4 ms·

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

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 20d 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 20d 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 20d ago
    Could you give your colloquial definition, because its clearly different than mine.
    - mitxela 19d ago
      Speech is more free when there are less barriers to receiving it.
  - zahlman 19d ago
    I have no idea what definition you're using, and I've commonly seen people who make your argument demonstrate all the same sorts of bias they allege Musk to have.
weberer 20d ago
"Freedom of speech" means you are allowed to express your opinion without fear of being censored or persecuted for it. It is not the same kind of "free" as in "no cost". Twitter is a paid service. To access Twitter, you have to pay for it. Either by purchasing a subscription or viewing ads. Think of it as having to buy a newspaper before being able to read it. That doesn't stop the paper's editors from being able to criticize the government.
- immibis2 20d ago
  Then they should be glad Nitter instances are offloading some of their traffic, right? Some requests are cache hits, so I handled that whole request myself and spared an Elon server from handling it.
- angoragoats 20d ago
  > "Freedom of speech" means you are allowed to express your opinion without fear of being censored or persecuted for it. This is one way to define it, yes, but Musk is a self-described “free speech absolutist” which I would argue means that he feels speech should be maximally free. > It is not the same kind of "free" as in "no cost". I have never meant it in that way, and I’m not sure why you thought I did. > To access Twitter, you have to pay for it. Either by purchasing a subscription or viewing ads. This is possibly pedantic but this statement as written is false. I can view single tweets just fine, and I don’t see ads. > Think of it as having to buy a newspaper before being able to read it. That doesn't stop the paper's editors from being able to criticize the government. That analogy doesn’t really work here, IMO. My only point is that it’s objectively true that speech behind a login wall is less free (as in freedom) than speech not behind a login wall, and so a (non-hypocritical) “free speech absolutist” should always prefer the latter.
  - 8note 19d ago
    is that how musk defines it? i get the sense he instead thinks of free speech maximalism as people need to hear him and completely censor alternatives
throwatdem12311 20d ago
Free Speech isn’t about who is listening, it’s about who is speaking. Just because you can’t hear it doesn’t necessarily mean the person did not speak freely.
- angoragoats 19d ago
  I am speaking about free speech (lowercase, in the colloquial sense), not Free Speech (the constitutional right). In the context of this type of free speech, if you have two identical posts, and one is behind a login wall and one isn’t, the one not behind the login wall is objectively more free.
  - throwatdem12311 19d ago
    > I am speaking about free speech (lowercase, in the colloquial sense), not Free Speech (the constitutional right). So am I. If a comedian is doing a bit at a bar and they charge a $5 cover to get in is that infringing on “free speech”. Of course not, that’s absurd. Why would be it any different online?
    - angoragoats 19d ago
      > if you have two identical posts, and one is behind a login wall and one isn’t, the one not behind the login wall is objectively more free. Do you disagree with this statement? If so, why?
      - alt227 19d ago
        To live in our 'free' western society you must register your birth and get a social security number. You also need to attend education. This is effectively 'registering' for access to 'society'. I dont see giving twitter an email address to view content on their platform as any different to this.
        angoragoats 19d ago

zahlman 20d 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 20d 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 20d ago
  Could you give your colloquial definition, because its clearly different than mine.
  - mitxela 19d ago
    Speech is more free when there are less barriers to receiving it.
- zahlman 19d ago
  I have no idea what definition you're using, and I've commonly seen people who make your argument demonstrate all the same sorts of bias they allege Musk to have.

weberer 20d ago

"Freedom of speech" means you are allowed to express your opinion without fear of being censored or persecuted for it. It is not the same kind of "free" as in "no cost". Twitter is a paid service. To access Twitter, you have to pay for it. Either by purchasing a subscription or viewing ads. Think of it as having to buy a newspaper before being able to read it. That doesn't stop the paper's editors from being able to criticize the government.

immibis2 20d ago
Then they should be glad Nitter instances are offloading some of their traffic, right? Some requests are cache hits, so I handled that whole request myself and spared an Elon server from handling it.
angoragoats 20d ago
> "Freedom of speech" means you are allowed to express your opinion without fear of being censored or persecuted for it. This is one way to define it, yes, but Musk is a self-described “free speech absolutist” which I would argue means that he feels speech should be maximally free. > It is not the same kind of "free" as in "no cost". I have never meant it in that way, and I’m not sure why you thought I did. > To access Twitter, you have to pay for it. Either by purchasing a subscription or viewing ads. This is possibly pedantic but this statement as written is false. I can view single tweets just fine, and I don’t see ads. > Think of it as having to buy a newspaper before being able to read it. That doesn't stop the paper's editors from being able to criticize the government. That analogy doesn’t really work here, IMO. My only point is that it’s objectively true that speech behind a login wall is less free (as in freedom) than speech not behind a login wall, and so a (non-hypocritical) “free speech absolutist” should always prefer the latter.
- 8note 19d ago
  is that how musk defines it? i get the sense he instead thinks of free speech maximalism as people need to hear him and completely censor alternatives

throwatdem12311 20d ago

Free Speech isn’t about who is listening, it’s about who is speaking. Just because you can’t hear it doesn’t necessarily mean the person did not speak freely.

angoragoats 19d ago
I am speaking about free speech (lowercase, in the colloquial sense), not Free Speech (the constitutional right). In the context of this type of free speech, if you have two identical posts, and one is behind a login wall and one isn’t, the one not behind the login wall is objectively more free.
- throwatdem12311 19d ago
  > I am speaking about free speech (lowercase, in the colloquial sense), not Free Speech (the constitutional right). So am I. If a comedian is doing a bit at a bar and they charge a $5 cover to get in is that infringing on “free speech”. Of course not, that’s absurd. Why would be it any different online?
  - angoragoats 19d ago
    > if you have two identical posts, and one is behind a login wall and one isn’t, the one not behind the login wall is objectively more free. Do you disagree with this statement? If so, why?
    - alt227 19d ago
      To live in our 'free' western society you must register your birth and get a social security number. You also need to attend education. This is effectively 'registering' for access to 'society'. I dont see giving twitter an email address to view content on their platform as any different to this.
      - angoragoats 19d ago