I've said it before and I'll say it again: Twitter's censorship is an act of free expression within the American legal context. Now that it's Musk at the helm, it's no different. But the "free speech absolutists" who used to bark about this are nowhere to be seen.
I stand by this, too. It's Twitter's right to do this, but it's also laughable since Elon was supposed to be a free speech absolutist. Elon and his "freedom of speech" crew are big hypocrites.
Oh, yes. It is also laughable. Doubly so, with the Streisand Effect.
lol, and the dead response by zdad on my original comment. Yes, do your free speech exercise, while the platform does its. Excellent illustration of what and why, thank you very much.
The biggest difference I see is that it's much more overt now. Pre-Musk, I think if you asked most people to place Twitter on a political scale, they'd put it somewhere roughly in the neutral ballpark, maybe slightly left of that. Now anyone remotely reasonable would put it firmly on the right of the scale—not far-right, sure, but distinctly right.
Now, I'm not saying that's a good or a bad thing. It may be that pre-Musk twitter was just more sneaky about their political bias, covered it up, and were biased to the exact same extent. Or it could be that Musk is just much more biased in his handling of Twitter than pre-Musk was. Both are factors, I'm sure.
People and content getting removed from twitter has always been a topic of conversation. Folks on the far left were banned for various reasons, including hate speech and calls to violence. Folks on the right were quite vocal on other platforms when they got banned for the same. If you weren't aware of it, good for you; in my experience, it was discussed to death.
> But the "free speech absolutists" who used to bark about this are nowhere to be seen.
Anti censorship absolutism is a dream. The idea is that if you just pull back the moderation barriers, the surpressed truth will pour out like a flood.
But... It does not. Maybe you get some interesting niche commentary like you very, very rarely find on 4chan, but mostly you get a cesspool in a bubble. But the negative results do not kill the dream.
Indeed: It is an illusion that a space without rules will lead to a more free communication. It will lead to a different communication, and funnily enough these spaces too have their ad-hoc rules and conventions. Only naive people truly believe that the communication on something like 4chan was ever a free one.
Sure it certainly is a different communication, and there are discourses you can lead on such a platform you hardly could lead anywhere else — but there are also discourses you could lead somewhere else that you can't really have on 4chan. E.g. try having a sincere debate about literally anything on there.
Free speech absolutists are like people who believe if only there was the right of the stronger we would be more free, when in fact it would very likely be much worse.
That being said, as someone who grew up in a right wing environment: for them free speech, like all other freedoms, are just a tool they will abuse till they have the power to take these freedoms away from others. They don't care about free speech, they care about ruling.
The real free-speech absolutists are in fact still barking. I know some of them. They were against him for the brain chips at the beginning and this has only made them hate him more. They just don't get their voice amplified because sometimes they tend toward the tinfoil-hatted.
>Change is on the cards if he succeeds. Musk said in a letter to the board on Thursday that Twitter is “the platform for free speech around the world” but cannot achieve this “societal imperative” in its current form and “needs to be transformed as a private company”.
>His main concern appears to be with Twitter’s moderation policies. In March he tweeted a poll asking users whether the site adhered to the principle of free speech. “Given that Twitter serves as the de facto public town square, failing to adhere to free speech principles fundamentally undermines democracy,” he said. “What should be done?” He has declared himself a “free speech absolutist” and, in that context, the Twitter-banned former US president Donald Trump must be hoping Musk’s bid succeeds.
Hate Speech’s Rise on Twitter Is Unprecedented, Researchers Find:
>Mr. Musk, who did not respond to a request for comment, has been vocal about being a “free speech absolutist” who believes in unfettered discussions online. He has moved swiftly to overhaul Twitter’s practices, allowing former President Donald J. Trump — who was barred for tweets that could incite violence — to return. Last week, Mr. Musk proposed a widespread amnesty for accounts that Twitter’s previous leadership had suspended. And on Tuesday, he ended enforcement of a policy against Covid misinformation.
Elon Musk, Free Speech Absolutist, Is Silent About His Saudi Partners:
>Elon Musk is a self-declared “free-speech absolutist” who might let Donald Trump and various Nazis return to action on Twitter. “The bird is freed,” he triumphantly tweeted to his approximately 112 million followers when he officially took over one of the most popular social media sites on Thursday. Musk’s idea of open debate apparently entailed his trolling Hillary Clinton Sunday by tweeting a reply to her with a fake news story positing a made-up theory about the recent attack on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband Paul. [...]
>Saudi Arabia’s rulers are emphatically not free-speech absolutists. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is an autocrat who in 2018 approved the kidnapping and assassination of the Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi, according to US intelligence. MBS, as he is known, has since continued to repress speech at home, regularly imprisoning his critics.
A significant number of Republican politicians in fact do want to ban condoms and other forms of contraception. Clarence Thomas in his concurrence on overturning Roe v. Wade indicated he wanted to also reconsider Griswold v. Connecticut, which was the case the overturned state bans on contraceptives.
After that there was a bill introduced in the House of Representatives that would have codified Griswold. All 220 Democrats in the House voted for it. Only 8 Republicans did so, 2 voted "present", and 6 did not vote. The remaining 195 Republicans voted "no".
There has naturally been a lot of research on the effectiveness of political advertising. From what I've read in the academic literature, it's recognized that no one's opinion gets changed, but exposure to a narrative will change the relative priority people give to issues. The purpose of political advertising is to focus public attention on issues were the party thinks they have stronger appeal. I'm speculating that political ads trend rather childish because they are targeted at those people who are most easily influenced.
I feel like the ads are an artifact of this + the two parties. They aren't meant to convince the public, they are meant to convince the very tiny demographics that will actually swing stuff in our all-or-nothing primary + general elections.
FPTP here in the UK and we get nothing like this. We do get some quite budget political ads, but they tend to be less like 'schoolboy attacks' than the US ones seem to be. In general, our advertising restrictions are tighter.
> something a bunch of high school kids would make
Advertisement in America, political and otherwise, panders to what appears to be the average (or below) cognitive ability of the American citizen. It's no surprise, then, that political ads come off to people outside the US as made by immature freshman nonces.
