4 ms·

This is what I have come to expect from every person that calls themselves a "free speech absolutist." What they actually believe is that they should be able t

This is what I have come to expect from every person that calls themselves a "free speech absolutist." What they actually believe is that they should be able to say whatever they want and do whatever they want, personally, without any consequences for themselves. There is no grander principle than "my ability to do what I want and exert power over others however I want, without critique or criticism." I really wish the term hadn't been polluted this way.

epistasis 3y ago
Update: hours after being exposed and publicized in the Washington Post, the behavior has stopped: > On Tuesday afternoon, hours after this story was first published, X began reversing the throttling on some of the sites, dropping the delay times back to zero. It was unknown if all the throttled websites had normal service restored. https://archive.is/2023.08.15-210250/https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/08/15/twitter-x-links-delayed/ https://archive.is/2023.08.15-210250/https://www.washingtonp...
- rhaksw 3y ago
  I still see a roughly 2 second delay on first grab. The second is immediate.
raxxorraxor 3y ago
I call myself a free speech absolutist (or advocate at least, absolutist is more of a slur). False compromises belong in the past. What X is doing isn't free speech at all and they have stated that advertisers will dictate what content will be seen, there is no commitment to freedom of speech at all. But at least I can hold them responsible for violating their own stated values. The former Twitter leadership just hid content that didn't fit theirs or third parties sensitivities and told me they are doing me a favor. Restricting speech is always in the interests of those that have the power to shape discussions, so limiting speech is always counter productive.
- oneeyedpigeon 3y ago
  > advocate at least, absolutist is more of a slur Those two are enormously different, though. I'd consider myself an advocate, just as anyone who believes in a fair and free democracy should. But I am very far from being an absolutist — and I have a secret suspicion that nobody actually is. Musk certainly isn't.
  - raxxorraxor 3y ago
    A few are and understand that most of the time your are defending scoundrels. But there is a sizeable and probable larger group that very easily wants to suppress speech they do not like. There never was a case where to much freedom of speech has been a significant problem, contrary to the other way around. Next is misinformation and tomorrow you wonder why you cannot state your opinion anymore. A cycle that has been repeated ad nauseum. It just isn't a smart solution and causes more problems than it solves.
    - jquery 3y ago
      Do you get mad at google for automatically detecting and removing spam from your email inbox? For a lot of people, probably the majority, speech by scoundrels falls somewhere in that realm... there is simply no debate to be had about the basic humanity of certain classes of people. Capitalistic companies respond to this demand. That said, I agree the government probably shouldn't be involved here for the most part (slippery slope, government is a blunt tool, etc.). As long as your "speech" isn't actually harming someone (harassment, revenge porn, incitement, etc.) As long as we're defending scoundrels it's worth remembering we already lack so many protections for non-scoundrels. In a lot of states you can be fired if your boss hears a whiff of collective bargaining. But I digress.
      - raxxorraxor 3y ago
        We are not talking about spam if that wasn't a rhetorical question. Advertising not wanting any controversy attached to their product placement is no solution and isn't desirable. This isn't done in the name of users. That there are limited worker protections in countries is a different problem, but is certainly not inhibited by too much speech, quite the contrary it would worsen the situation further. Civil liberties never suffered because too much speech was allowed, so the perspective to err on the side of freedom is only logical. > there is simply no debate to be had about the basic humanity of certain classes of people That is just an invalid generalization.
hn1986 3y ago
Time for news orgs to boycott Twitter, just like NPR did.
hn1986 3y ago
even worse, It's had this 5 second delay for Threads for a month. https://www.threads.net/@jank0/post/CuV_5fprO3z/?igshid=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ== https://www.threads.net/@jank0/post/CuV_5fprO3z/?igshid=NTc4...
FireBeyond 3y ago
Disclaimer: I am not comparing Twitter to warlords, dictators or genocide. But this quote (from Lord of War) really encapsulates a lot of what you say: > Yuri Orlov: [Narrating] Every faction in Africa calls themselves by these noble names - Liberation this, Patriotic that, Democratic Republic of something-or-other... I guess they can't own up to what they usually are: the Federation of Worse Oppressors Than the Last Bunch of Oppressors. Often, the most barbaric atrocities occur when both combatants proclaim themselves Freedom Fighters.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- julianozen 3y ago
  History truly is a circle

epistasis 3y ago

Update: hours after being exposed and publicized in the Washington Post, the behavior has stopped: > On Tuesday afternoon, hours after this story was first published, X began reversing the throttling on some of the sites, dropping the delay times back to zero. It was unknown if all the throttled websites had normal service restored. https://archive.is/2023.08.15-210250/https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/08/15/twitter-x-links-delayed/ https://archive.is/2023.08.15-210250/https://www.washingtonp...

rhaksw 3y ago
I still see a roughly 2 second delay on first grab. The second is immediate.

raxxorraxor 3y ago

I call myself a free speech absolutist (or advocate at least, absolutist is more of a slur). False compromises belong in the past. What X is doing isn't free speech at all and they have stated that advertisers will dictate what content will be seen, there is no commitment to freedom of speech at all. But at least I can hold them responsible for violating their own stated values. The former Twitter leadership just hid content that didn't fit theirs or third parties sensitivities and told me they are doing me a favor. Restricting speech is always in the interests of those that have the power to shape discussions, so limiting speech is always counter productive.

oneeyedpigeon 3y ago
> advocate at least, absolutist is more of a slur Those two are enormously different, though. I'd consider myself an advocate, just as anyone who believes in a fair and free democracy should. But I am very far from being an absolutist — and I have a secret suspicion that nobody actually is. Musk certainly isn't.
- raxxorraxor 3y ago
  A few are and understand that most of the time your are defending scoundrels. But there is a sizeable and probable larger group that very easily wants to suppress speech they do not like. There never was a case where to much freedom of speech has been a significant problem, contrary to the other way around. Next is misinformation and tomorrow you wonder why you cannot state your opinion anymore. A cycle that has been repeated ad nauseum. It just isn't a smart solution and causes more problems than it solves.
  - jquery 3y ago
    Do you get mad at google for automatically detecting and removing spam from your email inbox? For a lot of people, probably the majority, speech by scoundrels falls somewhere in that realm... there is simply no debate to be had about the basic humanity of certain classes of people. Capitalistic companies respond to this demand. That said, I agree the government probably shouldn't be involved here for the most part (slippery slope, government is a blunt tool, etc.). As long as your "speech" isn't actually harming someone (harassment, revenge porn, incitement, etc.) As long as we're defending scoundrels it's worth remembering we already lack so many protections for non-scoundrels. In a lot of states you can be fired if your boss hears a whiff of collective bargaining. But I digress.
    - raxxorraxor 3y ago
      We are not talking about spam if that wasn't a rhetorical question. Advertising not wanting any controversy attached to their product placement is no solution and isn't desirable. This isn't done in the name of users. That there are limited worker protections in countries is a different problem, but is certainly not inhibited by too much speech, quite the contrary it would worsen the situation further. Civil liberties never suffered because too much speech was allowed, so the perspective to err on the side of freedom is only logical. > there is simply no debate to be had about the basic humanity of certain classes of people That is just an invalid generalization.

hn1986 3y ago

Time for news orgs to boycott Twitter, just like NPR did.

hn1986 3y ago

even worse, It's had this 5 second delay for Threads for a month. https://www.threads.net/@jank0/post/CuV_5fprO3z/?igshid=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ== https://www.threads.net/@jank0/post/CuV_5fprO3z/?igshid=NTc4...

FireBeyond 3y ago

Disclaimer: I am not comparing Twitter to warlords, dictators or genocide. But this quote (from Lord of War) really encapsulates a lot of what you say: > Yuri Orlov: [Narrating] Every faction in Africa calls themselves by these noble names - Liberation this, Patriotic that, Democratic Republic of something-or-other... I guess they can't own up to what they usually are: the Federation of Worse Oppressors Than the Last Bunch of Oppressors. Often, the most barbaric atrocities occur when both combatants proclaim themselves Freedom Fighters.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
julianozen 3y ago
History truly is a circle