Twitter HAS a free speech problem. This is not controversial. Now you may not agree that Twitter SHOULD allow free speech, but you can not deny that censorship exists on Twitter and it is serving the political agenda of some people.
Twitter HAS a free speech problem. This is not controversial. Now you may not agree that Twitter SHOULD allow free speech, but you can not deny that censorship exists on Twitter and it is serving the political agenda of some people.
No, it doesn't.
> This is not controversial.
If you keep getting in arguments about something, it's pretty silly to claim there is no controversy.
> Now you may not agree that Twitter SHOULD allow free speech
If you don't agree that Twitter should do something that it currently isn't, you by definition don't see it as having a problem in that behavioral domain.
> but you can not deny that censorship exists on Twitter and it is serving the political agenda of some people.
Private actors controlling the use of their private resources to select which ideas they will and will not promote with them is called “free speech”. So, you seem to think Twitter’s problem is that they exercise free speech.
I have to admit that this makes sense. But still kinda disturbing in this case. Because when the private resource we're talking about is Twitter, the actors behind can exercise their right of free speech for mass manipulation. That's too much power. I guess this is the problematic part.
It's not exactly the same thing as the right to free speech of a single individual or a small company.
Your logic is sound, but sometimes scale changes the rules. Especially in this very special case where Twitter has become the digital equivalent of a global town square. That's the catch.
Anyway maybe my quick arguments weren't very good after all.
But do you really not see any problems with Twitter lately? Is everything okay?
You seem smart. I'm genuniely curious.
Twitter has limitations on free speech, it's totally debatable if that's a problem or not.
But let's also not say that "Twitter has limitations on free speech" because it feels like a misleading euphemism. Free speech is not a spectrum. You either have it or not.
How about we just say that "Twitter doesn't have free speech".
And yes, "it's totally debatable if that's a problem or not". That I agree.
Have we become so delusional that we can’t recognize this simple fact?
Tech misinformation is interesting because a Chinese government account gets a flag and an American government account doesn't. A company pr account doesn't get a bias flag, but it is wholly designed around spreading misinformation. Misinformation seems to be used as an argument against not only free speech, but only leaning towards very specific directions politically.
There are hundreds of records of censored content which doesn't have anything to do with all that. This is a fact whether you agree with it or not.