Elon Musk should be the last person to control Twitter, but now he does!

Originally posted by Darth Thor
I mean what should be the standard. The legal standard.

End of the day social media is the biggest platform for free speech.

So social media is the biggest platform for speech, sure. Free speech? Why?

Originally posted by Smurph
But the legal standard of free speech refers to a guarantee that the government will not impose laws that unjustly restrict expression. And, Twitter is not the government.

So social media is the biggest platform for speech, sure. Free speech? Why?

What even are your principles?

How about starting with what you actually believe, so we have something to argue about.

At least Whirly outright admitted he thinks certain people need to be protected from certain speech. He said this.

I think it's an insane position and hope you would too, but no one cares what I think.

Originally posted by Smurph

So social media is the biggest platform for speech, sure. Free speech? Why?

Because it's supposed to be for communicating ? Do we restrict communications? Should we restrict communications?

I'm asking what your stance is on what should be allowed in terms of free speech..

You can claim it should be different for social media, but in today's day and age, that would in effect be restricting free speech.

I miss the old days where you could just larp on a movie forum and pretend to be whoever you want to be. Like a Viking, for example.

Originally posted by cdtm

If we can't at least hash out the philosophy first, the details of what and when becomes a shouting match of different assumptions.

It's the philosophical route that generally turns into sour grapes, since people naturally think their own personal ideas are best.

Originally posted by cdtm
As far as I know, the current working legal standard is as a platform, which exempts them from liability over content or something, yet they are expected to actively eradicate ip infringements and police against the limits of the 1a.

In addition they must keep advertisers happy, and pressure groups have influence with advertisers for some reason.

I mean, yeah dude, copyright law is a thing.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

Since the question is coming up a lot, I'll say this --

I do think the current law is mostly sufficient. There's details I'd change if we examined every little letter of free speech policy, but I'm cool with it broadly speaking.

I want more protections for whistleblowers/hacktivists/etc who've become political prisoners/exiled for exposing corruption, for example. We've got actual heroes sitting in prison due to legal oversights on free speech policy, but Musk simps and conservatives are whining they can't troll without risking a ban?

Originally posted by StyleTime
Quite the opposite, really. In regards to the "free speech" claims, those people are objectively wrong. That's it -- no shouting match to be had.

It's the philosophical route that generally turns into sour grapes, since people naturally think their own personal ideas are best.

I mean, yeah dude, copyright law is a thing.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

If you speculated about lab leaks with respect to Covid, you were restricted as a conspiracy theorist.

Once the media started speculating, it became acceptable speech.

Look to Dave Chappelle and all the claims against him. Anyone else but him gets deplatformed.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Because it's supposed to be for communicating ? Do we restrict communications? Should we restrict communications?

Do we?

Yes, in so many ways, and always subject to the limitations on the authority to do so.

Every government restricts certain communications, subject to its respect for constitutional liberties. For their part, social media corps set and enforce their own content moderation policies. Compared to constitutional govts, they have more ability to do so.

So, seems like the US can make it illegal to use tweets to spread misinformation in order to jack up share prices, hence the SEC fining Elon. Probably a justifiable limitation on the "freedom to lie" (nb: probably it's the *profiting* that's illegal but seems like a limit on expression nonetheless).

But, the govt probably couldn't enforce a sweeping law that all parody Twitter accounts have to announce that they're parody accounts. I'm guessing that would be an unjustifiable limitation on parody, plus it's a tricky exercise for governments to put words in your mouth.*

BUT, obviously Twitter isn't restricted the same way. Elon can and does just enact that sort of restriction on a whim. Can and does force parody accounts to say "hey I'm a parody account". If those parody accounts sued Elon over their constitutional right to freedom of speech, the court would tell them to kick rocks.

*obviously that does still happen.. off the top of my head, in Canada you have to swear an oath to the King during a citizenship ceremony... but, point being, there lies the "freedom of speech" right that everybody is hyped on.

Should we?

I think this question is impossible out of context. Obviously there are some situations where governments have to restrict expression (shouting fire in a crowded theatre, etc).

I'm glad the SEC deters billionaires from lying on Twitter to inflate share prices. I disagree with a Twitter policy that forces parody accounts to self-identify. So, everything in context.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
I'm asking what your stance is on what should be allowed in terms of free speech..

You can claim it should be different for social media, but in today's day and age, that would in effect be restricting free speech.

But in an effort to end this post without sounding like a dick: I think social media can and should try to foster some sort of free exchange of ideas. I also think Twitter can and should maintain the freedom and bear the responsibility to set and enforce its own content policies. I think a law enforcing absolute free speech on any social media platform (even if possible) would be an unjust restriction on Twitter's ability to develop and maintain its own services.

Originally posted by Smurph
Oy vey, where to start

Do we?

Yes, in so many ways, and always subject to the limitations on the authority to do so.

Every government restricts certain communications, subject to its respect for constitutional liberties. For their part, social media corps set and enforce their own content moderation policies. Compared to constitutional govts, they have more ability to do so.

So, seems like the US can make it illegal to use tweets to spread misinformation in order to jack up share prices, hence the SEC fining Elon. Probably a justifiable limitation on the "freedom to lie" (nb: probably it's the *profiting* that's illegal but seems like a limit on expression nonetheless).

But, the govt probably couldn't enforce a sweeping law that all parody Twitter accounts have to announce that they're parody accounts. I'm guessing that would be an unjustifiable limitation on parody, plus it's a tricky exercise for governments to put words in your mouth.*

BUT, obviously Twitter isn't restricted the same way. Elon can and does just enact that sort of restriction on a whim. Can and does force parody accounts to say "hey I'm a parody account". If those parody accounts sued Elon over their constitutional right to freedom of speech, the court would tell them to kick rocks.

*obviously that does still happen.. off the top of my head, in Canada you have to swear an oath to the King during a citizenship ceremony... but, point being, there lies the "freedom of speech" right that everybody is hyped on.

Should we?

I think this question is impossible out of context. Obviously there are some situations where governments have to restrict expression (shouting fire in a crowded theatre, etc).

I'm glad the SEC deters billionaires from lying on Twitter to inflate share prices. I disagree with a Twitter policy that forces parody accounts to self-identify. So, everything in context.

See above. I think you're just working from a flawed understanding of what "free speech" really means.

But in an effort to end this post without sounding like a dick: I think social media can and should try to foster some sort of free exchange of ideas. I also think Twitter can and should maintain the freedom and bear the responsibility to set and enforce its own content policies. I think a law enforcing absolute free speech on any social media platform (even if possible) would be an unjust restriction on Twitter's ability to develop and maintain its own services.

Actually, no such law exists against shouting fire.

Now, what they can and DO do is hit you up with disturbing the peace, inciting a riot, disorderly conduct.. All of which are highly abused pin to anything cards.

Originally posted by StyleTime
I want more protections for whistleblowers/hacktivists/etc who've become political prisoners/exiled for exposing corruption, for example. We've got actual heroes sitting in prison due to legal oversights on free speech policy, but Musk simps and conservatives are whining they can't troll without risking a ban?

I don't see how you can legislate some kind of protection for whistleblowing on moral grounds when the metric for what counts as justified leaking and what does not is completely relative and arbitrary. This issue is dodged entirely with whistle blowing protections in the private sector because it's just business. It's not illegal and it's not a national security issue to leak to the press that ford is deliberately putting defective seatbelts in their cars, or mistreating their employees.

Of course we should restrict speech online. Give every idiot liar a microphone that we can't walk away from? Obviously not. In real life, you can say anything you want, but if you come up to my house spewing racist lies, I'm having you removed. Of course if you come on social media showing the same, they will reserve the right to kick your racist ass out. For what possible purpose would we give every single whackjob a platform?

Originally posted by cdtm
Actually, no such law exists against shouting fire.

Now, what they can and DO do is hit you up with disturbing the peace, inciting a riot, disorderly conduct.. All of which are highly abused pin to anything cards.

Except you can walk away from it.

Originally posted by Jaden_3.0
Except you can walk away from it.

Let's say I own Facebook, and someone uses it to say racist bullshit. How do I walk away from that?

Change the racist's settings so only the racist sees their own posts.

In fact just do that to everyone. Nobody actually cares about what anyone else posts. Everyone's just screaming into the void. Just write an algorithm that gives everyone a few 👍 so they get their pathetic dopamine addiction hits.

But you being you and everyone else being everyone else. You could all just not use social media. Then any perceived problem you have with it won't exist anymore. Problem solved.

Originally posted by Jaden_3.0
Change the racist's settings so only the racist sees their own posts.

In fact just do that to everyone. Nobody actually cares about what anyone else posts. Everyone's just screaming into the void. Just write an algorithm that gives everyone a few 👍 so they get their pathetic dopamine addiction hits.

But you being you and everyone else being everyone else. You could all just not use social media. Then any perceived problem you have with it won't exist anymore. Problem solved.

That's the definition of not allowing free speech though. So it kinda means we agree. I'd ban his ass, but blocking him to all users is a good solution too.

I don't use social media anyway, so I don't see this stuff, tbh.

No it isn't. You can say whatever the fùck you want. Just nobody has to see it.

Social media is the very essence of "nobody is listening, they're just waiting for their turn to speak" anyway.

People on these platforms don't want conversation. They want their ego stroked.

So say, trump says racist shit on Twitter, blocking him to all users would be a good example?

He probably wouldn't even notice.

Originally posted by Jaden_3.0
No it isn't. You can say whatever the fùck you want. Just nobody has to see it.

Social media is the very essence of "nobody is listening, they're just waiting for their turn to speak" anyway.

People on these platforms don't want conversation. They want their ego stroked.