794

“Freedom of Speech, not Freedom of Reach - our enforcement philosophy which means, where appropriate, restricting the reach of Tweets that violate our policies by making the content less discoverable.”

Surprise! Our great 'X' CEO has brought back one more bad thing that we hated about twitter 1.0: Shadowbanning. And they’ve given it a new name: "Freedom of Speech, Not Reach".

Perhaps the new approach by X is an improvement? At least they would “politely” tell you when you’re being shadow banned.

I think freedom of speech implies that people have the autonomy to decide what they want to see, rather than being manipulated by algorithm codes. Now it feels like they’re saying, “you can still have your microphone... We're just gonna cut the power to it if you say something we don't like”.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] sugarfree@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Free speech has nothing to do with social media or governments. Freedom of speech is a universal, natural right that has been with our species since we gained the power of speech through evolution.

[-] ThunderingJerboa@kbin.social 17 points 1 year ago

yeah not sure about that. Most of human history would say freedom of speech (and most of the concept of natural rights) is a rather newish ideology. In the past, speaking negatively of higher powers (religious organizations, ruling class, etc) could lead to sanctions, imprisonment, or death and that is still very much the case in many countries to this day. We can argue _____ is a "natural right" till you have arthritis in your hand joints but you have to be blind to think governments have nothing to do with it and its enforcement. In a utopia, maybe it is granted naturally on birth but in reality it is a "right" that has to be "fought" for (legally or with arms). Like are you seriously arguing the people of North Kor... Sorry, I mean the Democratic People's Republic of Korea are born with this "natural right" of free speech but if they dare use it they and possibly their immediate family may be subject to torture, rape, reeducation camps, and/or work camps.

[-] Jat620DH27@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I would agree. As long as it doesn't violate the law, people should have the right to express their opinions freely. But nowadays it's getting pretty hard to do so.

[-] ThunderingJerboa@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

I mean it depends, what are you talking about? Yeah I can see the point of not arresting people for dropping the N word or something or maybe doing a Hitler salute but are you referring to people using their own freedom of speech to argue/debate one's own opinion? Maybe a companies right to associate with only those it choose to do so with (unless that discrimination is against those of protected classes). Like no company would probably want to be associated with a known verbal racist, it just hurts their possibility to get new clients or possibly sever current client relations. The reason why many companies go "woke" or stray to the left is because companies never want to have one of their advertisements right next to a Nazi/race supremacist rant, people will start associating the company with what their ad is paying for. Elon is learning in the most ass backwards way of why Twitter did X thing, in this case why twitter wasn't the "haven" of free speech is because advertisers don't want this and advertisers are the ones who pay a hefty chunk of the bills.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Universal? So I can go to all of your neighbors and tell them you're a pedophile and that's ok?

[-] sugarfree@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

That's a very strange takeaway from my comment.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

I'm not sure what else universal means other than 'applies in all circumstances.'

[-] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago

Well that’s just, like, your opinion, man.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Sounds like it doesn't matter what Twitter does then. Human history spans several thousand years, possibly ten thousand. If freedom of speech has been there throughout, then Twitter is completely inconsequential, considering free speech was doing fine literally thousands of years before it.

[-] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

You're generally right and I have nothing to take away from that. Right now I'm talking specifically about the "law" of free speech with regard to the US Constitution.

this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023
794 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

59138 readers
1899 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS