Do you not understand what he’s fighting for? No matter what you think about him the fact that other companies feel like they can gang up together to manipulate another company is concerning. Especially when it’s to enforce controlled speech.
I guess I don’t understand what he is fighting for no. Twitter users are free to say whatever they want. Equally, companies are free to spend their dollars in any way they want. If Twitter and its users really want free and uncontrolled speech, they should move to a completely user-subsidised model with no ads. “Uncontrolled” or unmodderated speech isn’t always brand safe content, so it seems valid advertisers wouldn’t be keen to sponsor that. Maybe I’m missing something but that’s how I see it.
If these companies really cared about the content they wouldn’t be posting their content on the platform. If they feel that it’s so bad they need to completely leave the platform. Like he side they’re trying to blackmail him into getting their way. It’s one thing if one or two companies/people leave because of their beliefs and it’s another thing when people/companies are going out of their way to try and blackmail and manipulate X to do what they want. X is already following the law and removing illegal content, what they really want is X to censor people they don’t like and/or agree with.
I’m not sure if they’re really blackmailing him or just noticing how shitty the platform is becoming. Almost every decision made by Musk has made the platform worse.
Personally, I just want to see xwitter and Musk go under completely. So, the less advertising he gets, the more his personal money has to go into propping up that ridiculous platform. It’s gonna be really funny to watch. So far his dethroning as some kind of “genius” has been very entertaining. It’s amazing how quickly a person’s true lack of talent comes out when they actually have to put in some amount of work rather than just writing checks and cashing in on other people’s hard work.
Sunlight is the best sanitizer. I rather their speech be out there for the world to see, so that I know who to avoid and for the ones that are misinformed for the broader public to put the on the right path.
Yeah, but I don’t want my product associated with that speech. You can’t force me to put my product on a pro nazi platform. Add to that the algorithm pushing nazi propaganda on Twitter, then no public company with a duty to the shareholders should advertise on Twitter.
You can stop simping for Daddy Musk any time now, he’s not going to give you a reach-around.
If Twitter was a “left-leaning platform” before, it was because of the userbase, not the company. In fact, studies showed that the algorithm was more likely to bury posts from left-wing politicians/users and promote right-wing politicians/ideologies than the other way around. The reason right-wing people were being banned was for posting “right-wing opinions/values” - such as antisemitism, racism, homophobia, posting misinformation/lying about elections and other events, and a laundry list of other user policy breaking infractions. And even then, Twitter was often more lenient in what it allowed those kinds of people to get away with compared to other groups. I distinctly remember seeing people posting support for the genocide of trans people and how Twitter responded to reports of the comments violating their rules saying that they weren’t violating any rules, while at the same time banning transgender users for publicly calling it out.
This kind of “freeze peach” complaining from the “enlightened centrists” has always stunk of right wingers with shitty opinions who don’t want to face the consequences of having those opinions. Just like those politicians who complained about reality having a liberal bias. The First Amendment doesn’t free you from the consequences of your words, nor does it cover all forms of speech. Under Fighting Words laws, threats of violence are legal grounds to act in self defense as if they were the actions themselves. If you threaten to punch someone in the face, don’t be surprised when the court says that they were justified in breaking your nose. Your use of “woke agenda” - a propaganda slogan used by right-wingers to destroy the actual meaning of the word and instead mean “anybody doing something I don’t like” - further down in the comments clearly shows where your political opinions actually fall.
And, no, we actually don’t have to let bigots voice their opinions wherever they want. Not only because social media platforms are considered private property, meaning the owners can do whatever they want so long as it doesn’t break the law, but because the free exchange of ideas isn’t a carte blanche to spout hatred. The free exchange of ideas is a part of the social contract and more like a potluck supper than anything else. Just because Carol showed up with a piece of poop between two slices of bread and called it a sandwich doesn’t mean we have to take a bite to know it’s a piece of shit. People who break the social contract that keeps society running can’t expect to be treated under the same rules themselves.
Plus, if you let the worst people in, they’ll simply end up harassing and driving off everyone who isn’t a part of their echo chamber. You only have to look at Trump’s social network or any of the myriad of other “free speech absolutist” platforms that have sprung up over the years. Every single one of them has eventually devolved into an echo chamber of bigotry. As a wise bartender once said, “If you let one Nazi in, you no longer have a bar. You have a Nazi bar. Because it starts off with one who talks nicely, and then they bring a few friends who aren’t as nice, who bring a few friends who are even worse, and before you know it, all the regular patrons are gone and they’ve started hanging Swastikas on the walls.”
I understand market manipulation and antitrust for example Amazon has had many antitrust and market manipulation cases levied against them for their so called market competition.
