The most charitable explanation is that Musk believes in the concept, even though it is often used against him and his online friends.
A less charitable explanation would be that some regulation requires it. Maybe the consent decree?
Would anyone who is better informed on the matter care to share an opinion?
edit: the parent comment has been edited since my reply, it used to make a bit more sense.
I thought Gizmodo was on the team ranting against X having "free speech." But now that something went wrong with it, they are on the pro "free speech" side?
We need a stronger word than hypocrite. Though, I shouldn't be surprised - G/O Media (who owns Gizmodo, Jezebel, Kotaku) is well known for being peddlers of poppycock.
This is obviously related to the cancel-thy-neighbour over Israel/Palestine that is going on at the moment. Mr. Musk is just too shy to admit it.
Wasn't Elon widely deemed an antisemite last month?
Edit: I wasn't being tongue-in-cheek. Perhaps we should not attribute to malice what we can attribute to incompetence -- especially in Elon's case.
Musk asserts that he subscribes to absolute free speech, but continuously shows that he most definitely does not, usually through being a thin skinned snowflake.
Basically what this show is that firing your entire moderation team leads to inconsistent moderation as modern automation simply isn't up to the task of dealing with high-emotion topics.
The guy who runs GAB, pretty much everything that's not pornography is allowed there.
1. You have no right to hate speak. 2. Companies don't have to give you a platform. 3. It's not censorship unless the government is doing it! 4. Muh freez peach
I guess we are now trying to walk back our previous declarations by saying that "Free Speech" and "Absolute Free Speech" are distinct things.
How about instead we learn that if we censor and silence critics that the same tactics will be used by the other side, and a civilized society this does not make.
> Interesting. This Note is being gamed by state actors. Will be helpful in figuring who they are. Thanks for jumping in the honey pot, guys lmao!
Most of the top 10 accounts with most community notes are plain disinformation accounts. No action is taken against them.
There are numerous tweets and clips of musk himself stating he is a free speech absolutist.
This whole “within the confines of the law” only came out after he bought twitter and after advertisers left the platform out of fear of absolutist free speech.
I think it is somewhat likely that any account with a lot of followers has a lot of bot followers. I could easily see any "clean up the bots" script being wrong on taking down some legitimate posters that are in the neighborhood of a lot of bots.
Not only were they COMPLETELY wrong about X being days away from shuttering, these idiots are paying Elon for corporate subscription to keep using his platform.
These are unserious people and should be regarded as nothing more than clowns. That's all they are.
I can see why the talentless scumbags of Gizmodo are so terrified of ChatGPT taking their job, especially when the most broken ChatGPT results are more congruent with reality than the likes of their self-proclaimed journalists.
Change headline to "... in latest assault on political journalism." Or Pro-Palestinian journalism.
It's a rigged system but seeing idiots and liars get smacked upside the head [1] in a public way is definitely helpful
Which is true at lower volumes of disinformation but during events e.g. Israel-Gaza community notes simply can't keep up.
And this is the concern that the EU and others have rightly raised.
Are you sure about that? Historical accounts of his actions and thoughts would disagree
He famously wanted to move Paypal to Windows NT because "UNIX is for old junk mainframes!"
Muslims
LGBTQ
People with alternate personas reading books to children
Teachers
Academics
Scientists
I mean. If we’re going to play a game of “who consistently applies their belief”, you’re not going to win.
If you look here you can see OpenAI being used en-masse across the platform all blue-ticked indicating that they will not be flagged as spam. And showing exactly what Musk said would not happen when he changed what blue-tick meant.
> The Russian "Firehose of Falsehood" Propaganda Model
> Why It Might Work and Options to Counter It
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/eu-investigates-x-over-po...
Hard to say where he stands and who is pulling the strings, but it's interesting to follow.
you have the right to hate speak. Hate speak all you like!
>2. Companies don't have to give you a platform.
they dont!
> 3. It's not censorship unless the government is doing it!
you can use the word "censorship" anywhere, it's just if you are going to claim First Amendment rights, then only the government is involved there.
> How about instead we learn that if we censor and silence critics that the same tactics will be used by the other side, and a civilized society this does not make.
Re: hate speech, Popper would disagree with you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
why? this sounds exactly like something he'd do. "if it happens to me it is bad, but if it happens to others then it is just free speech" or some such
Twitter the system bans prominent accounts in frequency and amount for no discernible reasons(it's "Twitter Rules"). That had completely normalized ban evasions to the point even its support personnel sometimes suggested it in the past.
Users won't pay to get banned[1]. Businesses can't rely on ID provider that unexist hard earned customers. People flee to competitors when the platform does this and require social graph reconstructions. It's not a new phenomenon, it's a plague somewhere within the system that needs to be fixed by a major re-architecture.
1: Anecdotally, but in fact I've seen users signing up for the paid Blue program when it was first introduced, hoping for preferential treatment for paid accounts with regard to bans, only to report back in disappointment - and I've seen it precisely because those users had promptly gone through the ban and evasion process and came back in the buzz.
Really? They have a massive pipeline built on generating content for their sites 100% dependent on mining Twit...er,X. It's really easy to understand if you're being honest about the situation. Just because you don't like the content doesn't mean the masses of sheeple feel the same way
But they aren't targeting those groups.
And I say this as someone who has disliked Musk since his comments during the cave rescue.
Gizmodo you can do better...
I gave reddit another try during xmas break. I would copy and paste a sutta and reply on r/buddhism. A mod would come along and called me an idiot and wrong. I never really said anything myself lol, you cant really disagree with me. Literally a major violation of right speech, but they are a mod so they decide.
I then go on my province subreddit and 11% of people have gotten the new covid booster. But if you have a viewpoint anything other pro-vaccine, you're not going to be allowed to speak.
I was then on some major subreddit and I linked a recent vibrations kill cancer cells thing. I said 'cure to cancer?' and got banned for medical misinformation.
Then I was on a vaguely trans subreddit, im trans. The person posted asking for help. They mentioned they have a feminine parts, they have an obgyn, etc. They never said their gender. I posted trying to help, and I accidentally misgendered them. They were upset greatly. Reddit admins gave me a warning for harassing/abusing them.
Dont worry reddit admins, i'll ban myself from the tremendously toxic website.
Meanwhile on X. I never have any problems at all. I actually have free speech. Amazing.
I am all for their speech as well as speech by anti-vaxers, alt-right, conservative christians.
The problem is that we have many here that don't want to accept that the opposite of speech is not silence but is in fact more speech.
I would also not call myself a "free speech absolutist", I believe there should be no restrictions on the discussion of ideas but would be against the ability of anyone being able to slander and libel others.
I quite honestly think that our slander and libel laws are too permissive. If I were to take your picture and publish it on social media with an accusation, that would make you a "public person" who then has no recourse to any damage that I have caused.
Imagine you're setting a standard on free speech and you draw the line at the mention of Mastodon.
We all believe we're punishing him by massively dunking on him, but we effectively reward him. The media too loves Musk, in the same way that they love Trump.
However no one here is claiming Musk doesn't or shouldn't have the right to run Twitter (I still refuse to call it X and will die on this hill) however he likes, rather people are just pointing out that he's a hypocrite and an asshole.
The mainstream idea is that Twitter is important, but I haven’t seen much reason to agree. Most apps that rely on it could be served with an RSS feed. Most people I’ve met don’t use Twitter to any measurable degree. The amount of real world change the service has brought is rather low given how often it appears in mainstream media. In fact I see TikTok do more to influence and promote.
it's similar to tiktok. you likely don't realize you're seeing something only because it originated from tiktok or twitter. if the daily news is still regularly reporting about things that happen on twitter, then i'd say it's still an important platform.
