Musk and everyone else is right that we do need a platform with free speech. The only problem is that all those free speech advocates are actually NIMBY's when it comes to free speech. I have been following self proclaimed free speech absolutists(because I too, believe in free speech but don't believe it exists) and they are totally not the kind of people that say "I hate what you say but I will die defending your ri…
> at least we can hold them responsible when they don't deliver it.
These are people who have a track record of evading responsibility.
Where on e.g. Twitter or Reddit would that be disallowed? Isn't r/antiwork/ hitting the front page regularly?
You named the only two relatively free, large, unmoderated public forums with transparent-able feeds. Well Reddit’s feed is transparent: Lower bound of Wilson score. On Twitter, I only filter for latest, but you cannot do that on Facebook.
Feeds suck, sure, but there's really no censorship for anything about communism etc short of calling for violence against wealthy people.
Facebook is less "free" in that regard since they won't allow "all men are trash", which Twitter would only go after if you qualify it with a race that is considered 'protected', and Reddit would probably ignore completely (but "local" mods might not, which makes Reddit take a special role there).
Requiring validated identity is anti free speech. There's been so many words spilled online about how terrible of an idea it is to require confirmed identities for online. Recently, see https://twitter.com/mmasnick/status/1576274615231401984 or more casually https://www.garbageday.email/p/oh-cool-were-talking-about-an... > Generally, if your solution is virtually indistinguishable from one of the systems the Chines g…
How do you know that requiring identity is anti free speech? Not everyone online is Iranian political dissident. Sure, some people claim that you can't have free speech when your identity is known but I don't see any solid reasoning behind it. Mike Masnick in his tweets repeats some talking points but there's no cohesive argument.
Requiring ID verification is adding limitations on who you permit to speak. It is inherently anti 'free speech'. I think it's fine if that's the sort of website you want to build (twitter at the moment is not a free speech maximalist), but don't pretend that doing this doesn't limit speech.
How do you know that requiring identity is anti free speech? Not everyone online is Iranian political dissident. Sure, some people claim that you can't have free speech when your identity is known but I don't see any solid reasoning behind it. Mike Masnick in his tweets repeats some talking points but there's no cohesive argument.
Requiring ID verification is adding limitations on who you permit to speak. It is inherently anti 'free speech'. I think it's fine if that's the sort of website you want to build (twitter at the moment is not a free speech maximalist), but don't pretend that doing this doesn't limit speech.
> Requiring ID verification is adding limitations on who you permit to speak
Do you mean that in countries where not everyone has government ID? That's not an issue, the government doesn't have to be the authority of ID. Besides, governments can create fake IDs for covert operations anyway. I don't suggest that everyone should connect to the internet with government issued ID card.
> As used in this subchapter, the phrase "unlawful employment practice" shall not be deemed to include any action or measure taken by an employer, labor organization, joint labor management committee, or employment agency with respect to an individual who is a member of the Communist Party of the United States or of any other organization required to register as a Communist-action or Communist-front organization by final order of the Subversive Activities Control Board pursuant to the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950 [50 U.S.C. 781 et seq.].
> he is a vocal anti-semite (whilst at the same time claiming to be Jewish) You know, there's a name for this. It's called a black Israelite. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hebrew_Israelites
> According to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), "Some, but not all [Black Hebrew Israelites], are outspoken anti-Semites and racists." As of December 2019, the Southern Poverty Law Center "lists 144 Black Hebrew Israelite organizations as black separatist hate groups because of their antisemitic and anti-white beliefs". Tom Metzger, a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, once remarked to the Southern Poverty Law…
I think one key difference between the BHI and the KKK is that the BHI never killed anyone or carried out any terrorist attacks.
A study showed that people are more aggressive online when using their real name > Results show that in the context of online firestorms, non-anonymous individuals are more aggressive compared to anonymous individuals. This effect is reinforced if selective incentives are present and if aggressors are intrinsically motivated. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
Weird but I still think Elon’s idea of needing confirmed identity for a checkmark is solid. If anonymous users then are nicer than checkmarked users, I guess the filter will work in reverse? The elimination of bots will be nice if they can do it.
You already require confirmed identity to receive a Twitter blue checkmark. So that wouldn't be a new change.
> In a world where conservative opinions are considered to be controversial In my opinion controversy and political incorrectness are Okay. I don't think people should be too concerned about hurting others' feelings when discussing objective phenomena or expressing their own opinion (as long as they acknowledge their subjectivity) . Nevertheless obvious (although not to everyone) absurd, blatant lies and manipulation…
> Nevertheless obvious (although not to everyone) absurd, blatant lies and manipulations shouldn't be covered by the free speech umbrella. "Capitalism is the problem", "modern employment is wage slavery". These are absurd, blatant lies meant to manipulate. Would you have statements like that removed?
But how can you seriously compare a statement like 'capitalism is the problem', which is an opinion about how society chooses to organise itself, to bigotry and prejudice against what people were born as, including anti-semitism?
It's self evident that there should be separate standards for that.
Why do we need an absolute free speech platform? What good does it do? > The only somewhat free place I've seen is 4Chan but it contains so much toxicity, that's its barely bearable. Sounds like a hint to me. There are more free speech sites, e.g. saidit.net. I would wholeheartedly recommend staying away from it: it's a cesspool, like the other reddit wannabes. Voat also comes to mind. Freedom of speech on such sites…
> Why do we need an absolute free speech platform? What good does it do? This is exactly the right question to ask. I'm convinced that it's not possible to have constructive "free speech" social media platform. There's always the need for moderation.
I think moderation should be about the words that are being said, not the ideas that are being discussed.
A free speech platform should allow a wide range of topics, but it's not expected to stand for all manner of trolling and bad faith argumentation. I think that conflating the two is tripping a lot of people up in the debate about the topic.
The news media maybe. But watching tv, surfing the web, etc the majority generally sides with the liberal status quo of our times. It's rare to see genuine positive religious sentiment in media compared to real life, and it's very obvious to me
But isn’t that an indication that truly free peoples are less religious as opposed to a conspiracy? My whole life there have been religious cable news shows. If they were extremely popular, they’d air on prime time or their content would be shared more on social media. It’s not being blocked.
I'm an Indian muslim, and I know many asian and middle eastern muslims. I also know a smattering of Sikhs, Hindus, jews, etc. I can't say that the religious attitudes of any of these groups seemed to be represented on tv. No one is saying it's a conspiracy. But it's not a conspiracy either that when you start interacting with many minority groups you notice in general they are fairly religious. And it's their experience that get's ignored in the American national 'christian right vs secular left' rivalry.