- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
“Elon Musk’s had more positions on free speech than the Kama Sutra," says lawmaker.
You must log in or # to comment.
“say the line Sartre”
Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.He should know, as the purveyor of wankpanzers and all.
I think that trying to stop disinformation is such a slippery slope. You don’t need to agree with what someone says.
It’d be one thing if X didn’t actively promote disinformation but they are doing that. They’re picking what and who to promote via their algorithm.
If they had a hands-off approach to free speech (like any given Mastodon instance) I’d agree with you. Since that’s not the case I can’t see how it’s a, “slippery slope”. They’re actively promoting disinformation in order to push a political agenda that actively hurts the Australian people.
It’s basic liability, not really related to freedom of speech. You can say whatever you want but there can also be legal consequences for what you say. It’s always been like that. Even in the US.
It’d be one thing if X didn’t actively promote disinformation but they are doing that. They’re picking what and who to promote via their algorithm.
That’s the argument being revisited in US courts right now. If you choose to promote something, you are doing the editorializing and shouldn’t be protected under Section 230. And with how much a certain party hates the whole section, it’s likely to get struck or limited if it ever reaches the Supreme Court. That irony would be lovely.
If they had a hands-off approach to free speech (like any given Mastodon instance) I’d agree with you.
Just to be clear, Mastodon doesn’t have “hands-off approach to free speech”. Each instance has clear rules around what they allow and don’t allow. Just the federated nature of it prevents censorship, so all opinions can be heard.
The content on there platform is totally up to there discretion. At the end of the day users and advertisers will decide if they want to stay or leave. (Many have left)
Open discourse that allows all perspectives is stiffled in forums where the admin promotes and favors one viewpoint. Users are left in an echo chamber with little fresh information or viewpoints. I do agree that in an open discussion, dissenting viewpoints should always be allowed. Deleting posts you don’t agree with is not right
You can delete all the posts you want. Telling people they can’t is a recipe for disaster. People can always move to something else
Whether you agree or not does not change whether it’s misinformation. I’m old enough to remember when, “Conservative speech” didn’t mean lies, misinformation, racism and hate speech, and anti-American Russian propaganda.
