See the terrorist attacks against Drag Queens.
Or can you give other examples of disparity between free speech rule applications for themselves and people they don't like?
Posting public information publicly isn't doxxing and until you give up that falsehood, there isn't really anywhere the conversation can go.
Of course a free speech "absolutist" like Musk is a complete hypocrite for not allowing doxxing in the first place.
Sometimes it is.
For example, name plate on the mailbox is publicly available, but posting the address with full name online constitutes doxxing.
> a free speech "absolutist" like Musk is a complete hypocrite
One guy once said, who never changes his/her opinion, is a moron.
Musk will continue to censor speech he doesn't like arbitrarily and use Twitter to promote right-wing extremists who will then hurt real people in the real world.
I wasn't sure if Musk was going to deliver it, but I tried to remain open-minded. I did think previous Twitter management leaned left with some admittedly difficult moderation decisions, but obviously I'm finding out that Musk is even less supportive of true free speech.
Ironically this banning of Mastodon links is the #1 thing pushing me to start exploring Mastodon or other platforms.
You might be referring to JM Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind."
The question is what facts are changing? Here, it looks like the only difference is that something bad happened to HIM.
There are a few people with less money than Mush who have bodyguards.
This is not a new phenomenon, the only thing that changes is the terms used to signal the meaning.
There is some irony now seeing those that didn't believe the banning of accounts arbitrarily was an issue under previous management decrying this move by Elon.
If 4chan had anywhere near the size/reach of Twitter or Facebook, I think it would either be more toxic or more restrictive in its moderation.
This is probably true, but it also describes Twitter prior to the takeover.
If anything is clear to me, it's that it seems impossible to have a completely neutral/fair public forum. Or perhaps it is possible, but people dislike the opposition so much they aren't interested in using it.
No, the irony is not that the site under both owners is trying to remove bad/harmful content (just defining it differently).
The irony is that Musk thought he wasn’t going to have to do it at all: “absolute free speech”, “public square”, “comedy is legal”, etc.
One of the banned journalists went on Mastodon and said (paraphrasing): “It’s his site and he can ban whoever he wants”
And to be fair, under both owners, accounts were banned for violating ToS policies. The policies are just different, but they’re still the rules you agree to when you use the site.
I just don’t think anyone thought “free speech” meant no parodying, no republishing public FAA info, etc.
Anyone intelligent enough to think it through knows it's a paradox, so anyone who truly does want free speech clearly hasn't actually thought it through. They exist, but nobody should take them seriously.
Less terroristy but still super shitty: https://www.vice.com/en/article/4axmy3/far-right-attacked-dr...
If Musk wants to demonstrate a newly sensitive attitude towards doxxing and its dangers, he’s welcome to ban Libs of TikTok.
I don't, so I assume I'm not that intelligent. Would you please explain to me how is it a paradox?
It's not just speech - it's speech with an intention to do harm. That's like saying going into a bank and saying "my partner there has a gun and he will start shooting unless you give me money" is also abusing free speech - it's not about speech, it's about actions in the real world.
> If you allow all speech, some speakers will use that tool to restrict others' speech, which means not all speech is actually allowed
Nobody uses speech on its own to restrict others' speech.
> "Free speech" is a paradox.
I'm not convinced, see above explanations.
Sure, there are phonies. Therefore it is impossible to believe that anyone is genuine? No.
We haven't moved anywhere, because it's not speech that's illegal, it's the intention to do harm. You could perfectly well communicate your intentions to do harm with no speech at all, e.g. by pointing a gun to a bank teller without saying a word. If you use speech to offer to sell drugs to somebody, and a cop arrests you for it, that's not an issue of free speech, that's an issue of drug dealing.
The fact that you aren't allowed to commit crimes by using your speech doesn't make free speech itself a paradox - otherwise any use of the word "free" in the context of humans in society might as well be paradoxical. "We're not free to commit a murder, therefore individual freedom is a paradox" - that'd be quite a naive take on the matter.
In case of free speech as an ideal, it's still a bullshit argument. You cannot suppress speech with speech alone. Go on any anonymous internet forum and try to suppress someone's speech by e.g. threatening to doxx/harm them - you will be laughed at, because on the internet there is no real threat of harm. It's always the threat of harm that actually suppresses speech, not speech itself.
That fact that you use speech to deliver the threat doesn't in itself create a paradox.
In context of freedom of movement, that argument would be akin to "free movement is a paradox because you can suppress someone's movement by holding them down". Yes, you use free movement to walk up to a person, but it's not your movement that holds them down.
Because everybody has a point where they don't want free speech anymore. If I gathered your home address and told everyone you were a pedophile that needed to be killed, you'd probably be less stoked about free speech.
Musk is a right-wing extremist who will protect his own.
Their entire argument is about the prevention of the exact sort of thing that Musk alleges happened to a car carrying his child - real world harm from online activity. So why exactly are they upset about this change in policy that while clearly motivated by self-interest rather than any principle, technically aligns with some of their goals? It's because they want to be able to doxx people they think deserve it. Because when they doxx it's journalism, but when their enemies doxx it's stochastic terrorism.