Comment by Mario Bariša@lemmy.ml on Twitter seems to ban all Threads links to reaffirm its position as a “free speech absolutist” platform

A search for Threads content on Twitter currently brings up zero results, despite plenty of links to Meta’s microblogging rival being posted on the platform.

how is that free speech, twitter is blocking a competitor for obvious reasons

It’s some form of sarcasm

You can tell Lemmy’s getting bigger when the gullible people start showing up.

They didn’t put a /s at the end, so that can’t be it.

“Free speech absolutism (but not if you link to my competitor)” isn’t free speech absolutism. It’s just another hypocrisy to throw on the pile.

Free speech Moscow style by Eloon Muskovite

Musk was only appealing to right wing idiots who think “freedom from social consequences” is a human right and co-opt “free speech”, making it a meaningless term

Musk purported to be a free speech absolutist when he bought Twitter. He said only illegal content should be suppressed. Obviously, he’s a liar. He banned tons of Leftist accounts shortly after he took over.

Because anyone who cries “freeze peach!” at any provocation are really just people that want to say hateful shit without repercussions. Generally, those same people are the ones to shut other people down from expressing their own freedom of speech.

Or they are neolibs who are seemingly incapable of thinking critically about anything

I’m a simple man, I see anyone use the word “neolib”, I downvote

Anyone that cries “free speech” when government isn’t involved at all is a dolt

If they think there are legal requirements then yes they are. But wanting platforms to be more open in general is not necessarily a doltish thing. Yes twitter has the legal right to ban anyone they want, but that doesn’t mean that’s a good thing or we shouldn’t seek out platforms that aren’t so arbitrarily censorious.

When people cry free speech they are invoking the US constitution. They fail to recognize it only pertains to the government.

Freedom of speech is an ideal before it is a law. Even if we lived in a utopian classless society without a government we could still have the concept that everyone deserves the right to say what they wish.

If it can exist without the government then logically it cannot strictly refer to the government.

Freedom of speech from what?

You cannot claim this on behalf of other people. I myself sometimes refer to lax moderation rules as “free speech focused” moderation. It has nothing to do with the government.

That isn’t to say that some, or even many, people don’t use the phrase assuming that it is their constitutionally protected right to spread vitriol on the internet. But to imply that this is the only common meaning is disingenuous.

Free speech is the freedom to speak about the government. That’s all it is. That’s it. If a company practices free speech all they’re doing is exercising thier freedom to criticize the government. Same with an individual.

There is no other form of free speech. It exists solely to counter the government.

Musk fans then: finally! We have absolute free speech

Musk fans now: it’s a private company. He can do whatever he wants

Isn’t Twitter’s free speech kinda the same as Fediverse or Reddit’s free speech? Pretty sure if someone says something homophobic or transphobic in here, they’ll get kicked out (which, for me, is good. Keep reading). It’s free speech for the people that align with the admin ideals. I see nothing wrong with it besides the echo chamber effect, but at least people can create spaces where they feel safe.

Someone could argue “but Lemmy also has right wing instances”. Then just imagine Twitter is a right wing instance of Mastodon that has been defederated. And that’s what the free market is about. The free market is a fediverse and a company is an instance, you can create an instance and put whatever rules you want in it. It’s up to everyone else if they want to use it or federate with it. Twitter just “defederated” Threads. How is that different from a Lemmy instance defederating other instances?

Is it against free speech when Lemmy admins kick right-wing people or defederated right-wing instances? I think it is against free speech, but I don’t think everyone needs to allow free speech in their home. Go ahead and kick out the people you consider offensive. I believe Lemmy and private companies should have the right to do this.

I do agree, it’s his company. He can create his own rules. I don’t agree with his rules, so I don’t use the service.

Twitter’s “free speech” rule after the musk takeover was utter hypocrisy and pure bullshit. It was never about “free speech” or, in his own words, “free speech absolutism”. The latter would mean “zero moderation platform”. Wouldn’t take long for it to be nothing but bot posts of scams, hateful shit, pedophilia and snuff. Nobody in their right mind would favor zero moderation. Even fucking chans (4chan, 8chan) have moderation, not even they want to be swamped with even worse shit than they produce.

In short, musk uses “free speech” as a dog whistle and smoke screen.

He’s an asshole and his platform is definetely not 100% free speech. I’m just saying even assholes should have the right to moderate their platforms however they want, obviously in the framework of the law.

same as reddit did with lemmy and kbin when they banned users and sub for mentioning it and giving migration howto’s

They did? Have a source? That seems like one more argument against the “Lemmy doesn’t matter to Reddit” crowd.

Man, and that’s before the protests. For “spam” lmao, there’s entire communities built on self-promotion, those are fine I guess?

Logic doesn’t matter. Literally do anything at all and say “it’s because free speech” or “it’s to stop cancel culture” and the fan boys will cheer it.

I won’t, and I really am against cancel culture (I’m for developing reputation systems to help you automatically ignore those you don’t want to read, but to be able to read what they say in case you suddenly want that).

Now, this whole Twitter-Threads dynamic seems like an exemplary “toad vs viper” case.

I didn’t think cancel culture was a great tactic until I saw its effect on Alex Jones and Milo Yieanowetpahppolis.

Deplatforming fascists works, and we have observed it. We should do more of it.

No, we can’t say that. I am able to decide for myself who is a fascist and who is not. However, the systems allowing for this work with the assumption that I can’t and shouldn’t decide for myself.

I’d rather share a bunk with a Nazi (won’t happen, I’m part Armenian, part Jewish, but) than accept something like this.

To each their own.

I like my mods doing their job and keeping the fascists out, and I love that when we report that, it’s investigated and a reasonable decision is made. That doesn’t happen anywhere else but in the fediverse.

Well, we are at least back to the 00s state of things from the degeneracy centralized social media were. Which is good. I just think with modern means and experience one can go further.

lol ‘cancel culture’ used to be called ‘boycotting’ / ‘speaking with your wallet’ used to be called ‘having an opinion’

its not new, obviously we should punch nazis, and you can be certain anyone who says the words ‘cancel culture’ unironically is a tool with less than a 10 year memory span, max.

a tool with less than a 10 year memory span

and/or has the self-awareness of a dishrag

No, that’s what I described in parentheses. Not really existent yet in the Web.

While “cancel culture” (in its narrow meaning in the Web, again) is when you have serious problems talking even to those who are willing to listen to you or undecided. Say, you won’t ever read something, because the decision has been made for you by somebody else, and you don’t even choose whether to delegate that decision.

The difference is in the architecture of systems used, actually. Because with both things every person involved acts voluntarily, it’s just that in my variant that power to decide is spread more evenly.

What I mean is similar to the reputation system in Locutus, only it doesn’t work yet.

‘boycotting’ / ‘speaking with your wallet’ used to be called ‘having an opinion’

Cancel Culture is none of those things. Cancel Culture is very specifically taking a platform away from someone who has misused it to do harm in our society.

Should you choose to vote with your wallet and boycott destructive people, though? Yes, absolutely. But deplatforming is observably effective, because we’ve seen that many of these loud, awful people simply aren’t able to rebuild their following without the convenience of major social media platforms and interviews on major networks.

And without that following, they aren’t shit. Alex Jones literally went bankrupt.

And without that following, they aren’t shit. Alex Jones literally went bankrupt.

Alex Jones declared bankruptcy in an attempt to avoid paying the families who sued him and won. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64644080

But I overall agree: had he been deplatformed earlier, he could probably not have had so much influence and caused so much damage.

Alex Jones literally went bankrupt.

Still Online
Still doing shows
Still hawking shit

so first, we generally agree and I don’t want to get into an argument with you.

If cancel culture means ‘deplatforming’ to you, thats great. I agree deplatforming works. But the term ‘cancel culture’ is deliberately vague, does include boycotting, and is just one of the many terms made up by the right to create a ‘boogey man’. I tend to throw these terms back in their faces as laughable (‘woke’, ‘CRT’ - all the same badly defined bullshit that just means ‘things I don’t like’). If your strategy is to embrace, rehab, and legitimize the terms thats fine too.

Deplatforming requires a centralized platform from which to deplatform. Ability to sometimes deplatform real Nazis (but usually not) is not worth centralizing crucial systems, end of story.

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

Twitter seems to ban all Threads links to reaffirm its position as a “free speech absolutist” platform(www.theverge.com)

Technology

!technology@lemmy.world

Our Rules

Approved Bots

Community stats

Community moderators