zlacker

>>xslowz+(OP)
This is what I have come to expect from every person that calls themselves a "free speech absolutist." What they actually believe is that they should be able to say whatever they want and do whatever they want, personally, without any consequences for themselves. There is no grander principle than "my ability to do what I want and exert power over others however I want, without critique or criticism."

I really wish the term hadn't been polluted this way.

>>epista+7U1
I call myself a free speech absolutist (or advocate at least, absolutist is more of a slur). False compromises belong in the past. What X is doing isn't free speech at all and they have stated that advertisers will dictate what content will be seen, there is no commitment to freedom of speech at all.

But at least I can hold them responsible for violating their own stated values. The former Twitter leadership just hid content that didn't fit theirs or third parties sensitivities and told me they are doing me a favor.

Restricting speech is always in the interests of those that have the power to shape discussions, so limiting speech is always counter productive.

>>raxxor+Bw3
> advocate at least, absolutist is more of a slur

Those two are enormously different, though. I'd consider myself an advocate, just as anyone who believes in a fair and free democracy should. But I am very far from being an absolutist — and I have a secret suspicion that nobody actually is. Musk certainly isn't.

>>oneeye+0J3
A few are and understand that most of the time your are defending scoundrels. But there is a sizeable and probable larger group that very easily wants to suppress speech they do not like. There never was a case where to much freedom of speech has been a significant problem, contrary to the other way around.

Next is misinformation and tomorrow you wonder why you cannot state your opinion anymore. A cycle that has been repeated ad nauseum. It just isn't a smart solution and causes more problems than it solves.

>>raxxor+YM3
Do you get mad at google for automatically detecting and removing spam from your email inbox? For a lot of people, probably the majority, speech by scoundrels falls somewhere in that realm... there is simply no debate to be had about the basic humanity of certain classes of people. Capitalistic companies respond to this demand.

That said, I agree the government probably shouldn't be involved here for the most part (slippery slope, government is a blunt tool, etc.). As long as your "speech" isn't actually harming someone (harassment, revenge porn, incitement, etc.)

As long as we're defending scoundrels it's worth remembering we already lack so many protections for non-scoundrels. In a lot of states you can be fired if your boss hears a whiff of collective bargaining. But I digress.

>>jquery+NP3
We are not talking about spam if that wasn't a rhetorical question. Advertising not wanting any controversy attached to their product placement is no solution and isn't desirable. This isn't done in the name of users.

That there are limited worker protections in countries is a different problem, but is certainly not inhibited by too much speech, quite the contrary it would worsen the situation further. Civil liberties never suffered because too much speech was allowed, so the perspective to err on the side of freedom is only logical.

> there is simply no debate to be had about the basic humanity of certain classes of people

That is just an invalid generalization.