I think it is critical to not forget the context of russian aligned bots getting free reign on Twitter, they are not being blocked, and Musk is keeping close ties to Putin.
X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links
321–330 of 834 posts
Re: X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links
#322Remember the Arab Spring and how Twitter was hailed as a tool for the masses to fight against their oppressors? And remember how Elon bought Twitter, loudly proclaiming he was doing so to defend free speech? I'm mildly curious to see how X tries to justify this, but I suspect they've reached the stage where they don't even need to pretend to pay lip service to their notional values.
Absolutely no one should be surprised anymore. It was all a projection.
Re: X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links
#323Earlier quoted context omitted.
What exactly is it about that article that leads you to label it as politically biased? I see nothing but apparently factual information without any commentary.
It's existence. A couple journalists broke a social media platform's rule on doxxing, and were temporarily suspended for it. This wouldn't meet the standard for notability if it occurred on any other platform.
And why was CrimethInk banned then? because they didn't dox anyone, never called for violence against people or location.
Until a "free speech defender" can explain what CrimthInc did that was against free speech that warranted the ban (and not either ignore it or sweep it under the "mistake were made" rug), i will keep thinking they are only a Musk glazer, deal?
Re: X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links
#324Remember the Arab Spring and how Twitter was hailed as a tool for the masses to fight against their oppressors? And remember how Elon bought Twitter, loudly proclaiming he was doing so to defend free speech? I'm mildly curious to see how X tries to justify this, but I suspect they've reached the stage where they don't even need to pretend to pay lip service to their notional values.
"Freedom of speech" on Twitter is nothing more than Newspeak for censorship. In reality, the goal has always been to silence minorities who already struggle to express themselves, while allowing hate, racist, homophobic, and transphobic language to run rampant. It is a form of indirect censorship, through the self-censorship of minorities who fear speaking out. Then comes direct censorship, where certain terms or lin…
Prior to Musk's purchase of Twitter, feminists who expressed the view that women and girls need single-sex spaces, and that males who identify as women aren't actually women and therefore shouldn't be allowed in these spaces, would be banned from the platform under the guise of "transphobia".
They were literally being silenced for expressing their criticism of the ideology of gender identity and how it is being used to disadvantage and oppress women and girls.
On X, however, they are free to state this without fear of censorship, due to the broadening of permissible speech on the platform. So while it might not be the "free speech absolutism" that Musk disingenuously claims, it's an improvement to the pre-Musk era of censorship.
Re: X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links
#325Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In reality, the goal has always been to silence minorities who already struggle to express themselves This particular clause seens very unlikely. One could want an increase in racism and homophobia on a platform without specifically wanting there to be less black people (for example) speaking out. That the -isms cause said people to speak up less would likely be a (pleasant?) side effect rather than the primary goa…
It is very simple: 1. Inherited rich kids like Elon often have a strong feeling that they are better then the rest of humanity. 2. But it turns out if you are a leech on society like that sooner or later people stop accepting that (remember: he pays less in taxes and gains more in government subsides than most people) 3. So in order for people not to turn against you sooner or later you need to keep them split into s…
Even granting that, you would want MORE LGBTQ+/minority speech. The more energy people spend arguing with each other about culture war, the more dividee they are and the less they have for trying to change inequality.
Trying to silence LGBTQ+ etc people goes directly against the goal you posit.
Re: X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links
#326Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Free speech in the US means they cannot make specific laws against proposing ideas, but a long history of legal cases does mean there are cases when you can be civilly or criminally liable if your words lead others to harmful actions
Its a weird grey area for sure. The best rationalization I have ever come up with is that when speech involves a legitimate threat to do harm, for example, that skips past just speech and can be seen as a step in actively planning to do harm. In certain situations, like murder or terrorism, we've agreed that simply planning to do it is a crime.
Combine the two and it isn't that you said something that is illegal, its that the statement is interpreted as a clear signal of actively planning to do something which itself is illegal.
Re: X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links
#327Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly,no.
So do you feel that people who disagree with what you think is right should be silenced and not allowed to express themselves?
"I am ready to pay 1000000 USD to anyone who tortures and/or kills you or anyone in your family in the most gruesome way."
Isn't that free speech?
Re: X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links
#328Earlier quoted context omitted.
Telegram is overwhelmingly the app of choice for drug dealers with Whatsapp coming second, at least on a direct to customer level. No clue about CSAM but I'd really doubt it considering it requires a phone number.
Telegram is overwhelmingly the preferred messenger for CSAM distribution, a search can find you all the relevant articles.
Thanks for the clarification.
I misread your top post as though it meant Signal was the main source for those things. Sorry for the confusion.
Re: X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links
#329Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
> > Even free speech has its limits > It doesnt though, thats the point. In theory. But in practive even the most staunch pro-free speech jurisdictions have limits on them. A lot for good reasons that most people would agree with (threats and fraud, stuff like that), but also some that would be absurd in other jurisdictions (obscenities for example, which is usually very locality specific). There's a Wikipedia page w…
Your logic here is circular. You're arguing definitions, it doesn't make sense to point to examples of places that claim to have free speech and decide that free speech must have limits because those places said they have it and they have limits.
You could just as easily look at those places and say they must not actually have free speech because they have legal limits on what you say.
Re: X users are unable to post “Signal.me” links
#330Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you seriously this delusional? All other messengers offer e2e encryption in one form or another and the "feds" can't request shit. The only difference is that signal does it out of the box, instead of being buried 20 layers deep in menus and unlike the other messengers(including telegram) is not false advertising and is a crime in the civilized world under data protection laws. So much for free speech(which btw i…
What I've said is from the perspective of a hypothetical moderation team at Twitter that has enacted this change, a change that will most likely be reversed, and was probably a mistake. Additionally, you are breaking the site's guidelines. This comment thread has very little to do with Elon Musk, please direct your rage somewhere else.
It's not rage, it's realism - musk is a classic example of extreme stalinism. If there are dozens of such instances on weekly basis and comrade musk is the one behind them, it's naive to think that this one isn't. Especially when it something that hurts his fragile ego. Which is not a secret anymore since plenty of his former employees have come forward. Hell, even the present day ones are coming forward but anonymously out of fear.