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
I don't know why it's so impossible to believe there are people who truly do want free speech.

I wasn't sure if Musk was going to deliver it, but I tried to remain open-minded. I did think previous Twitter management leaned left with some admittedly difficult moderation decisions, but obviously I'm finding out that Musk is even less supportive of true free speech.

Ironically this banning of Mastodon links is the #1 thing pushing me to start exploring Mastodon or other platforms.

>>ditona+9u
> I don't know why it's so impossible to believe there are people who truly do want free speech.

Anyone intelligent enough to think it through knows it's a paradox, so anyone who truly does want free speech clearly hasn't actually thought it through. They exist, but nobody should take them seriously.

>>drcong+Xi1
> Anyone intelligent enough to think it through knows it's a paradox

I don't, so I assume I'm not that intelligent. Would you please explain to me how is it a paradox?

>>bheadm+JA1
Sure. Speech can, itself, restrict speech. "I have a gun in my pocket and I will shoot anyone who disagrees with me." It's just speech, but it restricts others' willingness to speak. If you allow all speech, some speakers will use that tool to restrict others' speech, which means not all speech is actually allowed. "Free speech" is a paradox.

>>coldpi+OW1
> It's just speech

It's not just speech - it's speech with an intention to do harm. That's like saying going into a bank and saying "my partner there has a gun and he will start shooting unless you give me money" is also abusing free speech - it's not about speech, it's about actions in the real world.

> If you allow all speech, some speakers will use that tool to restrict others' speech, which means not all speech is actually allowed

Nobody uses speech on its own to restrict others' speech.

> "Free speech" is a paradox.

I'm not convinced, see above explanations.

>>bheadm+Ja2
Right, so now we've moved from "free speech" to "free speech unless it has an intention to do harm" which means you agree that some speech ought to be restricted. Suddenly things get really complicated (how do you define "harm" and "intention" and even "has"?), and now you're on the same page as the rest of us who understand that "free speech" is a paradox.

>>coldpi+vd2
> Right, so now we've moved from "free speech" to "free speech unless it has an intention to do harm"

We haven't moved anywhere, because it's not speech that's illegal, it's the intention to do harm. You could perfectly well communicate your intentions to do harm with no speech at all, e.g. by pointing a gun to a bank teller without saying a word. If you use speech to offer to sell drugs to somebody, and a cop arrests you for it, that's not an issue of free speech, that's an issue of drug dealing.

The fact that you aren't allowed to commit crimes by using your speech doesn't make free speech itself a paradox - otherwise any use of the word "free" in the context of humans in society might as well be paradoxical. "We're not free to commit a murder, therefore individual freedom is a paradox" - that'd be quite a naive take on the matter.

>>bheadm+9l3
You're losing track of the conversation. I'm not talking about laws or society or legality. I'm explaining how one person can use their speech to cause another person to choose not to speak, in other words, suppress that second person's speech. This is why it's a paradox: enabling free speech can itself suppress speech.