this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023
655 points (84.7% liked)

Technology

59495 readers
4102 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

“Freedom of Speech, not Freedom of Reach - our enforcement philosophy which means, where appropriate, restricting the reach of Tweets that violate our policies by making the content less discoverable.”

Surprise! Our great 'X' CEO has brought back one more bad thing that we hated about twitter 1.0: Shadowbanning. And they’ve given it a new name: "Freedom of Speech, Not Reach".

Perhaps the new approach by X is an improvement? At least they would “politely” tell you when you’re being shadow banned.

I think freedom of speech implies that people have the autonomy to decide what they want to see, rather than being manipulated by algorithm codes. Now it feels like they’re saying, “you can still have your microphone... We're just gonna cut the power to it if you say something we don't like”.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FlyingSquid 203 points 1 year ago (7 children)

So originally, it was that he was a "free speech absolutist," then it was that he was in favor of free speech "within the bounds of the law," and now he's not even in favor of that.

[–] anlumo 181 points 1 year ago (4 children)

He never was, that was just an excuse to amplify the voice of his far-right buddies.

[–] FlyingSquid 24 points 1 year ago

I know. It was more about what he said.

[–] Stern 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] captain_oni 8 points 1 year ago

I wish I was free from his speech, specifically.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I don't believe this because it gives Elon Musk too much credit and honestly I think he's just a big loser who will latch on to whoever likes him at the time.

A series of stupid events led to Twitter being full of stupid far right nutjobs and stupid Elon decided they're his people now because they use his stupid platform.

[–] anlumo 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not so sure about that. The big tell is that whenever a far-right user complained to him about getting a tweet removed or the account getting banned or something like that, he'd respond that he'll personally take care of it. Just imagine, a billionare running a platform with millions of users personally taking care of a single one. This never happened with other people.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I personally haven't heard of this, but if it's true it's probably just because he's latched on to them like I was saying. He didn't buy Twitter with some nefarious conservative intent to unblock far right accounts, he bought it because he's an idiot who got into a pissing match on social media. He even tried to get out of the sale claiming "bots" and the owners threatened to sue the shit out of him.

Edit: Lol people downvoting because I haven't heard of this? Never said it's not true, I just haven't heard of it.

[–] anlumo 5 points 1 year ago

Example: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FgKSQUrXoAABPWi.jpg

I agree with your assessment. I'm not claiming that he has a plan of any sorts, things just happen in a spur of the moment. However, that's also the appeal of the far-right. It doesn't need research or having a solid base of knowledge to base their opinions on, it's just random stuff these people read on the Internet that feels good to them.

[–] ChunkMcHorkle 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

deleted by creator

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

This seems more accurate somehow

[–] psycho_driver 43 points 1 year ago (2 children)

By free speech absolutist he really meant he thinks fascists should be able to say whatever they want.

[–] billiam0202 18 points 1 year ago

By free speech absolutist he really meant he thinks fascists should be able to force you to listen to them say whatever they want.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

Freedom for me but not for thee

[–] Jat620DH27 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I guess it's all about his political ambition.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Oh god, I just had a flash of a near future where he's on the US ballot somehow. It wouldn't be a huge surprise if he found a way. He could change the name of the States to X too!

[–] Jat620DH27 4 points 1 year ago

Please, I beg you, don't scare me.

[–] AustralianSimon 4 points 1 year ago

X party. Yikes.

[–] FlyingSquid 3 points 1 year ago

For any office except president (possibly not VP either, but that would be a technical issue for constitutional scholars to debate). You have to be native-born to be president.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago

I am better choice would be the poop emoji.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You gotta be really stupid to believe people like him. They are all the same. It's like a mental sickness. You can feel it even just hearing him talk on TV. Sadly he seems to have the type of mental illness that America accepts and it's actually useful for greed and the American dream. Meanwhile good neurodivergent people suffer life long because society doesn't fit them.

[–] MyFairJulia 3 points 1 year ago

I mean freedom of speech, not reach describes one boundary of the law in that nobody is required to give you a platform as far as i know.

However it does absolutely not fit to the free speech absolutism purported last year.