I’m surprised when I see people uncritically repeating the claim that Twitter now aims for “free speech.” It’s clear that was never true and always meant “Speech Elon wants to allow.”
This is why we try to put these things in constitutions for governments, and build decentralized systems with no bureaucratic chokepoints for communications networks.
You could say it is simply a derivative of the mindset that nearly everyone holds "liberty for me, but not for thee". We just tend to ignore or think it is irrelevant when nobody holds power.
Yes, Elon and X can never be taken seriously on free speech without a pivot towards decentralization. What is happening with X is precisely the opposite. The "everything" app only provides opportunity for more control which will result in less freedom inevitably.
The same is true of anything else. People demand their privacy and then look through their partner's phone etc.
> We just tend to ignore or think it is irrelevant when nobody holds power.
"Nobody holds power over others" is an impossible perfection but getting closer to it is a primary goal of a good society.
> Yes, Elon and X can never be taken seriously on free speech without a pivot towards decentralization. What is happening with X is precisely the opposite. The "everything" app only provides opportunity for more control which will result in less freedom inevitably.
"Everything app" is some kind of marketing BS. Is the same app supposed to protect your anonymity and do your taxes? Hold your medical records and implement opaque buggy video game anti-cheat systems? That is either a farce or a dystopia.
But in practice he probably just means they're going to add some Tesla integration or cryptocurrency thing to Twitter and then people can take it or leave it.
It was always about the kind of speech that was being banned. Movement Democrats like to think of themselves as left-wing, so everything that opposes their party becomes right-wing, including people to the left of them. Movement Democrats weren't being banned for spreading misinformation, they were being encouraged.
> free to harass and insult people, freedom from consequences.
There were only consequences on one side with old twitter.
There's more ways to be outside the Overton window, Horatio, than are dreamed of in your philosophy.
I don't know what you mean by freedom on consequences. I guess a consequence of speech could be to get your account banned? If anything Twitter leaving up your objectionable content would result in more likely conferences of being fired or something.
Objectionable to whom? Elon seems to have no issue blocking speech objectionable to pseudo-dictators[1] or declaring that cis/cisgendered are slurs that can get you suspended. He seems fine with blocking speech objectionable to those that agree with his political sensibilities.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/05/13/turkey-...
It's not hard to find instances.
Note, I think it's fine for companies to moderate speech on their platforms. No objections there. Just don't simultaneously claim you are some sort of free speech absolutist.
You understand that you were asked for one, right? This is not one, this is a vague claim being repeated.
> he stated that "cis" will be disallowed on the platform
No, he didn't. He said that "cis" being thrown as an insult to people who didn't wish to be called "cis" wouldn't automatically be discounted as harassment. Maybe I'm wrong about this - can you find a single person that was banned or censored by twitter for saying "cis?"
> It's not hard to find instances.
If it's too hard for you to do, why do you expect others to believe you when you say this?
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/15/technology/twitter-suspen...