Twitter owner Elon Musk took the leftist U.K.-based BBC to the woodshed when the latter accused the platform of being plagued by a rise of so-called “hate speech.”
BBC North America technology reporter James Clayton bemoaned how there’s “not enough people to police” the left’s hate speech bogeyman through censorship on Twitter during an Apr. 11 Twitter Spaces interview with Musk. Musk wasn’t having any of Clayton’s virtue-signaling about the vague “hate speech” concept and cornered Clayton to be more specific. “What hate speech are you talking about,” Musk asked. “Do you see a rise in hate speech,” Musk continued. Clayton claimed he has “personally” seen more hateful content but wasn’t going to “talk for the rest of Twitter.”
Musk then narrowed his Socratic method-styled inquiry to probe Clayton’s own personal observations and asked him to provide a definition of what constitutes hate speech: “Content you don’t like or hateful? What do you mean? Describe a hateful thing.” Clayton tried to make a generalization by pointing to content that’s “slightly racist or slightly sexist.” When Musk pressed him for specific examples, Clayton just started fumbling over himself and couldn’t name a specific example.
“You said you’ve seen more hateful content but you can’t name a single example, not even one,” Musk quipped. When Clayton tried to interject, Musk shut him down: “I say sir that you don’t know what you’re talking about.”
Musk: 1. Clayton: 0.
Clayton didn’t take kindly to Musk’ criticism: “Really?” Musk responded by saying, “Yes, because you can’t give me a specific example of hateful content. Not even one tweet. And yet you claimed that hateful content was high. That’s false. You just lied.” Clayton objected then tried to gaslight his initial claim: “What I claimed was, uh, there are many organizations that say that kind of information is on the rise.” He must have forgotten his previous assertion that he “personally” saw more hateful content.
Clayton then had the brilliant idea (sarcasm) of citing the nutty George Soros-funded U.K. group Institute for Strategic Dialogue as one of the so-called “organizations” that is accusing Twitter of being a haven for hate speech. Soros fueled the ISD apparatus with $2,029,863 between 2017 and 2021 alone. Clayton didn’t bother to mention that objectivity-wrecking factoid.
The Soros-funded ISD is the same group that recently targeted Musk with nonsense-laced agitprop about “hate” for engaging with “right-wing” Twitter accounts like Libs of TikTok, satire site The Babylon Bee, psychologist Jordan Peterson and Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
Musk wouldn’t let Clayton dodge his way out of the logical hole he dug for himself: “Give me one example!” Clayton wouldn’t oblige: “I can’t give you an exact example, let’s move on.”
Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on so-called hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.
Twitter owner Elon Musk took the leftist U.K.-based BBC to the woodshed when the latter accused the platform of being plagued by a rise of so-called “hate speech.”
BBC North America technology reporter James Clayton bemoaned how there’s “not enough people to police” the left’s hate speech bogeyman through censorship on Twitter during an Apr. 11 Twitter Spaces interview with Musk. Musk wasn’t having any of Clayton’s virtue-signaling about the vague “hate speech” concept and cornered Clayton to be more specific. “What hate speech are you talking about,” Musk asked. “Do you see a rise in hate speech,” Musk continued. Clayton claimed he has “personally” seen more hateful content but wasn’t going to “talk for the rest of Twitter.”
Musk then narrowed his Socratic method-styled inquiry to probe Clayton’s own personal observations and asked him to provide a definition of what constitutes hate speech: “Content you don’t like or hateful? What do you mean? Describe a hateful thing.” Clayton tried to make a generalization by pointing to content that’s “slightly racist or slightly sexist.” When Musk pressed him for specific examples, Clayton just started fumbling over himself and couldn’t name a specific example.
“You said you’ve seen more hateful content but you can’t name a single example, not even one,” Musk quipped. When Clayton tried to interject, Musk shut him down: “I say sir that you don’t know what you’re talking about.”
Musk: 1. Clayton: 0.
Clayton didn’t take kindly to Musk’ criticism: “Really?” Musk responded by saying, “Yes, because you can’t give me a specific example of hateful content. Not even one tweet. And yet you claimed that hateful content was high. That’s false. You just lied.” Clayton objected then tried to gaslight his initial claim: “What I claimed was, uh, there are many organizations that say that kind of information is on the rise.” He must have forgotten his previous assertion that he “personally” saw more hateful content.
Clayton then had the brilliant idea (sarcasm) of citing the nutty George Soros-funded U.K. group Institute for Strategic Dialogue as one of the so-called “organizations” that is accusing Twitter of being a haven for hate speech. Soros fueled the ISD apparatus with $2,029,863 between 2017 and 2021 alone. Clayton didn’t bother to mention that objectivity-wrecking factoid.
The Soros-funded ISD is the same group that recently targeted Musk with nonsense-laced agitprop about “hate” for engaging with “right-wing” Twitter accounts like Libs of TikTok, satire site The Babylon Bee, psychologist Jordan Peterson and Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
Musk wouldn’t let Clayton dodge his way out of the logical hole he dug for himself: “Give me one example!” Clayton wouldn’t oblige: “I can’t give you an exact example, let’s move on.”
Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on so-called hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.
