3 ms·
>So you’re probably right to say this isn’t a sudden 180 on his thoughts, but it still highlights how faulty his framing of free speech is. I still don't under
by slg 4y ago
>So you’re probably right to say this isn’t a sudden 180 on his thoughts, but it still highlights how faulty his framing of free speech is.
I still don't understand what his logic is. What is the philosophical value of free speech if no one is able to hear that speech? Is his viewpoint that free speech is just about babbling on into an empty void? What is the value in protecting that? How does one argue that shadowbanning isn't infringing on someone's speech. And for the record, I think shadowbanning is generally a good thing for online communities, but I also support outright bans and don't go around pretending I'm a free speech absolutist.
- TillE 4y agoCharitably, I guess the idea is that people won't have their accounts banned for previously bannable hate speech, so their other tweets are still handled normally. I don't think there's any coherent principle, and in practice it really encourages bad actors to find exactly where the line is.
- tdehnel 4y agoTwitter currently suggests tweets from people you don’t follow. I believe that would be part of the “amplification” or “reach” he’s referring to. That’s how tweets spread and get massive faster/more than typical virality. Now imagine turning that off. You can still say what you want, and your followers will see it, but it won’t get blasted out to that whole world.
- faeriechangling 4y agoHe’s not making it so many people can’t read a tweet, or making it so certain tweets can’t become popular, he’s making it so twitter won’t promote said tweet. It can be regarded a positive thing insofar that it constitutes a limit on twitters ability to censor.