zlacker

>>crbela+(OP)
From the article: "Twitter, which was arguably the hub of wokeness, was bought by Elon Musk in order to neutralize it, and he seems to have succeeded — and not, incidentally, by censoring left-wing users the way Twitter used to censor right-wing ones, but without censoring either. [14]"

Then follow to the footnote: "[14] Elon did something else that tilted Twitter rightward though: he gave more visibility to paying users."

This is puzzling to me because: if you give more visibility to one group of people's speech, that means you are giving less visibility to another group of people's speech. Which is just another way of saying you are censoring their speech.

Again, the author asks: "...is there a way to prevent any similar outbreak of aggressively performative moralism in the future?" But preventing somebody from expressing their moral values again is censorship.

No matter what kind of media policies there are, the fact that there is limited bandwidth means that some views are going to be emphasized, and other views are going to be suppressed.

>>rhelz+A9
The antiwoke crusaders are just as intent on moralizing and language policing as the worst of their opponents, and in places like Florida they're actively implementing limitations on speech and academic inquiry. To the extent that Graham and his fellow travelers in tech believe in freedom of expression, they've picked dangerous allies.

>>djur+gc1
> in places like Florida they're actively implementing limitations on speech...

Is this a reference to the law preventing teachers from speaking to young children about sexuality?

> ...and academic inquiry

I assume this is in reference to Florida's rejection of the College Board's AP Black History curriculum, which was rejected for containing "critical race theory" in violation of Florida Law. Surely our democratically elected state governments are better suited to have the final say in what goes into our kids heads than some NGO's Board of Trustees? Anyone who thinks educators make for less political judges than politicians is invited to review the donation history of teachers unions[0].

[0] https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus?ind=L1300

>>marcus+3s2
Is explaining to children that a man is married to a woman speaking about sexuality? How is that different from saying a man is married to a man?

>>chipga+1B2
Per the description provided above, the ban is on "classroom instruction... on sexual orientation or gender identity." It's doubtful that stating "Jim is married to Barbara" could be counted as "classroom instruction on sexual orientation" any more than stating "Jim works at the pentagon" could be counted as "classroom instruction on geometry." Nor would the statement "Jim is married to John" be considered "classroom instruction on sexual orientation". The point of the law is to encourage teachers, when fielding a question like "Why is Jim married to a boy?", to reply "Ask your mom". Parents are wary of these discussions for good reason[0].

It's truly hard to imagine allies more "dangerous" (per the parent) than those who obstruct the vital "freedom of expression" that is... teachers talking to children about sexuality.

[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/719685/american-adults-w...