Comment on Automaker CEO Elon Musk Strips UAW Twitter Verification as Union Strikes Against Big Three
JasSmith@kbin.social 9 months ago
I must say it is amusing watching the same people who cheered Twitter censorship the last few years suddenly realise why giving companies the power to sensor is a bad idea. Eventually the gun gets turned on you.
The "censorship" from before Musk took over was mostly banning hate speech, death threats, and calls for violence. Sometimes all three were in the same tweet.
Now it's banning union organizing and people wanting to be paid a fair wage for a day's work. Totally the same.
Most people agree with censoring hate speech and death threats. The problem is they expanded well beyond that, all while people cheered. The chants of, “it’s a private company!” were deafening. So now they can lie in the bed they made.
Even before Musk, twitter amplified right-wing nonsense.
Now it's openly full of Nazis, because Musk unbanned them.
But you're right, it is a private company, and thus not subject to any definition of free speech.
Here's the thing. People do have free speech and can publicly say that they think the new twitter is a Nazi fulled dumpster fire run by a racist man-baby who got rich off of an Apartheid era emerald mine.
Private companies moderating content != censorship.
And I think you have a wrapped few of how it went down.
Pre-musk moderation was a necessary evil to combat spam, fake news and hate speech. Nobody was cheering, except when some notorious idiots got the boot. Then we were just laughing at the idiots. Fine, call it cheering if you want.
Now, we are mostly just all laughing at Musk destroying his investment.
I don’t care if he censors the UAW or whatever. Go ahead and censor everyone except dogecoin evangelists.
And yeah, people can say stupid shit I disagree with. But I reserve the right to laugh.
Can I follow you around with a siren, that I turn on every time you attempt speak, or will you accept that free speech always inevitably has limits and like most rights those limits are reached when your rights impinge on those of others and vice versa.
Using a siren to silence me is just another form of censorship.
Stopping someone from using a siren is just another form of censorship as well.
You telling me to silence my siren is censorship. I'm using it to voice my opinion.
Do you think it’s possible for a Twitter version of this drowning-out siren to exist? What would it look like?
I'm not going to hang out in a bar that allows Nazis to hang out. You can if you like, but people are going to call you a Nazi supporter, and they will be right. If you don't allow Nazis in your bar, they can still stand out side and freeze peach as much as they want, you are not curtailing anyone's freedom. So, yes, I cheer business that don't allow Nazis and I am critical of bars where the management trolls unions, and that's not hypocritical in any way because there's a difference between good things and bad things. Anyway, enjoy your Nazi bar, weirdo.
I think exceptions need to be made for obvious propaganda, gaslighting, and hate speech. Dangerous lies and calls for violence do not need a platform. That's quite different from silencing people for merely having a different opinion.
I agree with the spirit of what you’re saying, but it seems too easy for those definitions to get spun off into just “things the majority dislikes” which isn’t great. I would hope that dangerous lies could be countered in the comments, and the platforms are then setup to always include this conversation rather than letting the first poster hog the megaphone
I used to believe the free marketplace of ideas worked this way, then the Trump years and the pandemic happened. It became clear that many people cannot and do not care to know the difference between evidence-based conclusions & obvious and dangerous lies.
“A lie will fly around the whole world while the truth is getting its boots on.”—Mark Twain, (possibly apocryphal)
dmonzel@lemmy.world 9 months ago
JasSmith@kbin.social 9 months ago
You’re confusing the U.S. Constitution with free speech. The Constitution only prospects some kinds of free speech, and only for American citizens. I’m not American. Most people are not America. Surely you realise there are many others countries out there, and other kinds of speech?
You say “harmful” speech has not place in the public square. Who adjudicates that? Right now it’s Elon Musk. Are you really happy with that?
thisisawayoflife@lemmy.world 9 months ago
What government purchased X? Surely you’re mistaking that with a private entity purchasing it. No part of X is public, it is and has always been a private site with membership requirements.
dmonzel@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Again, "free speech* doesn’t apply to what companies allow on their platforms.
I listed examples of harmful speech, literally one sentence after the phrase “harmful speech”.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 9 months ago
The constitution is there to protect us from the government. Other laws are there to protect us from each other.
glad_cat@lemmy.sdf.org 9 months ago
That’s the “American and legal” version of free speech. Was there. No free speech before they wrote the constitution ?
SheeEttin@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Correct, there was not. For example, see the case of Zenger and the New York Weekly Journal.
Even today, the UK does not have the same freedom of speech as the US. For example: independent.co.uk/…/abolish-the-monarchy-proteste…