41–50 of 64 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's how Elon always does censorship. "Freedom of speech, not freedom of reach." Restricting reach is still censorship.
That would be a fair argument, were it not for the fact that every candidate is being excluded from algorithmic recommendations. Were it just one or two candidates, then it would indeed be a form of "soft censorship". That doesn't seem to be the case here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well Musk has interfered in elections and riots before so it’s definitely a good idea to hold him under extremely close scrutiny. Being the world’s richest person and one of the most powerful influencers comes with responsibility, a responsibility that Musk has shown to be lacking.
Sure, but what does this have to do with what I wrote? The other poster is arguing that people shouldn't be allowed to know who has been censored. That's deep into 1984 or Soviet / Chinese censorship territory.
Not if you consider the context of external influence, e.g. [1], and not wanting a Jan 6 in Brazil. Not letting such know their efforts are ineffective, is a tool to combat their effort. It is akin to shadowbanning.
Amplification of radical right by external entities is nothing new, btw. Russia did this in 2016. Musk does it now. But Musk won't show those parts of his machine. He still does shadowbanning, too.
[1] https://medium.com/dfrlab/election-fraud-narratives-surge-on...
Seems Brazil's court (the TSE) banned platforms from recommending (via 'feeds' and similar) ~700 accounts related to its election, to avoid 'amplification' (unless the user already follows the account, in which case it's permitted). I'm not sure if this is a good or bad idea. But if I were Brazillian, I'd be immediately following all ~700 accounts (and probably unfollowing all 700 after the election). Love or hate X,…
> But if I were Brazillian, I'd be immediately following all ~700 accounts (and probably unfollowing all 700 after the election). I would certainly not, as it is most likely propagandists; these aren't interesting. But either way, the purpose of this is to protect democracy, and by mentioning the very accounts, this could have a Streisand effect. That by itself is influencing the election, and Musk knows this. That i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
if anything, I would completely unsubscribe from US-controlled social platform before the election anywhere outside US
Ultimately the only antidote to US propaganda is nationalism. Anyone in my country who is caught funded with US money may as well hang themselves they are electorally dead as a dodo. This to be fair is why the CIA had to move suitcases with money instead of bragging about it on Fox News...
Ironic, isn't it?
Bluesky creators: How are you feeling right now
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but what does this have to do with what I wrote? The other poster is arguing that people shouldn't be allowed to know who has been censored. That's deep into 1984 or Soviet / Chinese censorship territory.
> That's deep into 1984 or Soviet / Chinese censorship territory. Not if you consider the context of external influence, e.g. [1], and not wanting a Jan 6 in Brazil. Not letting such know their efforts are ineffective, is a tool to combat their effort. It is akin to shadowbanning. Amplification of radical right by external entities is nothing new, btw. Russia did this in 2016. Musk does it now. But Musk won't show th…
Seems Brazil's court (the TSE) banned platforms from recommending (via 'feeds' and similar) ~700 accounts related to its election, to avoid 'amplification' (unless the user already follows the account, in which case it's permitted). I'm not sure if this is a good or bad idea. But if I were Brazillian, I'd be immediately following all ~700 accounts (and probably unfollowing all 700 after the election). Love or hate X,…
They didn't ban recommendations because they thought it was a "good idea". They banned it to have reality comply with Brazilian electoral law which is written so that every candidate has the same amount of airtime. It is not the job of the judiciary to determine whether a law should or shouldn't exist, but to make sure all laws are correctly enforced. Remembering this fact isn't optional. Said differently, arguments…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would be a fair argument, were it not for the fact that every candidate is being excluded from algorithmic recommendations. Were it just one or two candidates, then it would indeed be a form of "soft censorship". That doesn't seem to be the case here.
What's wrong with saying that it's censoring every candidate?
It is interesting that attitudes, laws and initiatives that would be called "censorship" against traditional media are more and more accepted against social media platforms, all over the world in very democratic countries. I am not against these attitudes. I just want to point to that. A possible reason is that these platforms are seen as either monopolies or American imperialism agents. In both cases these are very…
There are various laws in many countries that ban traditional media from straight up recommending specific candidates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They didn't ban recommendations because they thought it was a "good idea". They banned it to have reality comply with Brazilian electoral law which is written so that every candidate has the same amount of airtime. It is not the job of the judiciary to determine whether a law should or shouldn't exist, but to make sure all laws are correctly enforced. Remembering this fact isn't optional. Said differently, arguments…
To make reality comply with a specific government's jurisdiction is such an absurd proposition, that people would've laughed at someone 100 years ago if they suggested this as a practical option.
It is almost a perfect definition of sovereignty—to shape reality such that it fits what the state deems appropriate.
This by no means imply it's perfectly effective, but that's besides the point. We're debating what the state ought to do, not whether it succeeds.