This is only true if one defines freedom of speech extremely narrowly; specifically if you want to use racial slurs, or if you want to attack lgbtq folks.
Material criticism of Elon or his endeavors routinely results in bans. This has resulted in him banning numerous high profile journalists.
Elon banned individuals who posted Elon's locations, after Grimes used that info to serve him a custody lawsuit that he'd been dodging. He even banned journalists who talked about the bans, or who asked about ban policy.
He bans with abandon. Joke accounts? banned. promoting other social networks? banned. Advocating for lgbt gun ownership? banned. Paul Graham (the co-founder of YC)? banned.
And when he isn't busy banning, he is using the courts to suppress speech he doesn't like, and creating implicit threats to others who might say something even moderately critical of him or his empire of government subsidized wealth.
you know what isn't banned now? having centrist, or even right wing opinions
you can also see the violence and terrorism that the mainstream media refuses to report on
there's a lot of political voices that are being allowed to speak finally, whereas before they've been stifled due to political persecution coupled with insane deplatforming. X as a free speech platform is doing a great job at showing how widespread political gaslighting has become.
Be specific.
that covid came out of a chinese lab, or showing that the lockdowns didn't work as was shown by Jay Bhattacharya early on
accounts that were censored, shadowbanned, and massively decreased in exposure. just look up the twitter files.
since being owned by elon there's also been a rush of psychometricians into twitter, people who want to share and talk about their scientific data, which was banned before. you couldn't talk about IQ.
there were also people banned for challenging immigration narratives or gender ideology. this was prevalent and obvious. lauren southern was constantly accused of shooting a gun at an immigrant ngo ship that was actually just a flare - incapable of hitting or hurting anyone.
all of this was blatant and widespread on more than just twitter, did you not notice?
I'll agree he changed the (flawed) covid misinformation policy; though there were absolutely people discussing Chinese lab leak theories or the effectiveness of lockdown without getting banned.
I don't know what you're talking about regarding psychometrician... there were always people talking about how some races are categorically dumber than others and drawing broad conclusions; they received social judgment but not bans.
Your comment about Southern is really telling though. You're clearly upset that people are _not_ banned for stating something true. You agree she shot blazing hot fiery incendiary devices at immigrants using a flare gun, and you think people should be muzzled from saying that, simply because you (very wrongly) believe that flares can't start fires or hurt people.
This last part makes clear that you don't actually have any love of free speech; but rather you simply want speech restricted in the way you personally prefer. It's refreshing that you don't bother pretend to have principles beyond a desire for power, and a love of oppressing those you hate.
Not a flare gun, a flare. She held it in her hand, it couldn't even be fired: https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=357&v=yFxAlx6hy2M&feature=yout...
Even if all she did was sing happy birthday to the immigrants and then welcome them to Greece, Stainablesteel is still advocating for speech he doesn't like to be restrained.
In hindsight, I should've realized that his post was unreliable and untrustworthy. I should not have used a proven liar as a source, and I won't do so again.
Elon is literally suing for speech he doesn't like.
Clearly different from some random internet person saying something controversial or unpopular.
Also: does anyone think those big accounts just up and left after one shoestring organization published something?
They most likely replicated the results themselves.
It doesn't represent an actual experience though, it's deliberate and misleading since that curation was left out of the report.
Probably also has something to do with the kinds of ugly stuff the owner of Twitter has been boosting lately.
Well anyway, let's all continue speculating...
No such logs have been produced, FWIW. They made some vague claims in the original suit, but haven't backed it up. Broadly the claim amounts to: Media Matters created burner accounts that follow a bunch of nazis, racists, and other hateful accounts, and did it so that they could embarrass X when it got served ads for Disney products or whatever.
And, maybe that's true. Media Matters is an in-the-trenches democratic political organ, and Musk has coded himself conservative in his current incarnation. He's an enemy, and they're going to go after him. That's just politics.
But I don't see how you get from there to damages. It's certainly not libel; Media Matters did, after all, tell the truth. Nor is it fraud. X really did serve the ads, and the content really was hateful. Anyone else following those hate accounts would get the same content, Media Matters didn't "hack the algorithm", they just followed a lot of evil nonsense.
Exactly. What people don’t seem to realize is that neo-Nazi content is allowed, and there is not a extant mechanism for Twitter advertisers to make sure that their ads do not appear next to that allowed neo-Nazi content — this is why Twitter verified that fact in their lawsuit.
The lawsuit is meritorious because while there was no malfunction on Twitter’s part, they contend that accepting advertisers’ money and occasionally showing it next to neo-Nazi content simply isn’t that big of a deal. The misleading part is introducing the idea that advertisers should expect that not to happen.
I look forward to further lawsuits against users such as these
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/11/27/elons-censorial-lawsuit-...
This seems contradictory. You're saying that the lawsuit doesn't say the report is inaccurate, but rather that it's not correct?
Is your comment based on a distinction between the words accurate/inaccurate and correct/incorrect?
>Twitter is suing under the “who cares” and “shut up” doctrine.
You're saying that the lawsuit is meritorious, while conceding that there is no legal basis for the lawsuit? Am I missing something?
Incorrect. For example, from the complaint[0]:
> As extensively explained above, these statements made by Defendant Media Matters were false.
Though to be fair, the lawsuit never bothers to explain how they're false or offer any actual evidence to that effect. It doesn't even attempt to cite the legal elements of any of the claims that are listed, nor does it establish any facts that one could even tangentially connect to the claims asserted.
I have a law degree (though I don't currently practice law). I doubt this lawsuit will survive a motion for summary judgment. I would even go so far as to expect that Elon/Twitter will probably be paying for Media Matters' attorney's fees for the utterly frivolous nature of the complaint.
[0] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.38...
> leaving the false impression that these pairings are anything but what they actually are: manufactured, inorganic, and extraordinarily rare.
Those last two terms mean they're admitting Media Matters' allegations are true, even if they're uncommon.
No. Twitter is suing under the “who cares”, “shut up” and “no u” doctrine, which you can do in courts that do not have anti-SLAPP rules in place.
>The company filed its lawsuit in Texas, which is neither its nor Media Matters’ primary place of business. As legal blogger Ken White noted, a Texas filing protects X from claims that it filed a strategic lawsuit against public participation (or SLAPP), something it might face in its home base of California.
https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/20/23970274/x-elon-musk-med...
No, this is incorrect. I believe you're unintentionally conflating two things. Not having an anti-SLAPP law just means that Media Matters won't have the luxury of quickly striking the complaint before having to respond to it.
It does not mean that vexatious litigants are free to file a lawsuit without making actual legal claims recognized by the courts.
Media Matters can (and will) still file a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint, and will almost certainly prevail based on the clear deficiency of the complaint which doesn't even bother to cite the legal elements of the three claims it lists.
So yes, my statement was correct, you just aren't familiar with how it works.
I would rather have my account "censored" then being forced to spends tens of thousands of dollars on lawyers.
He pays for peoples legal funds who have issues with free speech on twitter no matter if he agrees or not.
Before Musk, Twitter's full compliance rate hovered around 50%; since the takeover, it is over 80%.
These countries include China [2] and India [3].
[1] https://restofworld.org/2023/elon-musk-twitter-government-or...
[2] https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/twitte...
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/05/twitter-accuse...
edit: is this not accepted fact, at this point?
Quote — "By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law. If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect. Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people." [0]
Quote — "Like I said, my preference is to hew close to the laws of countries in which Twitter operates. If the citizens want something banned, then pass a law to do so, otherwise it should be allowed." [1]
Personally I think this the only sane stance for a corporation like Twitter/X. We shouldn't be looking to capitalist non-democratic corporations as an end-run around governments — especially democratic governments.
[0] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519036983137509376?lang...
[1] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1523654106745020418?lang...
Yet he has repeatedly demonstrated that this is not, in fact, his standard for free speech. It’s bizarre to pretend that it is.
No he does not.
As long as you don't want to talk about decolonization (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1725645884409401435) or people being cis-gender (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1671370284102819841) or whatever else Elon doesn't like this week.
For the record, neither or these things are what he claims they are.
I saw dozens replicating it last week and I was able to replicate it myself
Later edit: can confirm, I tried it and I got `Visibility limited: this Post may violate X’s rules against Hateful Conduct.`
This is rather disappointing and it might influence my stance on continuing to pay for Premium.
even got an email saying my tweets visibility was limited for the cis tweet but not the trans one
I don't disagree with this stance... I need some substantial proof that posting your opinion without calling for extreme violence is going to get your suspended.
To my knowledge genocide pretty much requires "extreme violence".
For the record, no, decolonization [1] does not mean Jewish genocide, that's his own fever dream, but he's clearly stated that X's position is it does.
At the same time: I don't think it's that straightforward to dismiss concerns about "decolonization", especially not with a simple link to Wikipedia. That decolonization could represent programs known to their authors as means of eradicating Jewish people (and, in particular, the plurality Mizrahim population of Israel) is not a fever dream. That doesn't make it true, but it's not a facially invalid concern.
That advocates of "decolonization" widely responded to the October 7th Hamas Al Aqsa Flood attacks with "decolonization is not a metaphor" does your "fever dream" arguments no favors; those attacks were overtly, expressly genocidal.
Lots of terms have been used as euphemism for lots of things. It makes no sense to declare a word used in many contexts now means only this one thing, because one group of people used it this way. As I said in another thread I'm against allowing people to hide behind euphemism and dog whistles, by all means if someone is talking about decolonization of Israel, take action! But claiming this is the only meaning and a blanket ban is nonsense.
The second, "that decolonization could be genocidal only in fever dreams." is not what I said. I can also think of a few instances of decolonization in history that certainly pushed those boundaries. What I said was that the word decolonization does not inherently mean genocide, much less specifically Jewish genocide, and the belief that it does is a Musk fever dream. I also acknowledge that it would have been clearer if I had clarified that some (Hamas, their supporters) are using it that way and that emotional language, as usual, does little to add to a conversation.
the cis thing is whatever, it should be allowed and it is. but if you use it to harass someone, same as if you used other slurs, it would be taken as harassment. this isn't insane for an online platform.
So does Webster's and Wikipedia.
if only there was a country for them.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decolonization
It may surprise you to know, there is more to the world than one particular conflict.
Edit: to be clear I take no issue with banning calls for violence and genocide, including instances where they are attempting to be obscured by careful use of language. I take issue with claiming that the word, which has been used for decades, in a wide variety of contexts, suddenly inherently means genocide.
When someone today talks about "decolonization", what are the odds that they're talking about Palestine? What are the odds that they're talking about the Belgian Congo? This is especially true if it shows up on Twitter rather than in an obscure journal about the 20th century history of Africa.
So (many) people are using "decolonization" to mean the destruction of Israel. And then (some, and maybe not the same) people are saying "you can't say decolonization means genocide, because there's all this history of Africa and India and the Caribbean and so on - it doesn't necessarily mean that." OK, fine, but these days, on Twitter, what percentage of it does mean wiping out Israel? 95%? 99%?
So, yes, as a matter of definition, you have a point. In practice, Twitter has a point.
In my particular bubble? Essentially zero. It's pretty much always going to be in the context of a past or present British colony, or a person's mental state aka "decolonize the mind". I readily admit my personal experience may not line up with whatever is trending on Twitter/X. And now we can't discuss those things on Twitter/X apparently. Is Twitter/X such a mess that this kind of limit is for the best? Maybe, I haven't been around in a long time, but it seems pretty damn toxic from the outside, but "freedom of speech" it ain't.
The people I follow have a very high signal to noise ratio, so maybe that helps.
What do you see?
It's easily been the most on-point social media experience I've had.
That just strikes me as downright weird.
As a result: outrage, controversy, demagoguery and subsequent deleting of such impulsive and unfiltered crap is very common. A lot of it is also unintelligible drivel that is presented with no context. And common opinion is that this is basically the best planet earth has to offer. In a way this is embarrassing and that mayor would have my permanent vote had I lived in France.
100% depends on who you follow. It says more about the follower than the platform to be honest.
Laughing out loud.
It's not hard to think of other alternatives...? KakaoTalk, LINE, WeChat / 小红书? These are all used where tons of interesting people post, and freedom of speech isn't really upheld on X (formerly Twitter) anyway.
Could you link me to 2 - 3 interesting accounts on these platforms so that I can browse their thoughts?
Nonsense, if your tweet includes swear words of any kind (regardless of whether the sentiment expressed is positive or negative) it will be quietly hidden and your placement score will go down.
Edit: Pointing this out seems to have upset some folk.
My choices are as follows:
Meta vs. X, I choose X
Reddit vs. Hackernews, I choose Hackernews
I couldn't say why I choose either, I guess it's a thirst for content and ultimately, there's a visceral choice that I make that results in X / Hackernews as opposed to Meta / Reddit.
Politics / Politicians
- https://debatepolitics.com/
- https://defendingthetruth.com/
- https://www.houseofpolitics.com/
- https://politicalhotwire.com/
- https://www.politicsforum.org/forum/
Science / Scientists
- https://www.scienceforums.net/
- https://thescienceforum.org/
- https://www.physicsforums.com/
- https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/
- https://forum.cosmoquest.org/
Let me know if any of these hit the mark for you
Edit: Formatting
Gouging your eyes out with a screwdriver? Sticking your dick into a blender?
Both are probably less harmful long term than using X.