3 ms·

> So is anyone around still willing to defend Elon Musk's “freedom of speech includes speech I don't like” promise, or has everyone admitted that that was all a

> So is anyone around still willing to defend Elon Musk's “freedom of speech includes speech I don't like” promise, or has everyone admitted that that was all a farce? Not that I want to defend Musk - I've heard of (not experienced directly; I am not a Twitter user) so many screw-ups and back-peddling that my opinion of him has dropped significantly - but presumably they regard Substack as a competitor, and they do not want to drive their traffic to the competitor (as before they tried to stop driving traffic to Mastodon). Is this really a free speech issue?

graeme 4y ago
Twitter shut down its substack competitor
- starkparker 4y ago
  Substack just launched its Twitter competitor, called Notes: https://on.substack.com/p/introducing-notes https://on.substack.com/p/introducing-notes
guelo 4y ago
Yes? There is no business profit exception to free speech.
- yucky 4y ago
  As we've heard millions of times before when the shoe was on the other foot, this is not a free speech issue. Even more so now that Twitter is a private company.
  - bena 4y ago
    The issue isn't about the position itself, but who is claiming it. Or on whose behalf it is being claimed. Musk pitched a $44 billion fit because Twitter wasn't "free speech enough" for a "free speech absolutist" like him. So he bought it and said he'd allow all legal speech on it. All of these moves are directly counter to Musk's stated positions. Furthermore, these moves are more capricious. You'll just never know what's not going to be allowed tomorrow. Or what decisions will be reversed the next day. Before, who was making the moderation decisions at Twitter was opaque. But you knew their guidelines. Inciting an insurrection should be against Terms of Service in general. Now, we know who is making the decisions, but we have no fucking clue as to why they're being made. Or, we know why. Because these entities have offended Musk in some way. But as to what will cause him offense on any given day, we have no idea.
    - yucky 4y ago
      So it's no different than it was before, so what's the problem?
      - plokiju 4y ago
        Hypocrisy
gWPVhyxPHqvk 4y ago
It’s not a free speech issue in the same way it wasn’t a free speech issue when old Twitter did things like suppress the Hunter Biden story. Twitter is a private enterprise allowed to do what it wants with its own speech (it’s platform). It’s extremely hypocritical and furthers the notion that Musk and the rightwingers who took over the site are full of it, but it isn’t a free speech issue.
- quonn 4y ago
  At a minimum, the Hunter Biden „story“ was controversial if not taken out of context or misinformation. What‘s controversial about Substack?
  - cratermoon 4y ago
    https://www.wired.com/story/substack-future-chris-best/ https://www.wired.com/story/substack-future-chris-best/ Take a look at the politics leaderboard and tell me that's not controversial. https://substack.com/leaderboard/politics/paid https://substack.com/leaderboard/politics/paid
    - seattle_spring 4y ago
      Oh my God, "doctor" Mercola is one of the top authors on that list. Yikes.

graeme 4y ago

Twitter shut down its substack competitor

starkparker 4y ago
Substack just launched its Twitter competitor, called Notes: https://on.substack.com/p/introducing-notes https://on.substack.com/p/introducing-notes

guelo 4y ago

Yes? There is no business profit exception to free speech.

yucky 4y ago
As we've heard millions of times before when the shoe was on the other foot, this is not a free speech issue. Even more so now that Twitter is a private company.
- bena 4y ago
  The issue isn't about the position itself, but who is claiming it. Or on whose behalf it is being claimed. Musk pitched a $44 billion fit because Twitter wasn't "free speech enough" for a "free speech absolutist" like him. So he bought it and said he'd allow all legal speech on it. All of these moves are directly counter to Musk's stated positions. Furthermore, these moves are more capricious. You'll just never know what's not going to be allowed tomorrow. Or what decisions will be reversed the next day. Before, who was making the moderation decisions at Twitter was opaque. But you knew their guidelines. Inciting an insurrection should be against Terms of Service in general. Now, we know who is making the decisions, but we have no fucking clue as to why they're being made. Or, we know why. Because these entities have offended Musk in some way. But as to what will cause him offense on any given day, we have no idea.
  - yucky 4y ago
    So it's no different than it was before, so what's the problem?
    - plokiju 4y ago
      Hypocrisy

gWPVhyxPHqvk 4y ago

It’s not a free speech issue in the same way it wasn’t a free speech issue when old Twitter did things like suppress the Hunter Biden story. Twitter is a private enterprise allowed to do what it wants with its own speech (it’s platform). It’s extremely hypocritical and furthers the notion that Musk and the rightwingers who took over the site are full of it, but it isn’t a free speech issue.

quonn 4y ago
At a minimum, the Hunter Biden „story“ was controversial if not taken out of context or misinformation. What‘s controversial about Substack?
- cratermoon 4y ago
  https://www.wired.com/story/substack-future-chris-best/ https://www.wired.com/story/substack-future-chris-best/ Take a look at the politics leaderboard and tell me that's not controversial. https://substack.com/leaderboard/politics/paid https://substack.com/leaderboard/politics/paid
  - seattle_spring 4y ago
    Oh my God, "doctor" Mercola is one of the top authors on that list. Yikes.