this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2023
1561 points (98.8% liked)
Technology
59235 readers
4412 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Elon Musk runs the whole of Twitter like the jealous, power-drunk moderator of a small 5,000-member Discord server.
People are free to either agree with the CEO view or to not use the platform. Sad but true. At least it reminds us all that it is a private for-profit company and always has been. No matter whether the "value" of it was mostly provided by user-created contents.
It's kind of a good example as to why the "benevolent dictator" idea is fundamentally flawed—you don't really get two benevolent dictators in succession unless you're incredibly lucky, and doesn't matter how lucky you are, you're not getting three in a row
But, I really hope this twist of fate of how he accidentally bought Twitter in the first place helps people learn the lesson about all that "free speech" they were whining about. Your speech is not free when it is moderated by a corporation. Yes, the constitution allows you to say what's on your mind, but it does not tell media corporations that they must allow you to say whatever is on your mind. If the uneducated people haven't caught on yet, they shall never catch on, which really might mean stupid is just stupid, no matter how much education you throw at it.
It's not even that, free speech is about the government, not private entities, it's about not being arrested for what you say, it has nothing to do with what private companies do on their platforms, they're free to do what they want and they're not limiting any free speech by doing so because they're not the government.
It's baffling how many people still don't understand that and go on crying about free speech related to private entities.
I thought the point of the constitution was that it confirms existing rights, not allows or forbids something. While the usual laws do allow or forbid.
Free speech in the web was really funny in the 00s, when moderators could partake in long discussions about it, and then just ban somebody for looking at them wrong (figuratively).
yeah, wording isn't precise. welcome to the internet. if you didn't get my point because I used the wrong terms, that's OK. You'll live. In my free time I'm not going to vet every single friggin' word I use on an internet forum and edit what I say. I have other things to do.
I'm glad you do, it's just that many people don't get this very important difference. If this wasn't important for your message, then fine.
It wasn't important to my message. My message is clear without your nit picking. The words I used were fine. Use a friggin' dictionary. Your "corrections" do not change my message.
Just take your pills and have some tea, will ya?
You're the only person knowing for sure whether they change your message. Others may interpret it in various ways.
well not really free if their job depends on Twitter.
He's done everyone a few favors. He showed us that the government sticks it's fingers into social media in ways that are illegal, and he also showed us that corpos aren't a good alternative because they'll stick their fingers into social media in ways that are legal.
Decentralization and self-hosting is ultimately the only protection against forces that want to force us to see what they want us to see and nothing else.
That's what a few right wing media repeatedly claim but I haven't seen anyone actually providing any proof. Or do you mean the recent crazy judge decision?
The fact that there's censorship is self-evident. It's highly documented that in the past 3 years social media companies have cracked down on specific political speech. They banned a sitting president, and are continuing to ban speech from political candidates from both US political parties.
So was this caused by the government? Well, we do know that there's the twitter files, but maybe you go "hey, he's a far right electric car guy, don't believe him" -- I know what happened to me.
I donated to a protest I agreed in. The company returned my money.
Hey, ok. Maybe it was just that this specific company didn't agree with the protest. The protest moved to another company that agreed with the protest. The money was prevented from reaching the cause by the government.
People started looking at new ways to help, and the government threatened to sieze our bank accounts.
This is highly documented, was a public event. So we at least circumstantially know that western governments directly engaged in censorship.
Eventually you end up with a preponderance of the evidence.
Hey, you disagree with my political speech and think I deserve to be censored by the government? Great. Fine. Just remember that tomorrow it might be you who has something unpopular to say.
well with the government they just gives them selves the power sick their fingers in and make it legal
Ah great. Here comes another believer of the "Twitter Files".
So just because I believe that Hillary Clinton used Hunter Biden's laptop to collaborate with Twitter in a conspiracy to suppress conservative's "Free speech", I'm crazy?
You had me raging for a second.
I mean, the Twitter Files are, pretty objectively, true
Sure, but they also don't actually contain 95% of what people claim they contain.
He showed us that the government makes requests and Twitter doesn't care because they don't have to. So what?
Maybe he is aware of that, but wants to remind us all how internet communities were in the 00s.
Banning people for mentioning competing platforms just brings nostalgic tears.
Or maybe he doesn't, just all the benevolence social media owners would show goes down the pipe when there really are decentralized alternatives which work. When they didn't feel threatened, they could seem wiser.
This i don't know. Any news references or links?
That's like asking for news references for somebody being kicked out of a bar (doesn't matter whether it's unjust).
It just was a common thing - posting links to competitor sites gets you disciplined and possibly banned. Of course, competition was not for money, but for people. Cause if nobody comes to your site, then your ego is hurt and you're depressed. Also posts advertising other people's sites spoil the mood in general, contributing nothing.
EDIT: There were also friendly\allied sites, of course. With little banners somewhere at the bottom of the page leading to those.