281–290 of 834 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which platform provides the same network effect? Bsky? Mastodon? I don't see the popular Twitter personalities there such as naval, balajis, paulg, etc. or folks from TOPT, etc.
I have no idea who those people are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>So are we seeing full free speech in action? Even free speech has its limits...for example calling for the extermination of a race. >Or is whats right decided by which side people agree with? Correct, most of the time it is, and that is exactly why laws (esp. international ones) exist and Justitia is/should be blind.
[flagged]
There's a lot inconsistent with someone masquerading as a "free speech absolutist" whilst actually drawing the line in a different place, in this case a place which has all sorts of arbitrary new offences like references to the word "cis", ADS-B feeds, and parody accounts and whatever else has annoyed him recently whilst removing more posts at government request than his predecessors, but is mostly cool with racial hatred.
So much for Elons "Free Speech"! This may come as a shock to him: Free Speech means to allow people to say something that he disagree with. Something that may hurt his interests or even his ego. Free speech is not to allow people to say things he agree with or don't care about.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Free speech doesn't allow you to say anything at all you know? Calling for the eradication of people with certain sexual preferences or skin color for example.
Free speech doesnt have asterisks. If certain people say things that are undesireable to other certain people, they have to power to ignore them.
Yeah it does, at least in America. You can't yell fire in a theatre and incite panic.
Also there is the paradox of tolerance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which platform provides the same network effect? Bsky? Mastodon? I don't see the popular Twitter personalities there such as naval, balajis, paulg, etc. or folks from TOPT, etc.
I mean, I suppose it really depends on what you want out of a social network. Some combo of mastodon and bluesky is fine for me, but then I didn't follow any of those people in the first place. If you want celeb VCs, then, yeah, you're probably stuck with Twitter. Most people don't, though.
So much for Elons "Free Speech"! This may come as a shock to him: Free Speech means to allow people to say something that he disagree with. Something that may hurt his interests or even his ego. Free speech is not to allow people to say things he agree with or don't care about.
Immediately you get one very specific "sect" of free speech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The editors. The problem is that notability is very subjective, and wikipedia's editors are notorious for applying a low threshold for information critical of those on the right, and high threshold for information critical of the left. Suspending a few journalists for doxxing would not meet the notability threshold for an article to exist, if it occured on any other platform.
If you have verifiable information that debunks or improves upon existing text in the article, which meets the standards of the organization (not self-published, etc), I promise you that your edits will be considered and integrated. There is a Talk page for a reason. The system is not perfect, and is still vulnerable to certain kinds of subterfuge, but the more critical thinkers involved in the process, the better. I…
Journalists get suspended from social media platforms for doxing all the time.
These events are not newsworthy, and wikipedia articles are not written about them.
The problem isn't the content of this article, it is that the article exists at all. It only exists because wikipedia editors apply different notability thresholds to one side of politics than the other.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>So are we seeing full free speech in action? Even free speech has its limits...for example calling for the extermination of a race. >Or is whats right decided by which side people agree with? Correct, most of the time it is, and that is exactly why laws (esp. international ones) exist and Justitia is/should be blind.
> Even free speech has its limits It doesnt though, thats the point. Its the same as competition in a capitalist marketplace. A company can sell terrible products and what should happen is people see they are terrible products and vote with their wallet to stop buying. Then the company goes out of business. With free speech if somebody is saying something that other people think is terrible, they should stop listenin…
That's why governments make rules to protect those with less indormation and power.
According to your logic cyberbullying is just free speech.
Should I wish for you to by cyberbullied, so you see first hand that free speech has limits?
And don't forget that many free speech apologetics say that free speech doesn't mean free of consequences. At this point it's clear that for most people free speech doesn't exitst because they censor their posts if say fear consequences.
This comment section has turned into something of a circle, it's cool to be mad nd all, but there was a comment expressing doubt at the details, wonder about a reason other than those stated, and asking if anyone independently verified, as I clicked it the comment was flagged to oblivion. No opportunity to engage with that viewpoint.
Do all these commenters believe this nonsense? The conspiracy thinking has reached new peaks. Hard to take concerns of free speech seriously from people promoting platforms that routinely “moderate” any dissenting opinions (HN included). Our ability for collective sense making seems to be permanently destroyed. Two people who seem to agree on everything point-by-point then reach different conclusions on the final ste…
It doesn't appear to be nonsense, it appears to be entirely true that any tweet with "signal.me" in it is blocked.
Occam's razor says they're blocking Signal. Hanlon's razor says they're just idiots. Either way: An important tool for communication is being blocked by twitter, which is both dangerous and not "nonsense".
Given Elon Musk's current propensity for authoritarianism and censorship, I'm leaning towards Occam's explanation. If you have evidence otherwise, I would genuinely like to see it, but honestly Hanlon's explanation that it's incompetence is not much better.