481–490 of 834 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty much anytime sometime says "antisemitism" these days what they mean is "opposing genocide". The Jewish people who are against genocide really do not appreciate people like you staining them with that lie.
In Italy even saying "stop genocide" without further elaboration on state tv is enough to get the Israelian ambassador to call the prime minister. https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2024/02/14/travaglio-a-la7-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> My understanding has always been that its specifically the government that can't censor me, a private company or citizen can. Then you have no free speech. I can just refuse you internet access, or not sell ink and paper to you… So my take is that no, it should not be allowed to private companies to censor arbitrarily. And of course an "algorithm" that sorts stuff in any other way than chronologically is censorship…
Then you do not have free speech, since this is what the rules of free speech are. They are about ensuring that the government doesnt use its unique powers of force to ensure that certain ideas are not shared or discussed. What the current government is doing, with Fox + Twitter, is fundamentally the opposite of free speech. They have the power to say something, then pretend it is true, and act on it. Its not a fair…
Neither do you, unless you redefined it to be the super narrow description that you gave. So you can freely be censored but keep believing you have freedom.
You're the poster child of how europeans imagine usa citizens.
I'm not defending Twitter or their policy in any way (disclaimer: I left Twitter the moment Elmo took over. I despise his hypocrisy and his fascist ideas) But this could be a "legitimate f-up". Normally, most of these unsafe-url protection and detection is automated in something with the scale of Twitter. Just like URL-shorteners often are (were?) "seemingly randomly" banned, because a portion of the shared urls are…
For a long time, the advice was "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." but aggressors evolve to fit their surroundings. When the population largely follows this rule, it becomes a competitive advantage to fake incompetence.
Perhaps both malice and incompetence should be treated the same, especially regarding punishment, until proven otherwise. After all, robust systems are designed in such a way that a single mistake can't cause harm. If somebody fails to design a system so that multiple mistakes (how many depends on cost and severity) have to stack up, then he should be held responsible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure you understand free speech. Free speech means he can make public threats to people without repercussions, doxx people when he feels like it, lie, and spread misinformation for personal gain. It means unbanning rule breakers, doxxers and harassers, as long as they're right-wing. Free speech does not extend to anyone who he personally disagrees with or dislikes, who will instead be banned from the platform…
Legal (first amendment) free speech certainly allows him to ban whoever he wants. However, this is the exact behavior from prior owners that he counter-positioned himself against, allegedly pursuing a broader “free speech absolutism.” That philosophy certainly would not permit arbitrary bans of people he doesn’t like. These mental gymnastics are remarkable to see.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Elon described himself as a free speech absolutist. There is no inconsistency in pointing out that his actions don’t align with this description, regardless of whether or not the person doing so is themselves a free speech absolutist.
Shifting the goal posts. The attacks on Musk are almost always that he doesn’t support freedom of speech, without any qualification. If you’re trying to attack the much narrower position that he’s not a free speech absolutist you need to do it at the time your make the criticism, not retrospectively after you make the allegation.
At this point you're actively contributing to the death of free speech if you're still active on X in any way. There are no excuses to use it still if you have any sort of functional moral compass.
No, this is just mood affiliation. Usually, posting on Twitter or quitting it has a very tiny, almost imperceptible effect on the larger world and it's certainly not something to get worked up about.
This make me curious about exactly what "signal.me" links were all about. The details appear to be available here: * https://signal.miraheze.org/wiki/Signal.me_URLs * https://signal.miraheze.org/wiki/Usernames#Username_links Signal.me links are just a way to easily send either a phone number or user name to someone else. No cryptographic identity. No protection of the phone number or user name. So to get around the b…
signal.me links are used to join (and advertise) Signal groups
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You are entitled to your opinion: good, bad, or irrelevant. You are entitled to your words. You are not entitled to an audience. Brilliant statement, I fully agree. The issue is who chooses to give them an audience. IMO it is up to the audience not to listen, but it seems to be the opinion of a lot of people here that gatekeepers (companies) should have the power to decide that and 'protect' their audience from it.…
If a firm decides to be pro or anti free speech. That is their choice. If their choices were unpopular, people would flock to alternatives. They don't. Which puts a hole into the underlying theory. If people do not naturally gravitate towards alternative ideas, and network effects keep people in one place, then these networks should be made government owned. Firms have a right to their property, and the choices of ho…
What you are saying is actively happening right now.
Certain people dont like that another certain group of people have been allowed back onto Twitter, and so they are going in droves to Mastodon/Bluesky/Threads/TruthSocial etc.
Twitter has received an 87% drop in revenue since reinstating previously blocked accounts.
Id say people are flocking to alternatives.
This is creating an extremely fragmented society, all creating their own bubble of what they want to see. History has shown that where this happens it increases aggression and intense reaction, where people are not used to seeing things they disagree with and so when they do they react more violently.
> Firms have a right to their property, and the choices of how they maximize revenue on it.
Of course they do, but what this generally turns into in the modern age is 'The left doesnt like what the right have to say, block them plz". Then this turns into a political argument, when in fact one group of people just dont want to hear what a different group of people have to say because 'it offends them'.
> I mean, should the head of a media firm be threatened by the Government or President, and forced to comply with their preferred style of gatekeeping?
We have rules and laws to prevent this as it is recognised as being a threat.