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
Spam is an intractable problem for any so called free speech absolutist. One person's spam could be another person's desired message. But if a platform is overrun with spam, it becomes unusable for genuine discourse.

Maybe the biggest challenge is defining what constitutes "spam." While some cases seem clear-cut (e.g., repeated identical messages from bots, malware, phishing), others are quite subjective. Subtle marketing? Aggressive marketing? Repetitive but sincere advocacy for a cause? Repetitive but insincere trolling? Repetitive but sincere trolling?

All this seems rather obvious, so I was kind of surprised to see how many people bought into Elon's vision for Twitter, it was never workable.

>>jquery+FO3
Of course spam is also tracible. There might be difficulties for government to regulate it because of the legal context, but the solution is to hand the decision of filtering it to the user as long as that user doesn't decide for others.