• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -2511 hours ago

    Freedom of speech is good. White supremacists or any other group ideological supporters will always find a way to communicate and share their message, regardless of the century, technology, or censorship. Frankly, doing this openly on X/Twitter versus some obscure unknown forum or encrypted platforn is a positive. Social media as a whole is susceptible to ideological campaigns from groups and other countries, not just X/Twitter.

    • @HootinNHollerin
      link
      66 hours ago

      Musk does not endorse free speech at all as he has shown

    • Bakkoda
      link
      fedilink
      English
      138 hours ago

      Tolerance of intolerance. Look where that got us.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      149 hours ago

      You are so fucking wrong. I have never understood this logic that because people are doing things out in the open that it’s a good thing. They are popularizing their ideas. More people are exposed to them when they’re out in the open. Had they been operating in some obscure forum, they would lack the advertising of their ideas to others.

      For what possible reason could this be “positive”? So that the rest of us are aware of their first amendment protected hateful ideas? What good does that do anyone? We just elected one of them to be president of the United States. Allowing hate speech to bloom out in the open tempers our reactions and slowly seeps into our minds as propaganda.

      Freedom of speech is, in the US, something that the US Constitution promises will not be restricted by Congress. It is not something any private company is required to protect. I would argue that private companies have a responsibility to its users to ban all hate speech and report substantiated threats to law enforcement.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -18 hours ago

        For example, from a US-based perspective, a “positive” is that law enforcement agencies and the thousands of social media monitoring tools they utilize look at Twitter and other big platforms. LEO agencies have had for years the channels to monitor posts and request instantaneously from those companies supplemental information on the user or post that is being investigated. LE will be out of luck if they were attempting to immediately investigate a user on an obscure white supremacist forum hosted in Russia. That website owner and its servers would not be in jurisdiction to respond to that request.

        Also, please see my other reply 1 minute before yours regarding private companies being able to ban, suprress, etc. I agree with you that private companies can run their own ship how they please, whether in the best interests of profit or ideology.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          77 hours ago

          I see you’ve chosen to ignore the point about the influence this has on hundreds of millions of people.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      1811 hours ago

      Twitter is not a free platform. It actively suppresses the voices of the left and protects the far right.

      I do sincerely support free speech. I think it looks a lot more like the Fediverse than Twitter.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        37 hours ago

        Additionally, fascists need these safe spaces to convince themselves that their opinions are the majority. They don’t feel emboldened to act otherwise.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        29 hours ago

        Sure, I don’t object to your statement of Twitter not being a free platform, and I did not claim it was. Conversely, other social media have been also known to suppress the right and protect the left. Social media can “lean” so to speak. They are provately operated companies after all. I value free speech nonetheless.