Elon's Twitter

[CharlesPhipps]

How so? Genuine question. How would giving Trump back his Twitter account lose Musk a single cent? And please bear in mind that if I had a penny for everyone on the internet who has said that they'll boycott [[Insert Product Here]] because of [[insert reason here]] I would be a billionaire.

To explain, clearspira, I'm not referring to the irrelevant masses. Left, Right, Centrist, Vulcan, it doesn't matter. The actual Twitter USERS don't mean shit. The issue is the ADVERTISERS of Twitter who are the real source of money in Silicon Valley. Its big data that makes Google and Twitter valuable.

Trump's massive racism and violence and craziness drives off advertisers.

Which is why he was banned.

Not because of the actual violence he inspired. No. Because he scares the money.

[CharlesPhipps]

The basic problem remains: Twitter claims that it's not legally responsible for what gets said on its service AND strictly polices what's said on its service in ways that go far beyond excluding illegal content. They can't have it both ways: they are political actors who forbid particular messages and as such not neutral.

To be fair, as a private entity, they should be able to delete or moderate whatever the fuck they want. Which just makes me lose what little respect I might have for the GOP (and I don't have much). They're all for private businesses being able to do what they want RIGHT UP until it mildly inconveinances them then suddenly are passing laws in Texas that Facebook can't regulate content.

The sheer hypocrisy is not even surprising anymore.

[Frustration]

Oh, indeed, Twitter is a private company with a private service, offered to the public under conditions that can change at any time. As such, they have an absolute right to forbid any positions they wish.

It's much more respectable to permit free speech in the American style, though. Especially since that would inevitably lead to problems with those European nations that are very enthusiastic about declaring certain opinions and positions illegal - Twitter will probably have to block those countries if they go for a truly content-neutral service.

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." That means things like claiming Trump was right about the election being stolen, Covid vaccines cause autism and contain mind-control microchips, 5G is a Reptilian plot, and voting is a useful way to express your political opinion, can be all said without the power of the state forbidding or oppressing.

[CharlesPhipps]

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." That means things like claiming Trump was right about the election being stolen, Covid vaccines cause autism and contain mind-control microchips, 5G is a Reptilian plot, and voting is a useful way to express your political opinion, can be all said without the power of the state forbidding or oppressing.

There's a "Take a Third Option" actually that bypasses all of this. It's called "Terms of Service" which says you have free speech as long as you agree not to use Hate Speech or incite violence or so on or whatever else is there.

Like signing a Bail Bonds contract means they can drag you physically into court in handcuffs, so does this contract forfeit your right to free speech and telling people it's okay to not let your kids be vaccinated because Satan.

[Frustration]

as long as you agree not to use Hate Speech

Means nothing, because the term is not defined.

[CharlesPhipps]

as long as you agree not to use Hate Speech

Means nothing, because the term is not defined.

Up to the owner.

[TGLS]

Well just because you haven't read the page doesn't mean the policy doesn't exist. Like here's Twitter's current definition page

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

as long as you agree not to use Hate Speech

Means nothing, because the term is not defined.

It's not the technical complex that you're making it out to be. Constitutions aren't formulated like freestyle legos blocks. We work from what we know of human value and define comprehensive and concise policy to situate it.

We do specifically speaking know what hate speech is, from a social standpoint. Sensible policy addressing it isn't unattainable.

[clearspira]

Well, here's Musk's first change: he is going to charge ''Blue Tick Marks'' $20 to keep it. And I think its hilarious. There are so many ''up-your-arse'' types on Twitter who think that check mark gives you some kind of extreme legitimacy when sprouting their opinions that by making it paid for all you are now proving is that you have $20 to spare. Beautiful. I like him already.

[Frustration]

We do specifically speaking know what hate speech is, from a social standpoint.

Just as Potter Stewart famously claimed that he couldn't define pornography in words but "I know it when I see it."

No, that means you don't know it. More importantly, you can't forbid it; people can't choose whether to step over the line until it's been drawn. What enforcers are actually doing is retroactively deciding, on a case-by-case basis, whether their ineffable personal standards have been met; what you actually get is people using their personal judgments of whether they like something to justify exercising the power of the state.