Elon Musk now owns 9.2% of twitter...update.. will soon be the sole owner as Board of Directors accepts his purchase offer

Page 155 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
108,778
26,106
146

"Today, the new owner of Twitter started a poll that asks if all previously banned accounts should be reinstated en mass on the platform. While Musk did note that it would only be allowed “provided that they have not broken the law or engaged in egregious spam,” it would bring back a ton of accounts that the previous administration deemed to break a number of community rules on the platform."


Free speech, free political speech is a human right.
It is; in the US and other western-style democracies, anyway

And quite obviously and inarguably that doesn't apply to Twitter, of course. But of course you know that because you understand the constitution and you are literate, correct?
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
108,778
26,106
146
FTFY.

Free speech is the universal principle of tolerating viewpoints you disagree with. 1A is a derived instantiation that only proscribes government actions.

For whatever reason, Americans tend to conflate the two, either thinking that 1A (actually the principle) is against private censorship on one side, or that only government censorship can be against free speech (actually 1A) on the other. Both are unhealthy attitudes.
no it isn't. No one has to tolerate anything.

"HurleyBird is a sister-raping grooming Nazi sympathizer. It's true and I have all the evidence for it, including a family of mormons that he murdered."



Tolerate me. You're now required to because you believe it is "moral or ethical" to tolerate me.
 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,400
4,824
136

"Today, the new owner of Twitter started a poll that asks if all previously banned accounts should be reinstated en mass on the platform. While Musk did note that it would only be allowed “provided that they have not broken the law or engaged in egregious spam,” it would bring back a ton of accounts that the previous administration deemed to break a number of community rules on the platform."


Free speech, free political speech is a human right.
Access to Twitter is a human right

Hahahaha

Ergo banned AT posters should take their fight to the supreme court?
 
Feb 4, 2009
32,756
13,556
136
no it isn't. No one has to tolerate anything.

"HurleyBird is a sister-raping grooming Nazi sympathizer. It's true and I have all the evidence for it, including a family of mormons that he murdered."



Tolerate me. You're now required to because you believe it is "moral or ethical" to tolerate me.
I can confirm @zinfamous has this evidence, I have seen it
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
11,285
6,124
136
Not rocket science. It means neither censoring, suppressing, nor advocating the same, of viewpoints you disagree with.
So what do you mean by "censoring" or "suppressing"? Is it "suppressing" speech for, say, Rupert Murdoch to not print it in his newspapers or put it on Fox News?

Also, as you extend that to "advocating the same", that seems to imply you think people who advocate for censorship or suppression of speech should have their advocacy...er...supressed or censored? You're already starting to contradict yourself.

You're equivocating between advocacy and tolerance in a bizarre false equivalency.

If I communicate a viewpoint to you, individual to individual in the everyday course of life, then of course you don't need to go spreading that view around town to be tolerant of it. When you don't reproduce speech you disagree with, you are no more intolerant of that speech than when you fail to reproduce speech that you do agree with, or are indifferent to. It isn't your function to reproduce speech.
This is all rather abstract and taking place in a vaccuum. By what _means_ are you suggesting you would 'communicate a viewpoint' to me? In the real world there are real physical constraints on communicating viewpoints, it requires resources - both physical and social - to do it. Those resources are not evenly distributed.

You seem to be skipping over that bit.

I mean, I grew up on the left, and that left was constantly complaining about the right-wing newspaper proprietors controlling what could be said. There were occasional proposals to give people a formal 'right of reply', such that newspapers would be legally-obligated to print responses from trade unionists or others that they attacked in print. Are you arguing for or against that? It's not clear.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
11,285
6,124
136
Forgive the absurd example because the absurd question begets it, but if for whatever reason you did make it your function to reproduce speech, and walked around town with a sign slung over your back stating: "Share your thoughts and I'll spread it around," then discriminating against viewpoints you disagree with would be the position opposed to free speech, while reproducing all viewpoints regardless of your own personal thoughts would be the position in support of free speech.
And if the sign said "...subject to the terms-and-conditions in the small-print below"? Which would be a better analogy to Twitter. Though also your example highlights the point that some forms of speech are louder and reach larger audiences than others - walking around with a sign is not going to compete with internet giants in terms of the effect your speech will have. What determines who gets to use which mechanisms for speaking? You skip over that bit.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
31,098
12,784
136
Are death threats a viewpoint, or an action? The law treats them as the later. They aren't protected by 1A. There may be a handful of extreme absolutists who want to protect death threats. I'm not one of them.



Again, is deliberately spreading misinformation (as opposed to genuinely believing something that happens to be wrong) the same as expressing a viewpoint? No. When deliberate misinformation is targeted at an individual, it's called defamation. Not protected. Theoretically, you could more broadly prosecute deliberate misinformation without discriminating against viewpoints. In practice, I'd be fearful of overreach.



Thing is, the flat earthers while obviously wrong aren't doing much if any harm. That society is basically in complete agreement that these people are nuts means society is no real danger. But it's entirely possible for society to be confident and also wrong. Fostering such a spirit of censorship doesn't have much of any benefit when society is correct, but is massively detrimental when it is incorrect.

And when society is split, you are never going to find an example as cut and dry as flat earthers, which of course will not stop anyone from claiming things are cut and dry. So let's suppress communist ideology because it is "discredited and might claim another hundred million souls if it's allowed to spread." Let's ban all pro-BLM viewpoints because its narrative falls apart when you control for confounds and the racial division is damaging. And let's ban all discussion of vaccine safety because those people are "anti-science and dangerous to society." And maybe they are, but God help you if you ever succeed in suppressing all anti-vax sentiment because the incentive for big pharma to make safe vaccines will drop off a cliff.

Or, we can tolerate each other and debate. Even if it means we need to put up with a few crazies and we aren't ever going to convince the zealots. If the "dangerous other" side is still claiming converts, then maybe instead of censorship and suppression we need to improve our messaging, or maybe we aren't as right as we think we are.
🤦‍♂️

I have no idea what you are talking about now as you’ve completely contradicted yourself. You’ve gone from advocating for free speech as a principal to allowing speech that’s productive or not harmful. One has no moderation and the other does.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,404
11,592
136
Still wanting that “free speech with no consequences” bullshit again, eh?
It's not “free speech with no consequences” that they want per se so much as free reach to an agreeable audience. Because the "consequences" they're seeking to avoid are actually just other people exercising their own free speech to disagree with them and/or refuse to amplify their speech.
Put more simply, Taj and the other RW's are simply lying. Their concern for free speech extends only to their own speech, to the extent that they see any speech that disagrees with them as an infringement of their own free speech.
 
Last edited:

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
15,822
11,315
146
no it isn't. No one has to tolerate anything.

"HurleyBird is a sister-raping grooming Nazi sympathizer. It's true and I have all the evidence for it, including a family of mormons that he murdered."



Tolerate me. You're now required to because you believe it is "moral or ethical" to tolerate me.
Seems to direct to me. More like:

Should people who are named after a 16ft bird in the show Lost be wiped off the face of the planet? I’m not saying they should but people on the internet are asking the question. Some have said they are pedophile groomers others suggest they corrupting our youth. Is it wrong if someone takes the necessary steps to protect our children? Just asking questions here.

Now to get Tucker Carlson and the mass media to spread my view point incessantly and if someone guns down a poster with that name meh. It some crazy dude and I send thoughts and prayers.

/s
 

manly

Diamond Member
Jan 25, 2000
9,750
1,104
126
no it isn't. No one has to tolerate anything.

"HurleyBird is a sister-raping grooming Nazi sympathizer. It's true and I have all the evidence for it, including a family of mormons that he murdered."



Tolerate me. You're now required to because you believe it is "moral or ethical" to tolerate me.
Yeah he basically concocted his own version of "free speech" and thus claimed Americans can't distinguish it from our 1st Amendment rights. Well a lot of Americans don't know shit about the Constitution so that part checks out. Besides 1A rights, free speech isn't absolute. The classic example is that if you knowingly and falsely yell "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater, and cause a stampede, I guarantee the DA will try their hardest to press charges.

The U.N. itself says nothing about free speech requiring "tolerance" from listeners.

 

Lost_in_the_HTTP

Diamond Member
Nov 17, 2019
7,861
4,585
106
This is all about being a Puppet Of The Orange.

Donny couldn't get 230 undone, so he conned and cajoled a stooge into doing it another way.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,210
11,675
146
This is all about being a Puppet Of The Orange.

Donny couldn't get 230 undone, so he conned and cajoled a stooge into doing it another way.
What the wing-wing fanatics do not understand is the destruction of 230 will lead to the end of ANY free speech on someone else's platform. Most social media will shut down and any that remain will only allow you to submit a post for moderator approval. No one but a complete idiot would expose themselves to a lawsuit because of user posts.

The internet will devolve into a giant MySpace, where the ONLY free speech is on personal webpages.

Even that is questionable as hosts will probably not be shieled either, and will have to approve pages before they are uploaded to shield themselves.

Hell, maybe that's how it should be? --cringe--
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
20,316
9,954
136
It's not “free speech with no consequences” that they want per se so much as free reach to an agreeable audience. Because the "consequences" they're seeking to avoid are actually just other people exercising their own free speech to disagree with them and/or refuse to amplify their speech.
Put more simply, Taj and the other RW's are simply lying. Their concern for free speech extends only to their own speech, to the extent that they see any speech that disagrees with them as an infringement of their own free speech.
This is it. The way it goes around is, sane people dont want to read defcon3 on jews, so when we see Black Jesus aka Kanye blasting bout Adidas. We dont buy Adidas no more. Adidas knows this well, understands this well, thus, they dont advertise anywhere Black Jesus. Cause its BAD FOR BUSINESS.

What Elmo and crew is bitching about is that they violently dont agree with how we spend our money.

How stupid do you have to be to MISS THIS POINT to the tune of 44 billion dollars.

I hope you’re proud of yourself Rogan, you edged this on.
 
Last edited:

Saylick

Platinum Member
Sep 10, 2012
2,156
3,832
136
It's not “free speech with no consequences” that they want per se so much as free reach to an agreeable audience. Because the "consequences" they're seeking to avoid are actually just other people exercising their own free speech to disagree with them and/or refuse to amplify their speech.
Put more simply, Taj and the other RW's are simply lying. Their concern for free speech extends only to their own speech, to the extent that they see any speech that disagrees with them as an infringement of their own free speech.
I think it actually just boils down to wanting a platform where they can say things that will offend the libs without punishment from the private company that gives them the platform to do so. If the goal was to have a platform that gives them reach to an agreeable audience, Truth Social and the other right-wing social media websites already provided them with that. If they wanted a safe space, they already had one, but it clearly isn't enough for them. In other words, they aren't looking for an echo chamber or to be able to preach to the choir; they want to crash the same venue that everyone else is in, but with protections/the blessing from higher up.
 

HurleyBird

Platinum Member
Apr 22, 2003
2,583
1,143
136
Not going to reply to everything that's been written since I went to bed, since I'm not a masochist, but I am going to respond to this, because it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the pro-free speech position that several of you have made, that being for free speech is somehow also being for coercion:

Also, as you extend that to "advocating the same", that seems to imply you think people who advocate for censorship or suppression of speech should have their advocacy...er...supressed or censored? You're already starting to contradict yourself.
Absolutely not.

Intolerance of free speech is also speech.

I don't have to like that speech, but as a free speech advocate I must tolerate it.

I'm 100% in support of Facebook, Twitter, whoever, of having the right to moderate in any manner they see fit, even if I disagree when they censor and suppress viewpoints.

That's the pro-speech position. Wanting to legislate away the ability of these companies to speak is extremely anti-free speech, and that's where many on the right have found themselves today. Cheerleading the suppression of viewpoints on large platforms on the other hand, is also anti-free speech, encouraging a spirit of intolerance, and this is where many of you are.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
31,098
12,784
136
Not going to reply to everything that's been written since I went to bed, since I'm not a masochist, but I am going to respond to this, because it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the pro-free speech position that several of you have made, that being for free speech is somehow also being for coercion:



Absolutely not.

Intolerance of free speech is also speech.

I don't have to like that speech, but as a free speech advocate I must tolerate it.

I'm 100% in support of Facebook, Twitter, whoever, of having the right to moderate in any manner they see fit, even if I disagree when they censor and suppress viewpoints.

That's the pro-speech position. Wanting to legislate away the ability of these companies to speak is extremely anti-free speech, and that's where many on the right have found themselves today. Cheerleading the suppression of viewpoints on large platforms on the other hand, is also anti-free speech, encouraging a spirit of intolerance, and this is where many of you are.
No sorry, you aren’t the only one with that viewpoint and very few here are cheerleading the suppression of viewpoints anywhere. If I’m wrong then you can show me as much from at least five “left” leaning posters here. While five crucible wouldn’t be a majority, it’s enough to get the impression you are claiming.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
77,854
35,984
136
Not going to reply to everything that's been written since I went to bed, since I'm not a masochist, but I am going to respond to this, because it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the pro-free speech position that several of you have made, that being for free speech is somehow also being for coercion:



Absolutely not.

Intolerance of free speech is also speech.

I don't have to like that speech, but as a free speech advocate I must tolerate it.

I'm 100% in support of Facebook, Twitter, whoever, of having the right to moderate in any manner they see fit, even if I disagree when they censor and suppress viewpoints.

That's the pro-speech position. Wanting to legislate away the ability of these companies to speak is extremely anti-free speech, and that's where many on the right have found themselves today. Cheerleading the suppression of viewpoints on large platforms on the other hand, is also anti-free speech, encouraging a spirit of intolerance, and this is where many of you are.
I think this misses the point. Twitter and Facebook censoring viewpoints they don’t like is ALSO their free speech and to oppose that is to oppose free speech.

There is no way to be truly and purely free speech as in all cases there are competing free speech claims that are irreconcilable.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
11,285
6,124
136
Not going to reply to everything that's been written since I went to bed, since I'm not a masochist, but I am going to respond to this, because it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the pro-free speech position that several of you have made, that being for free speech is somehow also being for coercion:



Absolutely not.

Intolerance of free speech is also speech.

I don't have to like that speech, but as a free speech advocate I must tolerate it.

I'm 100% in support of Facebook, Twitter, whoever, of having the right to moderate in any manner they see fit, even if I disagree when they censor and suppress viewpoints.

That's the pro-speech position. Wanting to legislate away the ability of these companies to speak is extremely anti-free speech, and that's where many on the right have found themselves today. Cheerleading the suppression of viewpoints on large platforms on the other hand, is also anti-free speech, encouraging a spirit of intolerance, and this is where many of you are.
I'm just not sure that position is coherent. You disagree with large platforms moderating what they carry, but have as a point-of-principle that you wouldn't do anything to stop them doing so. Not entirely sure what 'disagreement' means if you have a central principle that you wouldn't do anything to prevent them doing what you disagree with them doing even if you had the ability to do so.

And to say you disagree with "cheer-leading" the suppression of viewpoints presumably implies you disagree with those who support a system of private -property rights? As the exercise of private property rights, in relation to the media and the means of speech, is intrinsically suppressive of particular viewpoints.

I don't really have an answer, either - seems as if either speech ends up controlled by those with the economic power or by those with political power. Either Murdoch or Pravda. Perhaps an unstable equillibrium between the two is the best that can be achieved?
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
20,316
9,954
136
Not going to reply to everything that's been written since I went to bed, since I'm not a masochist, but I am going to respond to this, because it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the pro-free speech position that several of you have made, that being for free speech is somehow also being for coercion:



Absolutely not.

Intolerance of free speech is also speech.

I don't have to like that speech, but as a free speech advocate I must tolerate it.

I'm 100% in support of Facebook, Twitter, whoever, of having the right to moderate in any manner they see fit, even if I disagree when they censor and suppress viewpoints.

That's the pro-speech position. Wanting to legislate away the ability of these companies to speak is extremely anti-free speech, and that's where many on the right have found themselves today. Cheerleading the suppression of viewpoints on large platforms on the other hand, is also anti-free speech, encouraging a spirit of intolerance, and this is where many of you are.
I thought it was free speech? Today I learned its actually ANTI free speech. Damn man. This shit is hard.

Anyway, so Twitter as of now is a safe space for all the
R-word,
N-word,
F-word,
J-word,
S-word,
C-word,
B-word
's
Go. Go let it rip. Be sure to be verified, you know, for the next data leak that is *bound* to happen.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: hal2kilo

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
41,919
23,273
136
A ton of the people I follow aren’t showing up in my feed at all, despite posting recently.
My feed is a lot more glitchy these days. Twitter probably won't die in some spectacular system failure but will accumulate glitches and other usability problems along with being flooded with nazis and other very fine people who properly fellate the owner.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY