4 ms·

Am okay with advertisers going to Facebook (or any other platforms really) where they can curate their own little garden of cute posts and snowflake engagements

Am okay with advertisers going to Facebook (or any other platforms really) where they can curate their own little garden of cute posts and snowflake engagements. Edit: To answer your added question. In an ideal world there is no good reason to allow hate speech on SM platforms. But free speech does not equate to hate speech. And there is no legal distinction for the term (hate speech) as far as US law is concerned [0]. The term however can be defined and in different ways according to many other countries' laws. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

jasfi 4y ago
I think a lot of people really want a platform with free speech without hate speech, whatever you would call that. It can be difficult to define, but I don't think it's an impossible task. Same goes for the definition of hate speech. You'd have to look at global and local definitions and apply them accordingly.
- Operative0198 4y ago
  Everyone agrees. Many countries will just ban you for operating outside of their laws regarding unlawful speech. My main issue with the article is different however, and has everything to do with this advertiser's misplaced demands on the outcome of social media engagement they expect to receive back from SM users and trying to use the native advertising model as an excuse to try and interfere with the platform's content. The concerns they have about brand safety seem to arise from the fact that they are now not able to request for content that does not align with their selfish interests to be taken down. Elon has been clear from the get go that he's pro free speech (he has also previously said that he didn't acquire Twitter purely to make a profit) and that he is not going to go beyond what is permissible by law in moderating the platform. The advertiser in question should therefore adjust their advertising campaigns accordingly.
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    > Elon has been clear from the get go that he's pro free speech Not really. He's mouthed the words, of course, but it appears that his definition of "free speech" is "whatever Musk wants it to be". > he is not going to go beyond what is permissible by law in moderating the platform Not what he said. What he said is that he'll allow allow all speech that isn't illegal. He could decide to censor all speech from everyone on Twitter right now, and that wouldn't go beyond what is permissible by law. > The advertiser in question should therefore adjust their advertising campaigns accordingly. Why? Advertisers don't have freedom of speech? They should be forced to engage in speech and do business with a company when they find it distasteful or potentially harmful to their business?
    - Operative0198 4y ago
      > Not really. He's mouthed the words, of course, but it appears that his definition of "free speech" is "whatever Musk wants it to be". Pretty hard to nail this perfectly if we are being honest. But Twitter allows more free speech now than before. > Not what he said. What he said is that he'll allow allow all speech that isn't illegal. He could decide to censor all speech from everyone on Twitter right now, and that wouldn't go beyond what is permissible by law. Not sure I understand your argument here. > Why? Advertisers don't have freedom of speech? They should be forced to engage in speech and do business with a company when they find it distasteful or potentially harmful to their business? Advertisers have freedom of speech. What they don't have now is the ability to coerce the Twitter platform into censoring other users' speech. Besides they are free to do business where their needs are best served. Twitter's not a monopoly.

jasfi 4y ago

I think a lot of people really want a platform with free speech without hate speech, whatever you would call that. It can be difficult to define, but I don't think it's an impossible task. Same goes for the definition of hate speech. You'd have to look at global and local definitions and apply them accordingly.

Operative0198 4y ago
Everyone agrees. Many countries will just ban you for operating outside of their laws regarding unlawful speech. My main issue with the article is different however, and has everything to do with this advertiser's misplaced demands on the outcome of social media engagement they expect to receive back from SM users and trying to use the native advertising model as an excuse to try and interfere with the platform's content. The concerns they have about brand safety seem to arise from the fact that they are now not able to request for content that does not align with their selfish interests to be taken down. Elon has been clear from the get go that he's pro free speech (he has also previously said that he didn't acquire Twitter purely to make a profit) and that he is not going to go beyond what is permissible by law in moderating the platform. The advertiser in question should therefore adjust their advertising campaigns accordingly.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  > Elon has been clear from the get go that he's pro free speech Not really. He's mouthed the words, of course, but it appears that his definition of "free speech" is "whatever Musk wants it to be". > he is not going to go beyond what is permissible by law in moderating the platform Not what he said. What he said is that he'll allow allow all speech that isn't illegal. He could decide to censor all speech from everyone on Twitter right now, and that wouldn't go beyond what is permissible by law. > The advertiser in question should therefore adjust their advertising campaigns accordingly. Why? Advertisers don't have freedom of speech? They should be forced to engage in speech and do business with a company when they find it distasteful or potentially harmful to their business?
  - Operative0198 4y ago
    > Not really. He's mouthed the words, of course, but it appears that his definition of "free speech" is "whatever Musk wants it to be". Pretty hard to nail this perfectly if we are being honest. But Twitter allows more free speech now than before. > Not what he said. What he said is that he'll allow allow all speech that isn't illegal. He could decide to censor all speech from everyone on Twitter right now, and that wouldn't go beyond what is permissible by law. Not sure I understand your argument here. > Why? Advertisers don't have freedom of speech? They should be forced to engage in speech and do business with a company when they find it distasteful or potentially harmful to their business? Advertisers have freedom of speech. What they don't have now is the ability to coerce the Twitter platform into censoring other users' speech. Besides they are free to do business where their needs are best served. Twitter's not a monopoly.