-handed methods like prioritizing his own posts in algorithmic feeds and overriding the context of his AI bot to parrot his pet ideas.
If you went to a restaurant and it had Confederate flags and pro-slavery memorabilia on the walls, would you think: “Well, that’s just their political view, I don’t have to share it to eat here?”
> pushing his political views on users by heavy-handed methods like prioritizing his own posts in algorithmic feeds
He's also using his fame and fortune to much more directly fund and promote political change in places like the UK. It goes beyond this one service, but moving away from this service weakens his position more broadly as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sambo%27s
It was real, and even as a kid I knew it was wrong.
I will always remember fondly the story of "Little Black Sambo". I was at that point in childhood where judgement was not yet developed but I could appreciate a good story, especially if fantastic things happened. After all, I was a little boy like Sambo.
So I feared for Sambo when he encountered the tigers. I was elated when he eluded them by first racing around the tree and then climbing it. I was mystified how tigers running round and round a tree could turn to butter (but set that aside so I could continue the story and reduce my fearful suspense). I was relieved to see that Sambo was safe. I identified with Sambo (although I am neither black or brown).
Hoorah for the fantastic tales from many lands that filled my childhood and those of my brothers and sisters with wonder!
I am still a child when I read fairy tales and fables.
It's not the plot/story that are racist. It was the slurs and illustrations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Story_of_Little_Black_Samb...
For a long time I thought that was a fever dream from my childhood. Nope. I still can't quite believe that was real, but I personally remember it.
People have absolute freedom of expression.
"If you went to a restaurant and it had Confederate flags and pro-slavery memorabilia on the walls, would you think: “Well, that’s just their political view, I don’t have to share it to eat here?”
Yes? If you go to the southern part of the United States, there are many restaurants with Confederate memorabilia and Confederate flags on the back of truck windows.
Some trucks even have hairy testicles hanging off the hitch haha!
If people get gender-affirming care for their trucks, that's their own business, but no, no I will not eat in a place with a Confederate flag.
I find the idea of venerating an ideology that held that it was ok to hold human beings in bondage from the moment of their birth to their death to be abhorrent.
> People have absolute freedom of expression.
And that icludes not using x. And it includes criticising, mocking or talking about what x owner does.
> If you went to a restaurant and it had Confederate flags and pro-slavery memorabilia on the walls, would you think: “Well, that’s just their political view, I don’t have to share it to eat here?”
Even more so if it's not just a personal decision to get a bite to eat, but one taken by a lobbying organization about where to host events promoting speech rights, and the new owner is co-opting their language of speech rights to justify his policy of putting Conferedate flags behind the bar (whilst actually barring more people he doesn't like than the old owner as well as scaring off most of the people who supported the organizations mission and pasting KKK event ads flyers over the top of theirs). At some point continuing to hang out there and host events for ever diminishing numbers of people who mostly seem to reinterpret everything you say as screeds against 'woke' ceases to be a "politically neutral, pro-free speech" stance.
[flagged]
There are many studies that point toward the opposite, so I strongly suspect you're wrong.
Absolutely not. Today's Twitter is an absurd MAGA echo chamber. Here's Nate Silver with the receipts: https://www.natesilver.net/p/social-media-has-become-a-freak...
Are you that user that replaces all your comments with periods once enough people flag you?
In the past, most business owners would perhaps quietly donate to a party or candidates, but probably wouldn't hang their ideology out in front of people all day, every day. Think about someone like Warren Buffett. He has political views, but they are not something he's out there loudly airing on a huge platform.
And like I pointed out, these are not just any old "political views". It's extremist stuff that in the past would have gotten you ostracized. I'm old enough to remember Trent Lott losing his Senate leadership position, for instance.
Also, because of "network effects", simply providing content to Twitter makes the site more valuable.
This stuff sold well in the 20s and 30s and contributed to the initial wishy washy US response to the start of WW2. Imagine a priest way more influential than Rush Limbaugh rooting for the 3rd reich. Now imagine a rich Afrikaner who doesn't begrudge their precarious social standing.
Yes, but also much of this was due to Stalin/USSR having alliance/agreement with Germany on attacking Poland. Many/most? US leftists were pacifists until Hitler attacked the USSR.
There have always been business owners who shouted their ideology, and others who were quiet. You might remember some cases more than others, and some have had a louder voice than others, but both go way back.
Have there been any so brazen as Musk, who used his influence to infiltrate our government and usurp the congressional power of the purse directly and illegally?
It didn't used to be nearly as common for owners of midsize to large businesses to be loudly outspoken politically, especially those holding more extreme views. It used to be common sense to keep that sort of thing to oneself, if only to avert PR disaster. Not knowing when to shut up was more of a hallmark of the stereotypical two-bit owner of a crappy local business that perpetually struggled to grow.
This helped keep a neutral or at worst ambivalent image of these owners in the minds of the larger public and thus for the most part didn't factor into purchase decisions.
It's now easier than ever to see the true character of a business owner and so it's only natural that customers have begun to factor in this information in purchase/usage decisions.
I grew up the child of a small business owner in a small town, born in the late 70s. I was taught that a business owner would do well to keep their political views to themselves to prevent alienating their Customers.
It seems like that's the ideology that has changed.
I expect people to be different.
I don’t expect them to provide a platform for people who make it a point to hate others and advocate for removal of their / my rights and so on.
Why should I contribute to the wealth of a man who wants people like me dead? Why should I tolerate others who happily contribute to my own oppression?
X/twitter is a media company. choosing which media products to purchase based on political values is how it has always worked.
Choosing media producers based on their politics is how it always worked. Social networks are not producers of their content.
If I have trillions of monkeys on typewriters generating every possible combination of characters, and then from what they "produce" I carefully select what I want to show everyone who comes to my website, how responsible am I for what my visitors see?
No, but they decide the moderation policy that incentivizes the content produced (by nature of selecting which users feel comfortable using their product and which do not).
For example, I do not feel comfortable using the same platform as people that post child sexual abuse material. X's Grok is infamous for generating such content on demand. I opt to use platforms that do not have this as a first-class feature. X has selected against my participation and for the participations of people who hold a contrary opinion to me. Even if Grok stops producing CSAM, that selection bias will persist.
That's because they don't stay in their lane as business owner, but use the proceeds of that business (and a bunch of others) to influence world politics in a way that no single individual should ever be able to.
Well, part of the product is Elon's posts and his editorial choices that go into the algorithm. Also your example of the newspaper is also odd, because newspapers were and are well known to be influenced by their publishers and people very often will trash them if they have a contrary ideological bent
Do you believe that boycotting is a new behavior?
A long and storied history, the abolitionists used it pretty extensively well before it was named: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Boycott
It isn't strictly required and it hasn't changed; it's always been complicated and it's always been a balance. This isn't speculation or a hot take. Consumer boycotts are as old as the hills, so it's an observable fact that our relationship with firms and their politics has been complicated and negotiated for a very long time.
Regarding your later edit:
> PS. It's amazing to me, and worrying, the anger and vituperation this position is provoking. It was once almost consensus. To take the obvious parallel, buying a newspaper did not imply agreement with the reactionary press baron who owned it.
It really shouldn't surprise you that if you express something that's a bit of a hot take that you'll get a reaction to it. You shouldn't draw any more of an inference from it then "people are passionate about this and some of them disagree with me." Whether people do so amicably or not has at least as much to do with the problems with the Internet as a means of communication as the issue itself.
Regardless, this status quo you refer to was mostly imagined. How much pressure people exert to boycott some platform or another waxes and wanes, because the underlying disagreements wax and wane in relevance. That doesn't really make it a new thing, just a new phase in the same unfolding history.
That's why you refer to the era of yellow journalism - the past is not an undifferentiated mass where everyone held some set of values that have fallen from favor. To the people who were alive at the time, things were contentious and in flux and the future was uncertain.
We have a tendency to flatten the past and imagine it as a straightforward narrative where we necessarily arrived at where we are today because of the inevitable interaction of historical forces, and similarly to flatten the people who lived at the time as being caricatures who reliably held a certain set of values. But they disagreed with each other, viewed the future as up for grabs, and they changed their minds as history unfolded.
Im not sure where your sense of history is coming from. One of the US‘s founding events was a boycott of British goods for political reasons.
> To take the obvious parallel, buying a newspaper did not imply agreement
That ... does not hold at all. You wouldn't buy or subscribe to an openly Nazi paper unless you are a full blown white supremacist.
Probably around the same time as the Citizens United decision. Supporting a business with your money also means supporting the things they choose to spend that money on
First, as others have pointed out, it's always been like that up to a point. But that's not the problem with X.
I didn't leave X when Musk acquired Twitter, and I'm not scandalised by people's political positions, even when they're extreme. But a position and behaviour are two very different things (e.g. being a racist and making a Nazi salute on live television are very different things). I left when the atmosphere amplified by the site became... not for me. I won't go into a pub full of football hooligans not because I disagree with their club affiliation but because their conduct creates an atmosphere that's not for me.
As for newspapers (even ignoring those with political party affiliations, something that was common in newspapers' heyday), most of them preserved some kind of civil decorum, and those that didn't weren't read by those who wanted some decorum.
Also, there were always some people of influence that held extreme views. But such people behaving in an uncivilised manner in public was less common (and certainly less accepted).
Aptly, given Elon's ancestry, did the whole anti-apartheid movement simply pass you by?
Most people hold a set of political views, while also admitting a spectrum of competing views into their personal, financial, etc. lives. For the average person, doing business with a neo-Nazi (or someone who is "merely" neo-Nazi adjacent) exceeds that spectrum. This is eminently reasonable, and has not changed significantly in a long time.
There are plenty of business' products that I use where I'm unaware of if I share or don't share the owner's political views and I'm totally fine using them. Elon Musk has made it impossible to not be aware of his political views by constantly shoving it down our throats.
Not really. People have boycotted products for political and ideological motivations for a very long time. The change recently is that people stopped caring as much. [1]
No one would say they used "David Duke's Whites Only Car Wash" but "didn't support the owner's politics."
It's always amazing how much that kind of person will pretend not to get it, and whine about being a pariah.
The Body Shop was fairly vocal about animal testing and Ben and Jerrys was famous for their political messages on their products and that was in the 80s. And Levi Strauss and their LGBTQ+ support.
If you were not aware of it, it is not because it wasn't happening. Historically, excepting media companies, left leaning companies have always been outspoken about this while right leaning ones believed in the idea of focusing on business and avoiding overt political messaging.
So companies like Exxon were not broadcasting their views but were still lobbying government directly to change the laws in a way that benefit them (see deregulation).
Personally I left Twitter less because Musk owns it now, and more because Musk's changes turned my previously tolerable feed into a deluge of far right drivel. Expecting me to keep using it is like expecting me to keep shopping at a grocery store that replaced its bread aisle with a swastika-festooned exhibit glorifying the conquests and exploits of Hitler and his Nazis---even if I am generally apolitical, I will have to start shopping somewhere that sells bread.
Notwithstanding the above, given how powerful network effects are in social media, I think boycotting platforms operated by people like Musk (I struggle to find the words to fully encompass how repulsive he has become) is arguably one of the more effective forms of protest available to people, and I encourage them to exercise it.
You might investigate the origin of the term 'boycott.' It turns out that ostracizing someone's business for political reasons has a long and cherished history. Colt and S&W were targets because their owners cooperated with Clinton's gun control efforts. And to your point, there are plenty of examples of that: https://www.unz.com/print/SocialJustice-1939may22-00001/
When the business owner is in control over the algorithm that determines what you see on the product he owns.
>But since when did using a business's product come to require sharing (or not sharing) political views with the business's owner?
Since 18th century at the very least; see: anti-slavery sugar boycott[1].
That's if you absolutely ignore the parent's point that political views are things like specifics of policy, not whether some people should be considered subhuman.
>Seems to me that this is what has changed.
It seems so because you don't know history, and didn't do a one-minute Google search for history of successful boycotts.
The article I'm linking is in the "bite-sized" category.
Enjoy.
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z3rj7ty/revision/7
This question is a deflection and I suspect is intentionally disingenuous since it literally ignores the main point of the parent's comment.
In turn I would argue that this kind comment, i.e. an entirely unfalsifiable calumny, is a poisonous waste of space that would best be deleted by the moderator (along with the current one of course).
It's not like they are separate at all, the owner is very active on the site as both a user and a god-moderator.
It is the way they express those views.
I mean, there are a lot of conservatives I respect including Mitt Romney, Robert Nisbett, George Will, and Thomas Sowell. Then there are the jerks like William F. Buckley and David Horowitz. [1]
Then there is Musk who's below even them -- but I am not particularly offended by Hobby Lobby or Chicken-Fil-A.
[1] if you want to know the criteria I use take a look at this book https://www.amazon.com/Watch-Right-Conservative-Intellectual...
Social pressure has literally always existed. Nothing has changed lol.
And I wouldn't call white nationalism a "political" view, like it's some ordinary kind of opinion. That's sanewashing something disgusting and disgraceful. That type needs to get shoved back under the rock they crawled out from.
Musk’s account is the most engaged and followed account on Twitter. So Twitter is de facto his global soapbox.
(And most of the other top-engaged accounts are MAGA accounts: https://www.natesilver.net/p/social-media-has-become-a-freak...)
TWFKAT (the website formerly known as Twitter) is not a product, it's Elon Musk's safe space. He bought it to be his sandbox and to use it to soothe his constantly battered and fragile ego. His own personal clubhouse where he sets the rules, and he's the ultimate authority. You can join if you want to be a part of his cult of personality, but don't fool yourself that you're dealing with a "product" and a "business".
Nothing recent made me feel quite as old and out of the loop more as the slowness with which I realized that this is about x.com (Twitter), not x.org (the windowing system).
That too would very likely be seen as deeply political.
After reading about Wayland for 10 (?) years and thinking it was some huge deal, I finally took the leap as I was redoing my window manager anyway and it was quite easy (at least on NixOS). Heck virt-viewer (one of my main apps) is still running under Xwayland because the performance seems better.
10 years ago Wayland was in much worse state. It started being good in the last few years, though some features are still lacking.
Oh for sure. The point is the way I hear it talked about even today is as if it's going to be really great at some point in the future, but involves a lot of off-the-beaten-path tinkering if you want to use it right now. But there really wasn't much tinkering!
Honestly with "AI" helping a lot of the boring configuration tedium, I feel like I might finally reach the stage where I like my desktop environment config.
The only reason why I'm not running Wayland on my Framework laptop is that there's some really weird bug where it hardlocks the system, and after I force-reboot it, the audio chip doesn't come back up unless I drain or unplug the battery. X11 doesn't have this issue.
Of course, this was also several years ago, and it's possible the bug has been fixed. Maybe I should try Wayland again.
Whenever I see X used, I wonder if the author will return to replace the variable with the actual name.
I was thinking of X11 as well, but did not feel old - until I read your text. ;)
Probably more reasonable.
I'm not sure why xorg exists if their sole purpose is to kill x. As per the many posts by their developers.
It would be ironic if Xorg launched a twitter competitor using a custom update protocol (an X extension) over the network and TCL
knowing how xorg currently operates (it doesn't, it has a successor) it'd be a wayland protocol negotiated over dbus and mainly opposed by the GNOME people
I get really really tired at the back and forth with Wayland and all that, but I would put up with reading rants about windowing systems everyday if it meant I never had to think about this X again.
That statement pretty clearly shows that they have certain ideological concerns that they value more highly than the kind of stuff we tend to think the EFF primarily cares about (digital privacy, open source, patent trolling, etc).
Through that lens, I guess it makes sense that they see TikTok, Instagram, and BlueSky as worth their time and presence but not X.
The EFF is and has always been a political activist organization.
Of course they care about ideological concerns.
Those concerns have evolved away from their original mission. Not an unusual situation for organizations like this as a they shrink and lose relevance.
What makes you think they are shrinking and losing relevance, other than feels?
Where in my comment did I claim otherwise?
You discussed two distinct groups: "certain ideological concerns" and "the kind of stuff we tend to think the EFF primarily cares about". I think you're getting this type of response because many of us can't see any actual difference between those two groups besides your own politics and assumptions.
You might be right; I don't know what the broad populace thinks of what EFF does.
I'll ask you then: What are the three main areas of advocacy where you think the EFF has been the most visible and/or effective?
It's an association fallacy - Musk may be a radical extremist on the right, and a technology mogul, you may find yourself aligning with some of his world views (not all of them, remember he is an extremist relative to yourself).
So when people support EFF's technological goals (freedoms for users on technology platforms), if they are themselves possibly on the right, they project their own values onto the organization or system (which here is the EFF).
Never-mind if some of those values are incompatible with the values you think you hold (being authoritarian generally is incompatible with being not being authoritarian about technology). When someone points out the (otherwise obvious) contradiction to you, you're surprised that your set of values is incongruous.
Now this can happen to anyone coming from any political starting point, they agree with something but find it doesn't quite fit with their world views. If you are deeply religious about it, you tend to hold on for dear life and either decide to "pick" on set of values over another (suddenly you realize, actually, yes you would like to enslave everyone) or engage in some form of hypocrisy or another (authoritarians are good, but for some reason or the other I'm going to make an exception for technology).
I dunno. My understanding of coalition building is "we disagree about a bunch of stuff, but we agree on this one thing, so let's work together on it". You seem to be saying: "if you disagree with me on the other stuff, your agreement on this thing is rooted in a contradictory value system you haven't fully examined".
Is that correct?
Not exactly.
Values have a hierarchy. You can't (effectively) agree to painting everything the color blue, if you can't agree what the color blue is.
And you will run into a very similar issue when everyone starts objecting to the pink you have spread everywhere, despite supposedly agreeing to the color scheme.
> Not exactly.
But then you go on to describe exactly what @Brendinooo described, just under the guise of your system of "value hierarchy." The problem is that you can always default to "our values are hierarchically misaligned" and then never have to do any coalition building ever.
So how do you solve that? Because it seems that you can't.
