14 ms·

> because say the CEO of a company is friendly to the President. "Engaging in political censorship of their platform in favour of the President" is a little mo

> because say the CEO of a company is friendly to the President. "Engaging in political censorship of their platform in favour of the President" is a little more than being "friendly". Free Speech in the US is dying. Ignore it at your own peril.

nxm 2y ago
[flagged]
karaterobot 2y ago
The point is that the people he's trying to communicate with don't care about that. You don't need to argue about that here, it's not relevant.
sirsinsalot 2y ago
Dying? It isn't free speech if you can say what you like, but can only do it in a sound proofed room, alone.
- scarface_74 2y ago
  He’s talking about private groups. Regardless, no private platform is forced to provide you a voice. You can set up your own site and set up your own servers if need be. People have been getting their ideas out there before social media and even when the mainstream media wouldn’t cover them. That’s how the civil rights movement came to prominence.
  - graemep 2y ago
    > Regardless, no private platform is forced to provide you a voice. That was a reasonable stance historically. Only the government had real power to control speech. Now a tiny number of platforms have a huge amount of power. They should have an obligation not to censor, because between them they can virtually block all practically available channels of communication.
    - scarface_74 2y ago
      Again, during the civil rights movement there was no social media and mainstream media. You use personal outreach and then you build up from there. There are church networks, civil groups, advocacy groups etc
      - graemep 2y ago
        > There are church networks, civil groups, advocacy groups etc Which are now largely dependent on social media and the like to reach people. Church's somewhat less so because they do have services that people physically go to. Most campaign and advocacy groups work online, and for some social media is their main focus. They have to go where people are.
        scarface_74 2y ago
        Then that’s their problem. I doubt that there is any group that you can’t start locally and build up a following.
    - Hasu 2y ago
      > They should have an obligation not to censor, because between them they can virtually block all practically available channels of communication Absolute bullshit. It has never been easier in history to publish your own thoughts for the consumption of anyone who is interested in reading them. You can make your own website and put just about whatever you want on it. You can write and publish pamphlets or books with print on demand services. You can record audio or video with your phone and put it on your website or just send it directly to people. You can walk down to the town square and say pretty much whatever you want. You absolutely don't need to be on Facebook or Twitter or ANY social networks to exercise your free speech. None of these companies has power over any means of communication other than their own platforms. You don't have to use their platforms.
      - graemep 2y ago
        > You don't have to use their platforms. Yes, but you can reach far fewer people if you do not. This is well on the way to arguing that you are free to say what you want in a sealed room.
- ADeerAppeared 2y ago
  Much in the same way you are allowed to criticize Putin in Russia. So long as you do it in a sound proofed room.
javier123454321 2y ago
Are you talking about his role censoring for the current, or for the former admin? His flip flopping shows such a lack of character. However, being selectively outraged because this time he is doing it for someone you disagree with, which a lot of people are, reveals the real motives.
- dingnuts 2y ago
  ok so where do those who have been consistently mad at the people variously in power going back to 2016 or even 2008 go to complain? non-partisan free speech believers exist
  - zer8k 2y ago
    People are gonna stay upset for quite a while. The billion dollar election manipulation campaign spanning Reddit/Tiktok/Youtube/Television was extremely effective. It convinced a very, very specific kind of person that the by-the-numbers worst candidate in modern history was going to win in an absolute landslide. It will be years before these people realize how much the media was controlled from 2020-2024 specifically in favor of one political party. For a lot of people this was the first time it was extremely obvious and going back to Bush and Obama social media and the internet in general weren't considered "serious" political campaign locations. I certainly dont remember either Bush's or Obama's election being so insanely partisan to the point of calling one party Nazis. Of course there was vitriol but it was so tame compared to today.
    - pbhjpbhj 2y ago
      >being so insanely partisan to the point of calling one party Nazis Do you mean the party who just used the inauguration to have a senior government member throw nazi salutes? The party whose presidents first actions included pardoning dozens of members of fascist groups? You can't really be choosing this moment to complain about calling these people nazis??
      - jazzyjackson 2y ago
nyokodo 2y ago
[flagged]
- scarface_74 2y ago
  Musk has been promoting his views and demoting post that he doesn’t agree with.
  - myheartisinohio 2y ago
    meta =/= x
    - scarface_74 2y ago
      > The good news is that Facebook, X, and the Trump administration have publicly committed to, and signed executive orders to unravel that censorship complex.
  - nyokodo 2y ago
    Well, Musk hypocrisy aside and assuming the scale of this intervention is the same on X as pre-acquisition and assuming it’s as egregious and petty as then, he won’t have the infrastructure to force his views across all social networks like the Biden administration did.
  - rcstank 2y ago
    Do you have proof of this? My feed is catered to how I like it, including posts that disagree with him.
    - scarface_74 2y ago
      https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2024/01/09/elon-musk-silencing-his-critics-as-journalists-are-suspended-by-x/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2024/01/09/elon-mus... https://theconversation.com/tech-billionaire-elon-musks-social-media-posts-have-had-a-sudden-boost-since-july-new-research-reveals-242490 https://theconversation.com/tech-billionaire-elon-musks-soci...
gadders 2y ago
Yes, Zuckerberg admitted that this is what used to happen under Biden recently on a podcast,
XCabbage 2y ago
Huh? When has Facebook ever implemented political censorship on behalf of Trump? I am not aware of a single case of such a thing even being requested, let alone granted. The scandals about government-directed social media censorship were under Biden's admin, not under Trump's.
- chriswarbo 2y ago
  "Instagram hides search results for 'Democrats'" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g32yxpdz0o https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g32yxpdz0o > While users who type "#Democrat" or "#Democrats" see no results, the hashtag "Republican" returns 3.3 million posts on the social media platform. > By manually searching Instagram for "Democrats", rather than clicking on a hashtag, users are greeted by a screen reading "we've hidden these results". > "Results for the term you searched for may contain sensitive content," it says.
  - XCabbage 2y ago
    This is really obviously not intentional, let alone requested by the Trump admin.
    - sanderjd 2y ago
      Definitely curious to see how long it takes to get fixed, now that it has gotten media attention.
- mmooss 2y ago
  While I agree about Trump, Facebook has censored left-wing causes such as Palestinians. Zuckerberg's embrace of Trump, including possibly getting approval for Facebook's recent changes, raises many concerns.
briandear 2y ago
Free speech died when Covid came along.

nxm 2y ago

[flagged]

karaterobot 2y ago

The point is that the people he's trying to communicate with don't care about that. You don't need to argue about that here, it's not relevant.

sirsinsalot 2y ago

Dying? It isn't free speech if you can say what you like, but can only do it in a sound proofed room, alone.

scarface_74 2y ago
He’s talking about private groups. Regardless, no private platform is forced to provide you a voice. You can set up your own site and set up your own servers if need be. People have been getting their ideas out there before social media and even when the mainstream media wouldn’t cover them. That’s how the civil rights movement came to prominence.
- graemep 2y ago
  > Regardless, no private platform is forced to provide you a voice. That was a reasonable stance historically. Only the government had real power to control speech. Now a tiny number of platforms have a huge amount of power. They should have an obligation not to censor, because between them they can virtually block all practically available channels of communication.
  - scarface_74 2y ago
    Again, during the civil rights movement there was no social media and mainstream media. You use personal outreach and then you build up from there. There are church networks, civil groups, advocacy groups etc
    - graemep 2y ago
      > There are church networks, civil groups, advocacy groups etc Which are now largely dependent on social media and the like to reach people. Church's somewhat less so because they do have services that people physically go to. Most campaign and advocacy groups work online, and for some social media is their main focus. They have to go where people are.
      - scarface_74 2y ago
        Then that’s their problem. I doubt that there is any group that you can’t start locally and build up a following.
  - Hasu 2y ago
    > They should have an obligation not to censor, because between them they can virtually block all practically available channels of communication Absolute bullshit. It has never been easier in history to publish your own thoughts for the consumption of anyone who is interested in reading them. You can make your own website and put just about whatever you want on it. You can write and publish pamphlets or books with print on demand services. You can record audio or video with your phone and put it on your website or just send it directly to people. You can walk down to the town square and say pretty much whatever you want. You absolutely don't need to be on Facebook or Twitter or ANY social networks to exercise your free speech. None of these companies has power over any means of communication other than their own platforms. You don't have to use their platforms.
    - graemep 2y ago
      > You don't have to use their platforms. Yes, but you can reach far fewer people if you do not. This is well on the way to arguing that you are free to say what you want in a sealed room.
ADeerAppeared 2y ago
Much in the same way you are allowed to criticize Putin in Russia. So long as you do it in a sound proofed room.

javier123454321 2y ago

Are you talking about his role censoring for the current, or for the former admin? His flip flopping shows such a lack of character. However, being selectively outraged because this time he is doing it for someone you disagree with, which a lot of people are, reveals the real motives.

dingnuts 2y ago
ok so where do those who have been consistently mad at the people variously in power going back to 2016 or even 2008 go to complain? non-partisan free speech believers exist
- zer8k 2y ago
  People are gonna stay upset for quite a while. The billion dollar election manipulation campaign spanning Reddit/Tiktok/Youtube/Television was extremely effective. It convinced a very, very specific kind of person that the by-the-numbers worst candidate in modern history was going to win in an absolute landslide. It will be years before these people realize how much the media was controlled from 2020-2024 specifically in favor of one political party. For a lot of people this was the first time it was extremely obvious and going back to Bush and Obama social media and the internet in general weren't considered "serious" political campaign locations. I certainly dont remember either Bush's or Obama's election being so insanely partisan to the point of calling one party Nazis. Of course there was vitriol but it was so tame compared to today.
  - pbhjpbhj 2y ago
    >being so insanely partisan to the point of calling one party Nazis Do you mean the party who just used the inauguration to have a senior government member throw nazi salutes? The party whose presidents first actions included pardoning dozens of members of fascist groups? You can't really be choosing this moment to complain about calling these people nazis??
    - jazzyjackson 2y ago

nyokodo 2y ago

[flagged]

scarface_74 2y ago
Musk has been promoting his views and demoting post that he doesn’t agree with.
- myheartisinohio 2y ago
  meta =/= x
  - scarface_74 2y ago
    > The good news is that Facebook, X, and the Trump administration have publicly committed to, and signed executive orders to unravel that censorship complex.
- nyokodo 2y ago
  Well, Musk hypocrisy aside and assuming the scale of this intervention is the same on X as pre-acquisition and assuming it’s as egregious and petty as then, he won’t have the infrastructure to force his views across all social networks like the Biden administration did.
- rcstank 2y ago
  Do you have proof of this? My feed is catered to how I like it, including posts that disagree with him.
  - scarface_74 2y ago
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2024/01/09/elon-musk-silencing-his-critics-as-journalists-are-suspended-by-x/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2024/01/09/elon-mus... https://theconversation.com/tech-billionaire-elon-musks-social-media-posts-have-had-a-sudden-boost-since-july-new-research-reveals-242490 https://theconversation.com/tech-billionaire-elon-musks-soci...

gadders 2y ago

Yes, Zuckerberg admitted that this is what used to happen under Biden recently on a podcast,

XCabbage 2y ago

Huh? When has Facebook ever implemented political censorship on behalf of Trump? I am not aware of a single case of such a thing even being requested, let alone granted. The scandals about government-directed social media censorship were under Biden's admin, not under Trump's.

chriswarbo 2y ago
"Instagram hides search results for 'Democrats'" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g32yxpdz0o https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g32yxpdz0o > While users who type "#Democrat" or "#Democrats" see no results, the hashtag "Republican" returns 3.3 million posts on the social media platform. > By manually searching Instagram for "Democrats", rather than clicking on a hashtag, users are greeted by a screen reading "we've hidden these results". > "Results for the term you searched for may contain sensitive content," it says.
- XCabbage 2y ago
  This is really obviously not intentional, let alone requested by the Trump admin.
  - sanderjd 2y ago
    Definitely curious to see how long it takes to get fixed, now that it has gotten media attention.
mmooss 2y ago
While I agree about Trump, Facebook has censored left-wing causes such as Palestinians. Zuckerberg's embrace of Trump, including possibly getting approval for Facebook's recent changes, raises many concerns.

briandear 2y ago

Free speech died when Covid came along.