81–90 of 236 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In this case it was specifically intentionally misleading (something they have logs to prove), and weaponized against the business of X itself. Clearly different from some random internet person saying something controversial or unpopular.
Feels rather like he is arguing on a technicality. I've seen tons of awful extremist content recently with ads next to it.
X is the best social media platform out there at this point. What are the alternatives? Meta's Facebook, Instagram? TikTok? It's just bollocks. X is where a lot of interesting people post, and where freedom of speech is the most upheld. Community notes is also a super interesting aspect. It's not X's fault someone follows nazis or whatever and don't know where the mute / block buttons are.
As a result: outrage, controversy, demagoguery and subsequent deleting of such impulsive and unfiltered crap is very common. A lot of it is also unintelligible drivel that is presented with no context. And common opinion is that this is basically the best planet earth has to offer. In a way this is embarrassing and that mayor would have my permanent vote had I lived in France.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is objectively much worse now. Which is natural when you effectively disband the safety teams and allow all previous banned accounts back onto the platform. Also where as Twitter at least tried to comply with codes of practice, X has simply just given up. Also a lot of it has to do with Musk being the face of the platform and endlessly trying to start culture wars.
[flagged]
I've never seen someone get censored for promoting small government or low taxes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is objectively much worse now. Which is natural when you effectively disband the safety teams and allow all previous banned accounts back onto the platform. Also where as Twitter at least tried to comply with codes of practice, X has simply just given up. Also a lot of it has to do with Musk being the face of the platform and endlessly trying to start culture wars.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's compatible with freedom of speech. He's not censoring it, but he can show damages from misleading speech.
In this case it was specifically intentionally misleading (something they have logs to prove), and weaponized against the business of X itself. Clearly different from some random internet person saying something controversial or unpopular.
Exactly. What people don’t seem to realize is that neo-Nazi content is allowed, and there is not a extant mechanism for Twitter advertisers to make sure that their ads do not appear next to that allowed neo-Nazi content — this is why Twitter verified that fact in their lawsuit.
The lawsuit is meritorious because while there was no malfunction on Twitter’s part, they contend that accepting advertisers’ money and occasionally showing it next to neo-Nazi content simply isn’t that big of a deal. The misleading part is introducing the idea that advertisers should expect that not to happen.
I look forward to further lawsuits against users such as these
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/11/27/elons-censorial-lawsuit-...
X is the best social media platform out there at this point. What are the alternatives? Meta's Facebook, Instagram? TikTok? It's just bollocks. X is where a lot of interesting people post, and where freedom of speech is the most upheld. Community notes is also a super interesting aspect. It's not X's fault someone follows nazis or whatever and don't know where the mute / block buttons are.
This is only true if one defines freedom of speech extremely narrowly; specifically if you want to use racial slurs, or if you want to attack lgbtq folks.
Material criticism of Elon or his endeavors routinely results in bans. This has resulted in him banning numerous high profile journalists.
Elon banned individuals who posted Elon's locations, after Grimes used that info to serve him a custody lawsuit that he'd been dodging. He even banned journalists who talked about the bans, or who asked about ban policy.
He bans with abandon. Joke accounts? banned. promoting other social networks? banned. Advocating for lgbt gun ownership? banned. Paul Graham (the co-founder of YC)? banned.
And when he isn't busy banning, he is using the courts to suppress speech he doesn't like, and creating implicit threats to others who might say something even moderately critical of him or his empire of government subsidized wealth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
HN is heavily moderated by very knowledgeable people and that's part of what makes it continue to work well. It's like if you go into a bar and there's a guy screaming a bunch of curse words and racist crap in the corner at everyone near him. Normal people are going to leave if no one kicks the guy out.
Anyone can unfollow those people. Nobody on my timeline is screaming curse words or racist crap. The real reason X is being attacked is because the Following tab doesn't inject propaganda like every other social media / news website does, other than ads of course.
I still use X/Twitter weekly and I don't have any problem with the posts I see. My problem is with comments, which are usually where I will see hate and spam.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People have replicated the results. Which isn't surprising, given how much trash content that place has these days. Also: does anyone think those big accounts just up and left after one shoestring organization published something? They most likely replicated the results themselves.
Is there a link or study for the replicated results? I'd like to see it.
Just like Paris I hate twitter , and a lot, specially before Musk, however it is insane to see some people just starting to complain. Only when finally those who disagree politically with them have a crumb of a voice. The place was always horrible problem is this people had an elite of horrible "journalists" being yes men and secluding them from divergent voices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and where freedom of speech is the most upheld. Elon is literally suing for speech he doesn't like.
That's compatible with freedom of speech. He's not censoring it, but he can show damages from misleading speech.