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

This is not true. Restricting hate speech is an obvious counterexample.

>>semi-e+fQ3
It isn't obvious at all. It doesn't help for that matter, but that is secondary. On the contrary, it is just a popular excuse to restrict speech because nothing about hate speech is objective. We see bad legislation around the globe and that will never protect any minority.

It is a bad idea and damaging and there is ample empirical evidence for that.

>>raxxor+6V3
Please, link to the ample evidence. Quality research only, natch.