7 ms·

Hopefully most people migrate to one of the alternatives not owned by an American oligarch

adventured 2y ago
There are no possible alternatives to US based services unless you enjoy extreme restrictions on speech. Europe has become a big no-go zone for speech over the past decade, they're outright hostile and authoritarian about it (with only a few exceptions among European nations). And the direction re liberalism and human rights in Europe is overwhelmingly hostile toward speech. And for South America, Africa and Asia you can entirely forget about it, there are no reliable speech protected locations in any of those.
- joejohnson 2y ago
  Mastodon, Bluesky, many other less-popular federated social networks.
- mstipetic 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - LightHugger 2y ago
    Because people lie about what the lies are, without fail. As soon as any "misinformation" rule becomes a thing, it is already being abused by liars.
    - timeon 2y ago
      Liars do not need rule to abuse. They will first manipulate society and crate rules if needed afterwards. That is the nature of populism.
      - mstipetic 2y ago
        I have no idea why you’re being downvoted. We’ve seen this play out multiple times
  - tirant 2y ago
    The spread of lies or false information has always been the price the pay in order to have free speech. It is the task of the individuals in free societies to discern the lies from the truth, or at least to choose their tools in doing so. You’re lying to yourself if you believe you can have real human free speech with a system capable of censoring all lies.
    - mstipetic 2y ago
      Yes but once people mess up and choose the wrong thing it’s very hard to go back. There are plenty of examples of countries where bad actors have taken over all institutions and what then? There are not takesies backsies
      - dmix 2y ago
        And you think censorship will solve this? You’ll just get a different sort of monster. One that probably appeals to your worldview in the short term because you fit the typical person you think will be controlling it forever and you think the scope will somehow to be constrained to a small group of things you don’t like. Well intentioned, but extremely naive. Something our society will sadly have to relearn every century or so.
        meiraleal 2y ago
        > And you think censorship will solve this? A media company being punished isn't censorship , media companies aren't above the law.
        stale2002 2y ago
        > A media company Text from the 1st amendment: "or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" You see that part that says "The press"? Thats what a media company is. Yes, if the government punishes "The press" for its speech, and threatens it with legal action, that is by definition something that effects free speech and is censorship. Definitionally, I cannot think of something that could be more accurately be described as censorship.
  - dgfitz 2y ago
    The US learned a few lessons from alcohol prohibition, most of them tough and painful. Banning a thing that allows “obvious lies” will have knock-on effects that haven’t been realized yet. I guess we learned how to make faster cars to outrun cops…?
  - whatisssss 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - hybrid_study 2y ago
    this is called Popper's Tolerance Paradox, and you are quite right. it's truly amazing how many people dont really get that having only 99% free speech is just fine
    - semiquaver 2y ago
      99% of speech is bland and unobjectionable. It’s the 1% that needs protection.
      - myko 2y ago
        i disagree, for example holocaust denial is not allowed in Germany and that seems reasonable and to work well https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/germanys-laws-antisemitic-hate-speech-nazi-propaganda-holocaust-denial/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/germanys-laws-ant...
        computerfriend 2y ago
        It doesn't seem reasonable or work well to the holocaust deniers.
        whatisssss 2y ago
        [flagged]
        WrongAssumption 2y ago
        Did you read the article you posted? It doesn’t sound like it’s working well at all.
        myko 2y ago
        Having lived in Germany and the US I disagree with your assessment of the situation
      - gruez 2y ago
        Exactly. It's specifically the objectionable speech that needs protection, not stuff like "cats are cute".
  - mynameishere 2y ago
    I learned that tweets by nobodies on topics such as Hunter Biden's laptop or Russiagate or Israel's behavior in Gaza have more credibility than the entire mainstream media. I fully understand the danger of lies (more than you ever will) and that is precisely why I support free speech for ordinary people.
    - throwaway48476 2y ago
      People choose the facts they want and it's incredibly dangerous to let them censor any dissent from their personal reality.
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    > I see no reason why someone should be allowed to spread obvious lies The right to lie is fundamental to the principle of freedom of speech. Also the lies you think are “obvious” are almost certainly not obvious to everyone - they rarely are. And if someone cannot share a different view then you can’t arrive at the truth.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > right to lie is fundamental to the principle of freedom of speech It's obviously not. We prosecute fraud. No freedom can be absolute unless it is singular.
      - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
        I wasn’t calling it absolute. I used the word fundamental. My meaning was that giving people this freedom means giving them the freedom to lie as well. I agree that we can debate specific exceptions, which I feel SCOTUS precedence has explored in very nuanced ways. But that’s not where I was going. I was making the point that even if you think something is a ‘truth’, what you perceive as a ‘lie’ must be allowed since only through that debate can people find their way to the truth. A truth that is just unchallenged feels more like propaganda.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > giving people this freedom means giving them the freedom to lie as well. I agree that we can debate specific exceptions We can. But we don't and never have. Anyone arguing for the freedom to lie without consequence is off the deep end. There has never been a society that doesn't punish lying and fraud. (What constitutes a lie is a deeper question.) > even if you think something is a ‘truth’, what you perceive as a ‘lie’ must be allowed Why? Also, where? Ever? If I go and commit a bunch of fraud, I'd expect--at best--riotious laughter from anyone with more than two brain cells if I offered, as my defence, that I cannot be punished for defrauding everyone because I'm part of the truth-finding process. > truth that is just unchallenged feels more like propaganda Propaganda is regularly challenged. A truth that cannot be challenged is an article of faith. This entire debate reeks of arguments from faith on both sides.
  - Aerroon 2y ago
    The US is a ~250 year old continuous democracy. Almost no European states can say the same. After WW1 a lot of democratic European states popped up. Two decades later half of them were autocratic. I think it's half that our governments don't want to give away control, lest the peasants become uppity. And the other half is that that's just how the dice landed when the laws were first created.
- morkalork 2y ago
  Social media is trending towards regional balkanisation. Governments are clueing into the fact giving everyone including foreign states free reign to broadcast to, and manipulate, their constituants is a bad idea. Just look at what happened in the UK recently with the riots. Twitter's days are numbered there.
  - chipdart 2y ago
    > Social media is trending towards regional balkanisation. By choosing to frame things like that, it almost sounds like multinational monopolies on social media controlled by murderous fascist regimes and used to push industrial loads of machine-generated propaganda is something that's somehow preferable.
    - morkalork 2y ago
      Your new digital town square brought to you in part by the House of Saud, where there's free speech for everyone but some accounts are more equal than others and cisgender is a slur.
      - chipdart 2y ago
        Saudi Arabia is of course Twitter's second largest shareholder. But Twitter is also owned by Russian oligarchs linked to Putin himself. https://www.dw.com/en/what-do-xs-alleged-ties-to-russian-oligarchs-mean-for-musk/a-70088598 https://www.dw.com/en/what-do-xs-alleged-ties-to-russian-oli... We're talking about Elon Musk's Twitter, who around the time of Russia's invasion of Ukraine was found to have hardcoded censorship of pro-ukraine content as well as users who posted pro-Ukraine content on Twitter.
        petre 2y ago
        This is just speculation. I see videos from Ukraine sticking it to the Russians like every other day from Twitter, shared with the news. Also from Telegram channels. The most recent one was with a downed Su-25. Here: https://x.com/igorsushko/status/1828661567094984774 https://x.com/igorsushko/status/1828661567094984774

There are no possible alternatives to US based services unless you enjoy extreme restrictions on speech. Europe has become a big no-go zone for speech over the past decade, they're outright hostile and authoritarian about it (with only a few exceptions among European nations). And the direction re liberalism and human rights in Europe is overwhelmingly hostile toward speech. And for South America, Africa and Asia you can entirely forget about it, there are no reliable speech protected locations in any of those.

joejohnson 2y ago
Mastodon, Bluesky, many other less-popular federated social networks.
mstipetic 2y ago
[flagged]
- LightHugger 2y ago
  Because people lie about what the lies are, without fail. As soon as any "misinformation" rule becomes a thing, it is already being abused by liars.
  - timeon 2y ago
    Liars do not need rule to abuse. They will first manipulate society and crate rules if needed afterwards. That is the nature of populism.
    - mstipetic 2y ago
      I have no idea why you’re being downvoted. We’ve seen this play out multiple times
- tirant 2y ago
  The spread of lies or false information has always been the price the pay in order to have free speech. It is the task of the individuals in free societies to discern the lies from the truth, or at least to choose their tools in doing so. You’re lying to yourself if you believe you can have real human free speech with a system capable of censoring all lies.
  - mstipetic 2y ago
    Yes but once people mess up and choose the wrong thing it’s very hard to go back. There are plenty of examples of countries where bad actors have taken over all institutions and what then? There are not takesies backsies
    - dmix 2y ago
      And you think censorship will solve this? You’ll just get a different sort of monster. One that probably appeals to your worldview in the short term because you fit the typical person you think will be controlling it forever and you think the scope will somehow to be constrained to a small group of things you don’t like. Well intentioned, but extremely naive. Something our society will sadly have to relearn every century or so.
      - meiraleal 2y ago
        > And you think censorship will solve this? A media company being punished isn't censorship , media companies aren't above the law.
        stale2002 2y ago
        > A media company Text from the 1st amendment: "or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" You see that part that says "The press"? Thats what a media company is. Yes, if the government punishes "The press" for its speech, and threatens it with legal action, that is by definition something that effects free speech and is censorship. Definitionally, I cannot think of something that could be more accurately be described as censorship.
- dgfitz 2y ago
  The US learned a few lessons from alcohol prohibition, most of them tough and painful. Banning a thing that allows “obvious lies” will have knock-on effects that haven’t been realized yet. I guess we learned how to make faster cars to outrun cops…?
- whatisssss 2y ago
  [flagged]
- hybrid_study 2y ago
  this is called Popper's Tolerance Paradox, and you are quite right. it's truly amazing how many people dont really get that having only 99% free speech is just fine
  - semiquaver 2y ago
    99% of speech is bland and unobjectionable. It’s the 1% that needs protection.
    - myko 2y ago
      i disagree, for example holocaust denial is not allowed in Germany and that seems reasonable and to work well https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/germanys-laws-antisemitic-hate-speech-nazi-propaganda-holocaust-denial/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/germanys-laws-ant...
      - computerfriend 2y ago
        It doesn't seem reasonable or work well to the holocaust deniers.
      - whatisssss 2y ago
        [flagged]
      - WrongAssumption 2y ago
        Did you read the article you posted? It doesn’t sound like it’s working well at all.
        myko 2y ago
        Having lived in Germany and the US I disagree with your assessment of the situation
    - gruez 2y ago
      Exactly. It's specifically the objectionable speech that needs protection, not stuff like "cats are cute".
- mynameishere 2y ago
  I learned that tweets by nobodies on topics such as Hunter Biden's laptop or Russiagate or Israel's behavior in Gaza have more credibility than the entire mainstream media. I fully understand the danger of lies (more than you ever will) and that is precisely why I support free speech for ordinary people.
  - throwaway48476 2y ago
    People choose the facts they want and it's incredibly dangerous to let them censor any dissent from their personal reality.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  > I see no reason why someone should be allowed to spread obvious lies The right to lie is fundamental to the principle of freedom of speech. Also the lies you think are “obvious” are almost certainly not obvious to everyone - they rarely are. And if someone cannot share a different view then you can’t arrive at the truth.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > right to lie is fundamental to the principle of freedom of speech It's obviously not. We prosecute fraud. No freedom can be absolute unless it is singular.
    - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
      I wasn’t calling it absolute. I used the word fundamental. My meaning was that giving people this freedom means giving them the freedom to lie as well. I agree that we can debate specific exceptions, which I feel SCOTUS precedence has explored in very nuanced ways. But that’s not where I was going. I was making the point that even if you think something is a ‘truth’, what you perceive as a ‘lie’ must be allowed since only through that debate can people find their way to the truth. A truth that is just unchallenged feels more like propaganda.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > giving people this freedom means giving them the freedom to lie as well. I agree that we can debate specific exceptions We can. But we don't and never have. Anyone arguing for the freedom to lie without consequence is off the deep end. There has never been a society that doesn't punish lying and fraud. (What constitutes a lie is a deeper question.) > even if you think something is a ‘truth’, what you perceive as a ‘lie’ must be allowed Why? Also, where? Ever? If I go and commit a bunch of fraud, I'd expect--at best--riotious laughter from anyone with more than two brain cells if I offered, as my defence, that I cannot be punished for defrauding everyone because I'm part of the truth-finding process. > truth that is just unchallenged feels more like propaganda Propaganda is regularly challenged. A truth that cannot be challenged is an article of faith. This entire debate reeks of arguments from faith on both sides.
- Aerroon 2y ago
  The US is a ~250 year old continuous democracy. Almost no European states can say the same. After WW1 a lot of democratic European states popped up. Two decades later half of them were autocratic. I think it's half that our governments don't want to give away control, lest the peasants become uppity. And the other half is that that's just how the dice landed when the laws were first created.
morkalork 2y ago
Social media is trending towards regional balkanisation. Governments are clueing into the fact giving everyone including foreign states free reign to broadcast to, and manipulate, their constituants is a bad idea. Just look at what happened in the UK recently with the riots. Twitter's days are numbered there.
- chipdart 2y ago
  > Social media is trending towards regional balkanisation. By choosing to frame things like that, it almost sounds like multinational monopolies on social media controlled by murderous fascist regimes and used to push industrial loads of machine-generated propaganda is something that's somehow preferable.
  - morkalork 2y ago
    Your new digital town square brought to you in part by the House of Saud, where there's free speech for everyone but some accounts are more equal than others and cisgender is a slur.
    - chipdart 2y ago
      Saudi Arabia is of course Twitter's second largest shareholder. But Twitter is also owned by Russian oligarchs linked to Putin himself. https://www.dw.com/en/what-do-xs-alleged-ties-to-russian-oligarchs-mean-for-musk/a-70088598 https://www.dw.com/en/what-do-xs-alleged-ties-to-russian-oli... We're talking about Elon Musk's Twitter, who around the time of Russia's invasion of Ukraine was found to have hardcoded censorship of pro-ukraine content as well as users who posted pro-Ukraine content on Twitter.
      - petre 2y ago
        This is just speculation. I see videos from Ukraine sticking it to the Russians like every other day from Twitter, shared with the news. Also from Telegram channels. The most recent one was with a downed Su-25. Here: https://x.com/igorsushko/status/1828661567094984774 https://x.com/igorsushko/status/1828661567094984774