I am shocked, shocked that Musk turned out to be a hypocrite on free speech. He's got plenty of company; Nat Hentoff's title "Free Speech For Me But Not For Thee" seems like the default position for most people. (FIRE seems to be the most prominent exception these days.) Then again, even Hentoff violated his proclaimed civil liberties absolutism when he opposed the not actually a mosque that wasn't actually at Ground Zero.
As the Twitter files show, the greatest threats to free speech (in the USA) don't come from government, They come from 'private parties' that censor any opinion they disagree with. The statement that "platforms should prioritize preventing imminent likely harm" allows for all sorts of mischief. Recently, Stanford University went after a student who was caught reading a book ('Mein Kampf'). What was the charge? PIH (Protected Identity Harm).
Of course, the old Twitter was all too willing to cooperate with some government officials to censor opinions they didn't like.
Twitter should follow the law, nothing more, nothing less. Child pornography is illegal. Twitter should enforce the law. Death threats are illegal. Once again, Twitter should enforce the law. Since 'harm' can be (and has been) used for any and all types of censorship, the standard should be 'legality', not 'harm'.
"New Twitter owner Elon Musk is rocking the worlds of both politics and the internet with the release of what he calls the “Twitter Files,” exposing the internal workings of how the social media platform decided what speech was acceptable — and just how acceptable — under prior management.
Releases to independent journalists Matt Taibbi (here and here), Bari Weiss (here and here), and Michael Shellenberger (here) exposed what many have long suspected: Twitter’s “trust and safety” team was far from an objective referee of the company’s stated rules. Instead, Twitter relied on politics, prejudice, and cronyism in how it would treat both fact and opinion, with the shadow of federal law enforcement looming nearby."
Social media is good but not optimal for democracy. Because social media enables for more people to communicate and express themselves, but private companies are still out for profit and not for better democracy. Also, to many people are expecting "that the government should do something" instead of co-creating decentralised social media and democratic communities for cooperation.
I am shocked, shocked that Musk turned out to be a hypocrite on free speech. He's got plenty of company; Nat Hentoff's title "Free Speech For Me But Not For Thee" seems like the default position for most people. (FIRE seems to be the most prominent exception these days.) Then again, even Hentoff violated his proclaimed civil liberties absolutism when he opposed the not actually a mosque that wasn't actually at Ground Zero.
As the Twitter files show, the greatest threats to free speech (in the USA) don't come from government, They come from 'private parties' that censor any opinion they disagree with. The statement that "platforms should prioritize preventing imminent likely harm" allows for all sorts of mischief. Recently, Stanford University went after a student who was caught reading a book ('Mein Kampf'). What was the charge? PIH (Protected Identity Harm).
Of course, the old Twitter was all too willing to cooperate with some government officials to censor opinions they didn't like.
Twitter should follow the law, nothing more, nothing less. Child pornography is illegal. Twitter should enforce the law. Death threats are illegal. Once again, Twitter should enforce the law. Since 'harm' can be (and has been) used for any and all types of censorship, the standard should be 'legality', not 'harm'.
The new Twitter is better than it was. The following are quotes from "The ‘Twitter Files’ have opened the company's censorship decisions to public scrutiny " (https://www.thefire.org/news/twitter-files-have-opened-companys-censorship-decisions-public-scrutiny).
"New Twitter owner Elon Musk is rocking the worlds of both politics and the internet with the release of what he calls the “Twitter Files,” exposing the internal workings of how the social media platform decided what speech was acceptable — and just how acceptable — under prior management.
Releases to independent journalists Matt Taibbi (here and here), Bari Weiss (here and here), and Michael Shellenberger (here) exposed what many have long suspected: Twitter’s “trust and safety” team was far from an objective referee of the company’s stated rules. Instead, Twitter relied on politics, prejudice, and cronyism in how it would treat both fact and opinion, with the shadow of federal law enforcement looming nearby."
Social media is good but not optimal for democracy. Because social media enables for more people to communicate and express themselves, but private companies are still out for profit and not for better democracy. Also, to many people are expecting "that the government should do something" instead of co-creating decentralised social media and democratic communities for cooperation.