Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I sympathize but very rich people owning the media never ends well


Who owns the media and big tech now??? It's not poor people!

At least Elon Musk is a very rich person who believes in free speech. Which is good for us poors. Twitter and the national discourse will be objectively better for working class voices as a result. Less so for the gatekeepers and media elite commentariat.


> At least Elon Musk is a very rich person who believes in free speech

Tell that to the people who released valid short research on Tesla.


> At least Elon Musk is a very rich person who believes in free speech.

He believes in his free speech. Maybe. Definitely not when it comes to people who work for him or people that criticize him.


What evidence is there of this?

Honestly this thread has been pushing me more towards the Musk camp, which I didn't think was possible. But not one person seems to be able to point to specific, concrete criticisms with references.


I mean, it's covered enough in media.

e.g.: https://www.businessinsider.com/free-speech-absolutist-elon-...

His reactions towards criticism (like harassing or banning journalist criticizing Tesla, or that whole fiasco with his submarine) are always well covered too. And while it's not exactly suppressing free speech, that level of pettiness doesn't look too good.

Also, how is this pushing you towards the Musk camp? (The fact that there's such thing, and there is, is troubling on its own)


If you believe every free speech proponent secretly means speech they like, you may be projecting. To be fair, I may also be projecting.


Elon Musk definitely does not believe in free speech that criticizes Elon Musk.


> At least Elon Musk is a very rich person who believes in free speech.

Yes thats exactly why he was willing to shell out 50,000$ to a kid to remove his flight tracking bot.

Stop licking his boot.


The kid asked for $50k, Elon said no, which is why the bot is still up. In any case, paying someone to shut up is no violating their free speech.


Neither is a private company deciding what they will allow on their platform


Nice projection. Who is licking the boots here?

1. Those who back authoritarian style censorship conducted in opaque fashion

2. Those who back free speech and transparency


Yes, I too can't wait for the entire internet to be 4chan.

There is no such thing as absolute free speech and I have no idea where you all are coming up with this idea. By definition, absolute free speech cannot exist because your speech ends where mine begins. Free speech does not mean free from moderation or consequences and criticisms, both are forms of speech themselves. There is no authoritarian censorship going on here.


>There is no such thing as absolute free speech and I have no idea where you all are coming up with this idea.

As with so many plagues on American society and current political discourse, this came from Trump supporters, specifically angry at being banned from social media platforms for hate speech and disinformation, and suddenly deciding that rules and social consequences for their behavior were a violation of their civil rights. The attempt to redefine free speech is part of a movement to impugn social media platforms as engaging in widespread politically motivated suppression of free speech, with the implication they need to be forced by law to host the kind of content they would otherwise refuse to.


> absolute free speech

This is a strawman argument, that nobody seriously proposed.


Ummm... This is still up? https://twitter.com/ElonJet


Oh wow, what a great example. You have totally changed my mind. /s


Offering someone $50K to stop doing something == Free Association and Free Market

Advocating Totalitarian controls via Terms of Service, and/or Government !== Free Association

Come back when it attempts to have Twitter ban this persons account, then you may have a case, offering an monetary incentive for someone to change their behavior is not censorship in any form.

Stop being a tool


Because that wasn't happening in the first place?


What does that matter? The original question was:

>I sympathize but very rich people owning the media never ends well

How does the history of the ultra-wealthy controlling the narrative in media for their own gain change that statement?


The comparable cases are Bezos & Zuck, the parallel is Berlusconi. Yes it's all scary


isn't by definition that very rich people own the media? Or was there a time period where the media wasn't very profitable and the people who owned them weren't very rich?


i think not. before bezos, elon and zuck they were not owned by the richest-of-the-rich.




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: