178
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2023
178 points (82.2% liked)
World News
32218 readers
916 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm sure the prospect of having your company's name displayed alongside actual Nazi content has nothing to do with it.
No, no - he means he blames the ADL for making most people not like Nazis.
Thats really the fundamental problem with free speech. Letting anyone say whatever their opinion means that “Everyone” includes morons and racists (who are obviously also morons)
Not letting them have a platform means censorship. Letting them have a platform means hate speech. Tough nut to crack.
Why is it censorship? They can still talk anywhere that accepts them, including public property; that they can't do it in my backyard isn't censoring them.
The problem is you're trying to redefine censorship to fit your narrative.
censor
verb
censored; censoring ˈsen(t)-sə-riŋ ˈsen(t)s-riŋ
transitive verb
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable
Suppressing speech, regardless of where or how, is censorship.
Interesting point. But are you willing to put your theory into practice?
If you truly believe this, you must now end all your messages with:
"veraticus@lib.lgbt said that free-speech maximalism is for fools but I disagreed because I am a fool."
If you don't do this you are suppressing my speech and censoring me. And please don't object on the grounds that the content is, perhaps, objectionable to some; remember, objectionable content is especially worthy of free speech protections.
I have no idea how you got this from what I said but no, that's not how any of this works.
Stop censoring me. I know you might find the content objectionable, but my freedom of speech demands you include that phrase in all your posts from this moment on. You aren't going to suppress speech you don't like or agree with, are you?
Censorship doesn't mean refusing to repeat other people's speech. It means preventing others from speaking. Not sure what part of this you're not getting. It is not a difficult concept.
I think because X/Twitter is a public forum, not your backyard?
It's not a public forum, it's a privately owned social media website/app...
The owners can kick anyone out they want.
Musk knew that, but apparently didn't know why the old owners kicked them out, it's because the vast majority of advertisers and users don't want them their.
Not saying he shouldn't but it is a slippery slope.
It's not. Platforming speech is endorsing speech. I mean, there's nuance to how it should be handled if someone says something you can't endorse, but that sentence is rule 1 of owning social media platforms.
I agree.
If you keep letting them have a platform next thing they’ll be building showers in their camps again.
It’s no more public than a shopping mall. The mall and Twitter are owned by a corporation or private entity so they can kick you out for any reason. They own the space, not the government. A public space is somewhere typically owned by the government like the library, town hall, roadway, or park. A common misconception is that anywhere people can freely enter is a public space, that’s not really how it works. If you think I’m wrong, go wave a Nazi flag and cause a disturbance at a mall and see how fast they kick you out.
In what sense is it public? It's owned by X and no one else.
People want to think it's a public forum because a lot of people use it. But that doesn't actually make it public.
Everyone can say what they want, but contrary to what the MAGA idiots think, they have no right to free speech on someone else's platform. They are free to make their own platforms and we can see from the great success of Truth Social and Parler how that works out.
What "free speech absolutist" Musk is trying to do is limit the speech of the ADL outside his platform, and to prevent them from shining a spotlight on him and the Nazi cockroaches he's invited back to Twitter. He's not going to convince advertisers that having their company's name appear next to Nazi content is a good thing, and IMO his attempted bullying of the ADL is going to end up driving advertisers away instead of bringing them back. Good.
Not actually that tough.
Relevant, and succinct.
The problem is that people don't realize there are different types of free speech.
1 is the constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech by law.
2 is the concept of free speech.
Most people automatically assume you're referring 1 when more often than not, unless someone is being prosecuted, they are referring to 2.
#2 doesn't exist, because #2 is forcing others to host your speech and listen to your speech, and that's just not how things work.
You are free to say what you want, but everyone else is just as free to tell you to shut up and go away.
Uhhhh no? A concept doesn't force people to do anything. Not sure what you're on about.
No one said they're not.
Nazis and dumb people vs. No Nazis and dumb people.
Hmmm.