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
When a company that provides a coherent speech product, their editorial decisions are made according to how they will affect the goal of user growth. The obvious result of a “free speech absolutist” social media coupled with the rules of network effects is one enormous, undifferentiated social network.

It probably goes without saying that this would be an extremely unpleasant place, but there would be nowhere else to go once the last platform won.

What we have today is a number of smaller social networks, each with a different strategy to shape the conversation. It may very well be true that the creators of a platform choose editorial methods and goals that resonate with them personally, but what’s important to the dynamic of the platforms and free speech is that until we are all on that one terrible platform, that methods used to moderate your speech are nothing more than a company’s efforts to differentiate their product from others.

Restricting speech is in the interest of product differentiation. This, of course, is in the interest of the owner of the product, but it is always also in the interest of the consumer who wants a rich speech market to choose from, and who loathes the idea of a global 4chan style megasite to the exclusion of all other social media. This is why failure to limit speech in the context of a coherent speech product is always counterproductive.