6 ms·

What does proxying someone else's content have to do with free speech?

Forgeties79 19d ago
You have to admit, the “free speech” shield-wielding megalomaniac working so hard to keep people from freely accessing info isn’t exactly great optics.
- freedomben 19d ago
  I'm very much on the side of xcancel and nitter on this one, but I do think it's fair to point out that Twitter is free of monetary charge. It's not free in the sense that you do have to provide some personal information and data to them in exchange for that free account, but it isn't a huge roadblock for most people, however annoying it may be. Now that said, I sure hope Elon will pivot this and make these services unnecessary. I'm not holding my breath though.
  - angoragoats 19d ago
    The phrase "free speech" does not typically mean "free as in beer," rather it means "free as in freedom," so in this case you're conflating the two meanings of "free" in English. The fact that Twitter is login-gated makes it objectively less free as in freedom.
    - freedomben 19d ago
      Indeed, fair point. I've conflated those in my comment above!
    - alt227 18d ago
      Generally we in the western world consider ourselves 'free' citizens. Yet to live this life you need to register your birth, get a social security number, and enroll in education etc. I dont see signing up to twitter any differently to this. You register with an email address and you are granted access. Similarly to registering a birth and being granted access to 'society'.
  - Operyl 19d ago
    The biggest frustration for a lot of people is that their municipalities use Twitter almost exclusively to communicate with their constituents, it _sucks_. I've pleaded and begged my city and county to have some other form of communication, in addition to Twitter/X, to mass distribute information.
    - Forgeties79 19d ago
      Many municipalities have text message alerts these days. I doubt it’s 100% coverage but I bet most of us can live with that or currently do.
      - Operyl 18d ago
        My municipality does! Guess what they still don't really use... most of it still ends up on X exclusively.
    - mitxela 18d ago
      Be the change to want to see. Mirror their tweets on cityname.com
  - bakies 19d ago
    right, it's not free, like you said
  - InsideOutSanta 19d ago
    Elon Musk, gratis speech absolutist.
- immibis2 19d ago
  Optics and logic are two different things. The optics seem to be working out well for him, for some reason.
  - Forgeties79 19d ago
    Sure but my point is the Twitter experience is trash and not required like, say, paying an evil ISP or interacting with Google (for 99.9% of people abandoning and fully dodging Google is incredibly difficult). It’s working out for him because people won’t leave (even though engagement and user numbers are still below pre-acquisition numbers). It only has value because of his acquiring it with his other company. Prior its value was tanked. It’s a crap site that isn’t profitable and serves as a mouthpiece for his politics and whims. You can all walk away. You don’t need it.
    - immibis2 18d ago
      You don't need an ISP or Google either. It's incredibly difficult for some people to leave either, but it's also incredibly difficult for some people to leave Twitter.
      - deleted 18d ago
        [deleted]
    - alt227 18d ago
      > You can all walk away. You don’t need it. Except some people still want it, thats the uncomfortable truth that lots of people cant accept. I see lots of comments giving different reasons people think that other people cant leave twitter, but at the end of the day millions of people still like and use it all the time. Thats why its still there.
angoragoats 19d ago
Twitter is heavily login-gated, to the point that I can't see Twitter threads at all unless I have an account. I do not wish to make an account. Services like Nitter/XCancel allow me to read those threads, making that speech more free.
- throwatdem12311 19d ago
  That’s not what free speech is.
  - angoragoats 19d ago
    Yes, it is. It seems self-evident to me that the speech on Twitter is more free when it isn't behind a login wall. How could it not be? If you'd like to provide an actual counter-argument, I'd be happy to consider it.
    - zahlman 19d ago
      > Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. Nobody is being censored by the inability of a third party to act as a parallel distribution channel. Nor does freedom of speech have anything to do with entitlement to an audience. No website infringes upon freedom of speech by having a paywall on UGC, as neither the contributors nor readers are worse off than if the site didn't exist.
      - p-o 19d ago
        Nobody is arguing about the legal boundary of Freedom of speech, you're the only one making this argument. We're talking about the quolloquial "free speech", here.
        weberer 19d ago
        Could you give your colloquial definition, because its clearly different than mine.
HumblyTossed 19d ago
[flagged]
- angoragoats 19d ago
  I would argue that when he is talking about "free speech" he is always referring to the more general, non-US-Constitutional meaning of the phrase; i.e. the freedom to say what you want without being censored. So when a discussion about free speech on Twitter comes up, I assume that's the kind of free speech we're discussing. To bring in the the more narrow, first amendment meaning of the term is just a distraction or diversion.
  - applfanboysbgon 19d ago
    You are the only one who brought up that distraction from the fact that he routinely violates the first definition you mentioned.
    - angoragoats 19d ago
      I assumed the parent post was referring to the Constitutional meaning when they said "Yes, we all know what 'free speech' really means and it has nothing to do with X," but if I misunderstood then I apologize!
zahlman 19d ago
Can someone please explain to me any actual guidelines-based reason for the parent comment to have been flagged and killed (I vouched for it)?
- immibis2 19d ago
  The reason is likely not guidelines-based.
- hitekker 18d ago
  Many feel X, or gating access to X, is fundamentally unjust, superseding the guidelines. Feeling injustice converts the loss into a claim: "I didn't just lose free access, we're owed free access." The GP questioned whether the inconvenience is an injustice. The flags came because that question threatened the claim. Free speech talk decorates a claim that, imo, doesn't really have much purchase.

You have to admit, the “free speech” shield-wielding megalomaniac working so hard to keep people from freely accessing info isn’t exactly great optics.

freedomben 19d ago
I'm very much on the side of xcancel and nitter on this one, but I do think it's fair to point out that Twitter is free of monetary charge. It's not free in the sense that you do have to provide some personal information and data to them in exchange for that free account, but it isn't a huge roadblock for most people, however annoying it may be. Now that said, I sure hope Elon will pivot this and make these services unnecessary. I'm not holding my breath though.
- angoragoats 19d ago
  The phrase "free speech" does not typically mean "free as in beer," rather it means "free as in freedom," so in this case you're conflating the two meanings of "free" in English. The fact that Twitter is login-gated makes it objectively less free as in freedom.
  - freedomben 19d ago
    Indeed, fair point. I've conflated those in my comment above!
  - alt227 18d ago
    Generally we in the western world consider ourselves 'free' citizens. Yet to live this life you need to register your birth, get a social security number, and enroll in education etc. I dont see signing up to twitter any differently to this. You register with an email address and you are granted access. Similarly to registering a birth and being granted access to 'society'.
- Operyl 19d ago
  The biggest frustration for a lot of people is that their municipalities use Twitter almost exclusively to communicate with their constituents, it _sucks_. I've pleaded and begged my city and county to have some other form of communication, in addition to Twitter/X, to mass distribute information.
  - Forgeties79 19d ago
    Many municipalities have text message alerts these days. I doubt it’s 100% coverage but I bet most of us can live with that or currently do.
    - Operyl 18d ago
      My municipality does! Guess what they still don't really use... most of it still ends up on X exclusively.
  - mitxela 18d ago
    Be the change to want to see. Mirror their tweets on cityname.com
- bakies 19d ago
  right, it's not free, like you said
- InsideOutSanta 19d ago
  Elon Musk, gratis speech absolutist.
immibis2 19d ago
Optics and logic are two different things. The optics seem to be working out well for him, for some reason.
- Forgeties79 19d ago
  Sure but my point is the Twitter experience is trash and not required like, say, paying an evil ISP or interacting with Google (for 99.9% of people abandoning and fully dodging Google is incredibly difficult). It’s working out for him because people won’t leave (even though engagement and user numbers are still below pre-acquisition numbers). It only has value because of his acquiring it with his other company. Prior its value was tanked. It’s a crap site that isn’t profitable and serves as a mouthpiece for his politics and whims. You can all walk away. You don’t need it.
  - immibis2 18d ago
    You don't need an ISP or Google either. It's incredibly difficult for some people to leave either, but it's also incredibly difficult for some people to leave Twitter.
    - deleted 18d ago
      [deleted]
  - alt227 18d ago
    > You can all walk away. You don’t need it. Except some people still want it, thats the uncomfortable truth that lots of people cant accept. I see lots of comments giving different reasons people think that other people cant leave twitter, but at the end of the day millions of people still like and use it all the time. Thats why its still there.

angoragoats 19d ago

Twitter is heavily login-gated, to the point that I can't see Twitter threads at all unless I have an account. I do not wish to make an account. Services like Nitter/XCancel allow me to read those threads, making that speech more free.

throwatdem12311 19d ago
That’s not what free speech is.
- angoragoats 19d ago
  Yes, it is. It seems self-evident to me that the speech on Twitter is more free when it isn't behind a login wall. How could it not be? If you'd like to provide an actual counter-argument, I'd be happy to consider it.
  - zahlman 19d ago
    > Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. Nobody is being censored by the inability of a third party to act as a parallel distribution channel. Nor does freedom of speech have anything to do with entitlement to an audience. No website infringes upon freedom of speech by having a paywall on UGC, as neither the contributors nor readers are worse off than if the site didn't exist.
    - p-o 19d ago
      Nobody is arguing about the legal boundary of Freedom of speech, you're the only one making this argument. We're talking about the quolloquial "free speech", here.
      - weberer 19d ago
        Could you give your colloquial definition, because its clearly different than mine.

HumblyTossed 19d ago

[flagged]

angoragoats 19d ago
I would argue that when he is talking about "free speech" he is always referring to the more general, non-US-Constitutional meaning of the phrase; i.e. the freedom to say what you want without being censored. So when a discussion about free speech on Twitter comes up, I assume that's the kind of free speech we're discussing. To bring in the the more narrow, first amendment meaning of the term is just a distraction or diversion.
- applfanboysbgon 19d ago
  You are the only one who brought up that distraction from the fact that he routinely violates the first definition you mentioned.
  - angoragoats 19d ago
    I assumed the parent post was referring to the Constitutional meaning when they said "Yes, we all know what 'free speech' really means and it has nothing to do with X," but if I misunderstood then I apologize!

zahlman 19d ago

Can someone please explain to me any actual guidelines-based reason for the parent comment to have been flagged and killed (I vouched for it)?

immibis2 19d ago
The reason is likely not guidelines-based.
hitekker 18d ago
Many feel X, or gating access to X, is fundamentally unjust, superseding the guidelines. Feeling injustice converts the loss into a claim: "I didn't just lose free access, we're owed free access." The GP questioned whether the inconvenience is an injustice. The flags came because that question threatened the claim. Free speech talk decorates a claim that, imo, doesn't really have much purchase.