No. It's quite explicit about it protecting free speech from government restriction. If they wanted to protect people from the rich it would have said so.
Perhaps, but that’s not what the law says (in the US)
Perhaps, and in the US there’s a way to error correct. Good luck getting the required majority to do it.
Why? If everyday people want to say “burn the Jews!” and a giant media company says “hey maybe we shouldn’t…”, why should we agree the former is better than the latter?
That’s cute, just know that hardcore porn is protected speech so if your idea is anything legal goes, expect a lot of non-family friendly content everywhere you look
And here's what I find so fascinating about the conversation of where the lines should drawn regarding speech, and who gets to draw them. There is a theory of thought that says the internet should be treated like the phone company. The phone company doesn't have the right to restrict what you say, so neither should massive social media platforms.
Facebook and Amazon branded their own phone and watched huge piles of money go up in smoke.
This is ironically why I think Twitter won’t fail. Almost every credible journalist and media commentator left is on Twitter and the only way they can get the type of engagement their content needs to satisfy advertisers on their site currently is to tweet it out. Twitter is still the first place everyone goes for breaking news and that has to be a significant source of referral traffic to sites like CNN and The NY Times otherwise they’d pull the plug. Until a rival gets the type of referral traffic they can get on Twitter they may kvetch about Musk but they aren’t going anywhere.
Hardcore porn has been on Twitter for ages.
When you're an old timer you don't mess with success:Hardcore porn has been on Twitter for ages.
I mean....I have HEARD its been on Twitter for ages. From a friend.
I heard that from a friend.
Article forgets to mention other advertisers are increasing their spending to take advantage of the vacuum tho.Oh, I somehow missed this notification.
In less than a month, Elon Musk has driven away half of Twitter’s top 100 advertisers
In recent weeks, 50 of the top 100 advertisers have either announced or seemingly stopped advertising on Twitter. These advertisers have accounted for nearly $2 billion in spending on the platform since 2020, and over $750 million in advertising in 2022 alone. In addition to advertisers that...www.mediamatters.org
Blind has been a reliable, anonymous source of information for years. Users have to go through a verification process to insure that they are actually employed by who they claim they are.
I also doubt the article mentions that advertisers were already pulling out before Musk even walked in the door, and all the car companies left Twitter for reasons that have nothing to do with speech moderation concerns, but why put context and nuance in a hit piece.
Not really, but in a world that lives and dies by their phones that is a HUGE fucking deal if it were to happen.
You meant THAT US government? I wouldn't put much faith into them on that end.
You mean the same government that pressured them to remove Parler?
They would not. That is an absolute nonsense scenario. They have every right to remove the apps that are offered in their stores if those apps breaks their terms of service. The person owning the apps has nothing to do with it.
Neither did the people who criticized interracial marriage in the 1950s
The stance of condoning every harmful ideology in every space without repurcussion. In a vacuum it inevitably leads to innocents suffering.
Who needs to say freedom to express oneself is ok then?
And do you think authoritarianism action instead doesn't?
But history may not have agreed with them in the end, if it wasn't for free speech. Civil rights, women's suffrage, gay rights, trans rights, and whatever comes next that we can't even see coming. None of these could have moved forward if we didn't allow those discussions to happen. All of these things would have been considered "hurtful ideas that would cause harm to society" before they were accepted. It's why restricting speech can ultimately cause a lot more harm than it prevents. Sorry if that point didn't come across with what I said initially.
You're conflating compelled speech with free speech. But otherwise, yeah, private businesses are definitely a big part of this debate.
Two companies should not have so much power that they can decide which opinions can and cannot be held on every phone in the country. Call it "late stage capitalism" or perhaps a matter of oligarchy, but if the government still took their antitrust duties seriously we wouldn't even need to have this discussion.
You're naively trusting that clickbait tweet and assuming a contradiction exists by believing a false equivalency from a cropped statement. There can be some minor confusion with homonymous speech referring to different things and sounding the same which needs to be overcome that's made more difficult when it's appealing to bias, but it's not that difficult.
That would be a more appropriate argument to make if I hadn't already said I do think Twitter should be censored when it comes to slurs, calls for physical harm, etc. And it seems Elon Musk agrees as well.
Truly. Not all dissent is quashed, just the majority of it. LOL
Maybe in Russia and Iran to put it in perspective.
