“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”.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    129
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • anlumo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      119
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      He never was, that was just an excuse to amplify the voice of his far-right buddies.

        • anlumo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m not so sure about that. The big tell is that whenever a far-right user complained to him about getting a tweet removed or the account getting banned or something like that, he’d respond that he’ll personally take care of it. Just imagine, a billionare running a platform with millions of users personally taking care of a single one. This never happened with other people.

            • anlumo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Example: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FgKSQUrXoAABPWi.jpg

              I agree with your assessment. I’m not claiming that he has a plan of any sorts, things just happen in a spur of the moment. However, that’s also the appeal of the far-right. It doesn’t need research or having a solid base of knowledge to base their opinions on, it’s just random stuff these people read on the Internet that feels good to them.

    • psycho_driver@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      By free speech absolutist he really meant he thinks fascists should be able to say whatever they want.

      • Jat620DH27@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        “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.

      • s1vgm@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        This WireMin thing has made me confused. I checked out their website, and it looks like they’re calling themselves a decentralized Twitter.http://wiremin.org/#/blog/6 So I also did a quick search on Twitter, and apparently WireMin has quite a lot crazy fans promoting it actively. What surprises me is that these fans haven’t been shadowbanned by Twitter. Perhaps freedom of speech actually exists on Twitter? Lmao. Just joking, not a fan of Elon Musk’s twitter.

    • iHUNTcriminals@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You gotta be really stupid to believe people like him. They are all the same. It’s like a mental sickness. You can feel it even just hearing him talk on TV. Sadly he seems to have the type of mental illness that America accepts and it’s actually useful for greed and the American dream. Meanwhile good neurodivergent people suffer life long because society doesn’t fit them.

  • Ekybio@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    67
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • TWeaK@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well that was the whole point. His old friend Peter Thiel and others failed to set up a competing service against Twitter, so now they’re undermining Twitter. Either Twitter steps into line and becomes what they want it to be, or it dies due to the $13bn debt/tax avoidance scam that Musk performed.

      • GigglyBobble@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        $13bn debt/tax avoidance scam that Musk performed

        Since I don’t follow Musk, please elaborate. I hope, you don’t mean his buying an unprofitable company for $40B was to avoid taxes…

        • flipht@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Overpaying and then destroying the value means that eventually, he will be able to claim losses on his taxes. This will allow him to reduce his tax liability for his profitable businesses.

        • TWeaK@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          No. I’m referring to the $13bn out of the $44bn purchase price that Twitter paid itself. As Twitter is now deep in debt, it won’t be making a profit any time soon, so there will be no tax paid on that $13bn purchase.

          The $44bn purchase is broken down more or less as:

          • $26bn by Musk ($20bn of which was from Tesla shares),
          • $5bn from other investors, including that Saudi prince,
          • $13bn in a loan that Twitter took out to buy itself on behalf of its new owners.

          The process is known as a leveraged buyout, and it’s what’s killed many staple businesses that were otherwise perfectly viable, eg Toys R Us.

  • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • TheEntity@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • flipht@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • malcyon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • sugarfree@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      25
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • ThunderingJerboa@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • JasSmith@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Lazylazycat@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

        • Jat620DH27@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • ThunderingJerboa@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

      • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

  • Pratai@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why are there people still using that garbage? It’s fucking hilarious watching everyone complain about twitter, YouTube, etc and then continue using it.

  • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean, it was never about free speech. It was always about crippling a powerful communication tool that had been used to undermine Middle Eastern governments. “Free Speech” was just how Musk was able to curry favor with fascists and grift retards into paying for twitter blue.

  • GustavoM@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Since when a rule change to (any site whatsoever) related to technology in any way? Yeah, we get it, you HATE “Xtwitter” and want it to burn but please… you are beating a dead horse at this rate. Just let it go.

    That, or the mods around here need a reality check and start dropping some chill pills (i.e temp. bans) on users like OP…

    • wmassingham@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s not, but the top mod also runs a bot that automatically posts content from various news sites, probably based on keywords. And I’d bet that some of those keywords are Twitter and Facebook. So don’t expect them to follow their own rules.

      tech·nol·o·gy
      /tekˈnäləjē/
      noun

      • the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, especially in industry. “advances in computer technology”

      • machinery and equipment developed from the application of scientific knowledge. “it will reduce the industry’s ability to spend money on new technology”

      • the branch of knowledge dealing with engineering or applied sciences.

      Some bozo changing the rules on his social media site is not scientific knowledge.

  • bytor9@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Everyone complaining or saying leave but nobody talking about alternatives that solve some of the problems. Mastodon exists. Nostr exists. BlueSky kind of exists.