“Freedom of Speech, not Freedom of Reach - our enforcement philosophy which means, where appropriate, restricting the reach of Tweets that violate our policies by making the content less discoverable.”
Surprise! Our great ‘X’ CEO has brought back one more bad thing that we hated about twitter 1.0: Shadowbanning. And they’ve given it a new name: “Freedom of Speech, Not Reach”.
Perhaps the new approach by X is an improvement? At least they would “politely” tell you when you’re being shadow banned.
I think freedom of speech implies that people have the autonomy to decide what they want to see, rather than being manipulated by algorithm codes. Now it feels like they’re saying, “you can still have your microphone… We’re just gonna cut the power to it if you say something we don’t like”.
If you’re still on Twitter, you’re part of the problem.
People keep repeating this for easy self-righteousness. Again, what about small artists whose careers depend on their social media following?
Fuck Musk, but for better or worse this isn’t just about him.
I’m not an artist but I know a lot of them and basically only use twitter to follow them. And honestly, the ball is in their court. I see a lot of them complaining about shadowbans and it being impossible to grow a following. But nobody wants to jump ship to a place without an audience.
The problem being there will be no audience sitting around a new platform waiting for a show to start. They need to start double posting, IMO. Being the change they want in the world. They don’t have to quit twitter, but posting content to twitter and mastodon (for example) would give their audience a reason to move, would give them a chance to grow, etc.
There’s even apps like PostyBirb that can do the multiposting for you.
Yes, and many of them do that, but for most the audience on other platforms isn’t enough to drop Twitter yet. They can join every single alternative but they can’t make others do the same.
Again, what about small artists whose careers depend on their social media following?
hope the artists like playing the Nazi bar, because that’s twitter now.
What a cool comparison to make towards all the minority artists who might be left without a living.
But I guess you just want to moralize rather than have actual empathy.
artists that think playing a nazi bar are fine aren’t artists I want to succeed.
If you don’t love fascism you’d be in the same situation.
Cool thought-terminating cliche. So you really don’t give a single shit for minorities in a hard situation if they don’t sacrifice their livelihood out of your weird sense of moral purity. I hope you pay Fediverse artists pretty well at the very least.
Calling a platform of hundred millions of users a “nazi bar” as if they could pick a different venue the next street is a massive understatement. You also don’t seem to realize that even if all these small artists move, those nazis can still have a lot of influence over clueless people who remain there because they haven’t realized what’s happening. But rather than seeing the risks of widespread radicalization and the value of challenging it, you’d rather call everyone a nazi and not think about it.
If you want to blame anyone, you should point your outrage towards large media organizations and celebrities who keep posting there business as usual as if nothing changed. They are the ones keeping that place alive and giving it legitimacy. Not small artists and those denouncing the nazi shit.
So originally, it was that he was a “free speech absolutist,” then it was that he was in favor of free speech “within the bounds of the law,” and now he’s not even in favor of that.
He never was, that was just an excuse to amplify the voice of his far-right buddies.
I know. It was more about what he said.
Freedom of (my) speech.
I wish I was free from his speech, specifically.
deleted by creator
By free speech absolutist he really meant he thinks fascists should be able to say whatever they want.
By free speech absolutist he really meant he thinks fascists should be able to force you to listen to them say whatever they want.
“Down with fascism! No more free political speech!”
I guess it’s all about his political ambition.
I mean freedom of speech, not reach describes one boundary of the law in that nobody is required to give you a platform as far as i know.
However it does absolutely not fit to the free speech absolutism purported last year.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
“No one can act as a moderator to remove my content” This claim does align with with the principle of freedom of speech, but we have to admit that for now, complete freedom without any control can be unsafe. It could potentially lead to spams and political issues. However, the feature of not asking for phone numbers or email addresses sounds interesting, especially considering Elon is planning to introduce government ID verification.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Literally every single day we have idiots doing Musk’s PR work for free.
Downvote Musk spam. The billionaire doesn’t need your help ensuring his businesses stay in the 24 hour news cycle.
This community has a weird fetish for anything elon musk. If he scratches his butt, this community will post and comment about how much fingernail he used. And you are correct, everyone claiming to hate twitter/musk do a great job of keeping his company and name recognition relevant.
Raise your hand if you are convinced this will not impact the people who pay for the blue checkmark. Meaning that a lot of Elon Fanbois / Bots / Fascists will be seen with theit shitty takes (since the checkmark pushes your comments up), while voices of reason will be dragged down further.
Twitter is rapidly becomming the new Truth Social and it’s sad to watch.
That was always the point of the blue check under Elon. It’s very clear already that blue checks have vastly higher reach and engagement. This all started back in December.
https://www.theverge.com/2022/12/23/23523845/twitter-blue-paying-priority-replies-conversations
It ruined so much of the appeal. Previously when someone was being a fucking idiot you could see them getting absolutely dragged in the comments, and it was cathartic. Now it’s just blue check sycophants going “omg based”.
deleted by creator
Can we stop posting musk shit? It’s exhausting.
It’s doubly exhausting for the hundreds of millions of people who are still there and are affected by this.
Someone predicted that they were going to slowly add back all the stuff they took out and they were right
I think most people could have predicted that. Most of the things Musk removed were there for a reason (Regardless of whether they where popular with Twitter’s users or not). Mostly of economical or legal nature. You cannot simply remove them if you want Twitter to someday make a profit.
Right at the beginning I said they would add it all back and/or get a never ending chain of lawsuits thrown at them and right now it’s looking a bit like both.
This is from April. Did something change with it?
This is the most important comment on this thread. I wish lemmy forced you to post the date of the article
I have to strongly agree here. This needs to be a strongly written and enforced rule for social media. Dates and timestamps need to be extremely clear and a requirement for all sorts of news reporting.
The topic is trending on X today so I didn’t noticed the date. But I guess there might have been some updates compared to April?
You are part of the problem.
Like it or not (I don’t), free speech has nothing to do with social media. Platforms are free to do this, it’s the government that can’t limit your speech like this.
Given those circumstances, I wonder if social media should be treated like infrastructure. That would fuse constitutional rights and the platform itself.
While you’re right, I think the issue here is the hypocrisy of Musk claiming to be pro free speech (specifically on his platform) only to then repeatedly limit speech he doesn’t personally like.
I feel pretty numb to right wing hypocrisy at this point. Which is probably their exact playbook.
Indeed. Personally my problem isn’t with them limiting the “freedom of speech”. It’s with them claiming they have it or that it’s even relevant there, as you’ve said.
Same page club. I think centralized social media is going to die sooner or later anyway*, so I’m thinking it’s only a problem in the short term.
*Making money from social media just sounds like some weird shit in a history book to me, like merkins. We’ll see I guess.
It’s not a law for no reason at all. Free speech is also an ideal, a principle. It can apply, as a moral, to non-legal areas.
Free speech has nothing to do with social media or governments. Freedom of speech is a universal, natural right that has been with our species since we gained the power of speech through evolution.
yeah not sure about that. Most of human history would say freedom of speech (and most of the concept of natural rights) is a rather newish ideology. In the past, speaking negatively of higher powers (religious organizations, ruling class, etc) could lead to sanctions, imprisonment, or death and that is still very much the case in many countries to this day. We can argue _____ is a “natural right” till you have arthritis in your hand joints but you have to be blind to think governments have nothing to do with it and its enforcement. In a utopia, maybe it is granted naturally on birth but in reality it is a “right” that has to be “fought” for (legally or with arms). Like are you seriously arguing the people of North Kor… Sorry, I mean the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea are born with this “natural right” of free speech but if they dare use it they and possibly their immediate family may be subject to torture, rape, reeducation camps, and/or work camps.
I would agree. As long as it doesn’t violate the law, people should have the right to express their opinions freely. But nowadays it’s getting pretty hard to do so.
I mean it depends, what are you talking about? Yeah I can see the point of not arresting people for dropping the N word or something or maybe doing a Hitler salute but are you referring to people using their own freedom of speech to argue/debate one’s own opinion? Maybe a companies right to associate with only those it choose to do so with (unless that discrimination is against those of protected classes). Like no company would probably want to be associated with a known verbal racist, it just hurts their possibility to get new clients or possibly sever current client relations. The reason why many companies go “woke” or stray to the left is because companies never want to have one of their advertisements right next to a Nazi/race supremacist rant, people will start associating the company with what their ad is paying for. Elon is learning in the most ass backwards way of why Twitter did X thing, in this case why twitter wasn’t the “haven” of free speech is because advertisers don’t want this and advertisers are the ones who pay a hefty chunk of the bills.
Most of human history would say freedom of speech (and most of the concept of natural rights) is a rather newish ideology.
It’s “newish” for Homo sapiens, but it originated during the Enlightenment in the 17th century. I struggle to call that “new.” However I don’t subscribe to the concept of natural rights. Rights are what people afford each other in a society. In a democracy, we vote on rights. In anarchy, rights are given and taken at the end of a gun.
It’s definitely new in the context of their comment, which says it’s been around since we had the power of speech.
My last house was older than free speech as a concept.
Universal? So I can go to all of your neighbors and tell them you’re a pedophile and that’s ok?
That’s a very strange takeaway from my comment.
I’m not sure what else universal means other than ‘applies in all circumstances.’
You’re generally right and I have nothing to take away from that. Right now I’m talking specifically about the “law” of free speech with regard to the US Constitution.
Sounds like it doesn’t matter what Twitter does then. Human history spans several thousand years, possibly ten thousand. If freedom of speech has been there throughout, then Twitter is completely inconsequential, considering free speech was doing fine literally thousands of years before it.
So much for that free speech he was talking about.
“Freedom of speech, not reach”
it’s not a revolution if you don’t wind up where you started
I don’t give a fuck about Twitter, stop posting this garbage already!
deleted by creator
lol such a Loser shitshow.
What are you even quoting bro
I was onboard until I read your comment. What is he even quoting bro?
so this is why those shithole accounts have been showing up on my for you page.
