From article: "Greenspan, founder of PlainSite, found his online presence abruptly disrupted on June 13. The suspension of his account, which had more than 24,000 followers, raises questions about freedom of speech and online censorship. Ironically, Twitter claims defending and respecting the user's voice is one of its core values.
Greenspan gained a reputation for meticulously monitoring Twitter for any criticism directed toward Tesla and Musk. His vigilance in tracking and documenting litigation involving various companies, including Tesla, Twitter, General Motors Corp. and Meta Platforms Inc., made him a prominent figure in the world of online scrutiny. Over the years, Greenspan and Musk have found themselves entangled in legal disputes, further fueling the intensity of their interactions.
PlainSite served as a valuable resource for Twitter users, providing free access to state and federal court filings, public records and insightful analytics features for paying subscribers.
Back in 2018, The Wall Street Journal reported that Musk actively monitored Twitter for tweets containing the hashtag $TSLA, often used by Tesla short-sellers. Musk would reach out to executives at companies to investigate employees who were potentially publishing negative tweets about his electric vehicle company.
During that time, Musk reportedly emailed former Volkswagen CEO Herbert Diess in July 2018, questioning whether one of Diess's employees was using Twitter to criticize Tesla anonymously. Business Insider later reported that Volkswagen determined the tweets were posted by the employee's brother.
Musk also allegedly texted Lawrence Fossi's employer. According to the WSJ, on July 23, 2018, Musk sent a text to the top executive at Fossi's company, asking the boss whether he knew his employee, known on Twitter as Montana Skeptic, "was obsessively trashing Tesla via a pseudonym," as disclosed in the report.
Following the incident, Fossi voluntarily deactivated his Twitter account and ceased writing for Seeking Alpha. Expressing his surprise at the extent to which Musk would go to quash criticism, Fossi commented, "I'm a nobody and he calls my employer?"
Following Musk's contact, Fossi ceased writing under the Montana Skeptic alias. He posted a farewell message on Seeking Alpha explaining that Musk threatened to sue him if he continued to write. He also stated, 'Neither Mr. Musk nor Tesla has ever attempted, at any time, to contact me. Instead, Mr. Musk determined to go directly to my employer.'"
It seems legitimate that Twitter would deactivate Twitter accounts dedicated to criticizing Twitter. There's absolutely no requirement that a company actively support its detractors.
Likewise it seems legitimate that the owner of Twitter would deactivate accounts which target the share price of his other companies. A share price that is used (via collateral) to keep control of Twitter.
It also seems legitimate to ask whether the employees of a competing company are surreptitiously attacking the company (possibly on behalf of the company). This sort of thing is potentially illegitimate competition.
The only thing that seems illegitimate is suing a person writing elsewhere against your company (and, of course, contacting their employer if they are not a competing company).
The internet says Fossi was a portfolio manager for a family office [1].
It is hypocrisy when the owner claims to be a free speech absolutist [2].
It is a a breach of fiduciary duty and a violation of the separate legal personhood of a corporation to use company assets to support your own personal wealth.
It is not okay to lead with legal threats directly to someone's employer.
> It is a a breach of fiduciary duty and a violation of the separate legal personhood of a corporation to use company assets to support your own personal wealth.
1) This is a privately held corporation, not a public corporation.
2) Twitter would undoubtedly go chaotic at this point, and might cease to exist, if Musk was forced to divest it because he can't maintain backing for the loans used to purchase it.
Your arguments are invalid because Musk himself bashed Twitter for similar behavior before he bought it, and all hell would have broken loose if they had banned him for it.
He proclaimed himself to be free speech absolutist and now fails miserably on multiple occasions.
It only shows that it is not about freedom of speech, but about being able to say whatever he wants.
That's not freedom, it's tyranny. Fear him if your tweets don't get his favor.
1) Elon Musk is not the sole owner of private Twitter. He still has a fiduciary duty to his other investors.
2) Even if it were wholly owned a corporation is still not the same entity as the owner. Using a wholly owned corporation for personal benefit is a direct violation of the corporate veil. That is a violation of corporate structure and usage as such means Elon Musk should be personally liable for the entirety of Twitter and its action.
You are being very kind: Elon has "borrowed" tens of millions worth of Tesla employees for work at Twitter. That looks very much like self-dealing at a publicly traded company. "Surely Twitter paid for these people' you might say. Probably not, if Twitter is not paying rent, or cloud providers, or severance, or cleaners.
And it was Musk who claims free speech as highest value and now he bans words he doesn't like and bans people who criticize him or one of his companies.
Totally legitimate and consistent with absolute free speech. Musk shouldn’t have to put up with criticism. He never trashes or insults competitors or critics, or calls people pedophiles or anything like that.
Sure, he's hypocritical as hell. But so are the vast majority of newspapers who go to court over freedom of the press yet don't publish commentary critical of themselves. I'm just saying that some of this is a "legitimate" form of hypocrisy.
No. I'm pretty darn sure I discussed the criticism and said that it is okay because it is a standard practice (and fine to do specifically against critics). The criticism above that I'm wrong because this is Twitter nixing accounts on account of Tesla talk is a good counterargument, but whataboutism isn't.
I think this should be getting a lot more attention because it forces us to ask what kind of society we are becoming.
What does it mean that a single, powerful, self-serving, person can silence anyone he doesn’t want to speak?
Left unchecked, we will end up in a two-tiered society- one tier where a small group of people are never accountable for anything and another tier that will bear brunt of those consequences- whether it is because of defective products, addictive painkillers, failing services, or generally corrupt govt.
As I write this, the top story is about Elon Musk and Zuckerberg planning a fight. It’s quite an apt symbol for how removed these men are from the reality of most of humanity- both their employees and the users of their products who have been hurt by them.
Greenspan gained a reputation for meticulously monitoring Twitter for any criticism directed toward Tesla and Musk. His vigilance in tracking and documenting litigation involving various companies, including Tesla, Twitter, General Motors Corp. and Meta Platforms Inc., made him a prominent figure in the world of online scrutiny. Over the years, Greenspan and Musk have found themselves entangled in legal disputes, further fueling the intensity of their interactions.
PlainSite served as a valuable resource for Twitter users, providing free access to state and federal court filings, public records and insightful analytics features for paying subscribers.
Back in 2018, The Wall Street Journal reported that Musk actively monitored Twitter for tweets containing the hashtag $TSLA, often used by Tesla short-sellers. Musk would reach out to executives at companies to investigate employees who were potentially publishing negative tweets about his electric vehicle company.
During that time, Musk reportedly emailed former Volkswagen CEO Herbert Diess in July 2018, questioning whether one of Diess's employees was using Twitter to criticize Tesla anonymously. Business Insider later reported that Volkswagen determined the tweets were posted by the employee's brother.
Musk also allegedly texted Lawrence Fossi's employer. According to the WSJ, on July 23, 2018, Musk sent a text to the top executive at Fossi's company, asking the boss whether he knew his employee, known on Twitter as Montana Skeptic, "was obsessively trashing Tesla via a pseudonym," as disclosed in the report.
Following the incident, Fossi voluntarily deactivated his Twitter account and ceased writing for Seeking Alpha. Expressing his surprise at the extent to which Musk would go to quash criticism, Fossi commented, "I'm a nobody and he calls my employer?"
Following Musk's contact, Fossi ceased writing under the Montana Skeptic alias. He posted a farewell message on Seeking Alpha explaining that Musk threatened to sue him if he continued to write. He also stated, 'Neither Mr. Musk nor Tesla has ever attempted, at any time, to contact me. Instead, Mr. Musk determined to go directly to my employer.'"