3 ms·

Twitter's new owner promised to allow all speech that is legal under the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. He demonstrated his high-minded principles b

Twitter's new owner promised to allow all speech that is legal under the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. He demonstrated his high-minded principles by reinstating the account of his friend who had been banned for anti-Semitic speech. But parody accounts that criticize the new owner are somehow a step too far. The unifying principle appears to have nothing to do with what is legal under the U.S. Constitution, but instead whether the new owner personally wants to amplify or suppress the speech. Hard to believe that all that talk about the wisdom of the founders and the value of unrestricted free speech was just bullshit.

dmix 4y ago
> But parody accounts that criticize the new owner are somehow a step too far. Elon claims she was suspended for impersonating a comedian not Elon. She later changed it to Elons name but the original report she was banned for was someone else. Saying this is only about protecting the boss doesn't really hold up. Having rules again Impersonation isn't wrongthink. Thats a big stretch and sounds a bit desperate. I also highly doubt the new rules are "everything goes except what is illegal". They haven't even announced what the new policy is but there's no way it's going to be a free for all for prominent accounts (random accounts were always given more leeway because there are simply too many of them). Twitter went hardcore in one (highly inconsistent) direction. You could significanty pull back from aggressive moderation and still not be an "illegal or all" scenario. Which is far more likely to be the case given pressure from advertising and because it makes sense as a product descision. People didn't care about Twitters moderation until they went hardcore. The solution doesn't need to be hardcore in the other direction to be a big improvement.

dmix 4y ago

> But parody accounts that criticize the new owner are somehow a step too far. Elon claims she was suspended for impersonating a comedian not Elon. She later changed it to Elons name but the original report she was banned for was someone else. Saying this is only about protecting the boss doesn't really hold up. Having rules again Impersonation isn't wrongthink. Thats a big stretch and sounds a bit desperate. I also highly doubt the new rules are "everything goes except what is illegal". They haven't even announced what the new policy is but there's no way it's going to be a free for all for prominent accounts (random accounts were always given more leeway because there are simply too many of them). Twitter went hardcore in one (highly inconsistent) direction. You could significanty pull back from aggressive moderation and still not be an "illegal or all" scenario. Which is far more likely to be the case given pressure from advertising and because it makes sense as a product descision. People didn't care about Twitters moderation until they went hardcore. The solution doesn't need to be hardcore in the other direction to be a big improvement.