That is a purely subjective opinion, since I have talked to elderly people who assumed “blue checkmark = celebrity” and was therefore confused why there are so many such interactions on trivial posts.

However, in such a case, “base rate fallacy” would prevent you from blaming Tesla even if it had a 98% fatality rate. How do you square that? What happens if other companies aren’t putting self driving cars out yet because they aren’t happy with the current rate of accidents, but Tesla just doesn’t care?

This puts the burden on companies which may hesitate to put their “self driving” methods out there because it has trouble with detecting motorcyclists. There is a solid possibility that self driving isn’t being rolled out by others because they have higher regard for human life than Tesla and its exec.

Sometimes (often?) people with a lot of money may not believe in speech but in suppressing speech. However, money should not allow for suppressing speech, for example by buying a giant megaphone and speaking over people.

By your logic paying people $500 to heckle at your political opponents rally is fine. It may be legally okay, but it is a moral hazard, and for a better society we should try to better distinguish between “free” speech and “bought and paid for” speech.

I would argue that paid advertisement is a force distorting free speech. In a town square, if you can pay to have the loudest megaphone to speak over everyone else, soon everyone would either just shut up and leave or not be able to speak properly, leaving your voice the only voice in the conversation. Why should money be able to buy you that power?

I disagree completely on this sentiment. This was in fact the trend for a century or more (see inventions ranging from the polio vaccine to "Attention is all you need" by Vaswani et. al.) before "Open"AI became the biggest player on the market due and Sam Altman tried to bag all the gains for himself. Hopefully, we can reverse course on this trend and go back to when world-changing innovations are shared openly so they can actually change the world.

This is not a direct analogue, a closer analogy would be when the guest creates a copy of the key (why?) without my direct consent (signing a 2138 page "user agreement" doesn't count) and at some later point when I am no longer renting to them, loses the key.

[1] https://theintercept.com/2023/03/28/twitter-modi-india-punja...

[2] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/05/musk-defends-ena...

If you want to connect the thread, look into what kind of leaders Bolsonaro, Modi, and Erdogan are.

If you think Elon is doing this to defend "freedom of speech" I have a beautiful bridge to sell you.

Individual actions can incur communal costs. “Freedom” doesn’t mean “freedom from the consequence of your actions.”

See, I would have agreed more with this if most of our internet infrastructures were not controlled by three megacorps with more power than many small to medium sized economies in the world. As it stands, the only valid option is to fight fire with fire.