zlacker

>>prawn+(OP)
The wave of bans from the muskjet thing has been quite dramatic.

It'll be interesting to see if the people who've been lauding musk for his supposedly pro free speech attitudes will reckon with what's been happening in actuality, or if they'll just accept this as "freedom for me but not for thee".

>>c54+C6
The people who cheered Musk for his "pro free speech" attitude don't actually believe or want free speech. They want free speech for themselves and censorship for people they don't like.

See the terrorist attacks against Drag Queens.

>>cmh89+mn
Did these "attack" include realtime doxxing? Especially after TOS modified to prohibit it?

Or can you give other examples of disparity between free speech rule applications for themselves and people they don't like?

>>astero+1q
>Did these "attack" include realtime doxxing? Especially after TOS modified to prohibit it?

Posting public information publicly isn't doxxing and until you give up that falsehood, there isn't really anywhere the conversation can go.

Of course a free speech "absolutist" like Musk is a complete hypocrite for not allowing doxxing in the first place.

>>cmh89+Cq
> Posting public information publicly isn't doxxing

Sometimes it is.

For example, name plate on the mailbox is publicly available, but posting the address with full name online constitutes doxxing.

> a free speech "absolutist" like Musk is a complete hypocrite

One guy once said, who never changes his/her opinion, is a moron.

>>astero+Ur
Musk's definition of free speech in the past included calling his critics pedophiles and making false statements about his company's stock. Now it doesn't include publicly available information about the location of a vehicle he owns?