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
> 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.

The former Twitter leadership was very clear about what sort of content would be his. And is was based entirely on the type of content ahead of time. Critiquing this sort of content policy is like saying that newspapers should not be allowed to have clear standard for what is publishable in classified ads.

All claims of "I'm being oppressed" by Twitter policies have been absolutely ridiculous, and discrediting to supposed free speech advocate/absolutist positions.

Similarly discrediting is the silence on Musk's attacks on the free web and attempts at censorship of specific disprefeerred news outlets.

We all see what gets fought ago and what is not faught against, and the answer is clears the right to attack and intimidate groups with threatening behavior is defending, but actual censorship of reasonable discourse is tolerated.