Comment

Comment on Reddit says it is not covered by new Online Safety Code as it has moved its jurisdiction to the Netherlands

That I would actually very much agree with. As Elon himself said in the early days of the Twitter takeover, “free speech does not mean free reach”.

This is also why I think engagement algorithms are a cancer on our civilization. If it is in a platforms monetary interest to amplify the most vile anger inducing stuff, be that stuff that is actively bad like hate speech or simply divisive like a lot of political crap, that is bad for our society. It pushes us farther apart when we should be coming together to fix the problems that we can agree on.

source

Sort:hotnew top

GeneralInterest@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

As Elon himself said in the early days of the Twitter takeover, “free speech does not mean free reach”.

I understood that to mean “I want to claim I’m a ‘free speech absolutist’ while actually only promoting things I agree with”

source
- SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
  In concept I agree with him on that. I support your right to say awful shit, but I am not going to spread that message to others. Where Elon lost the plot was thinking of Twitter as a public square. It’s a nice thought, but it requires the whole platform to be 100% neutral and unbiased. So it’s all good to call Twitter the public square, but that’s a lot harder to take seriously when the guy in charge of policing the square is heavily biased.
  
  source
  - GeneralInterest@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
    
    it’s all good to call Twitter the public square, but that’s a lot harder to take seriously when the guy in charge of policing the square is heavily biased
    
    I agree. A public town square is good but like you say, it should be neutral, and Xitter is not that.
    
    On the censorship thing, maybe it is okay if an online messaging website bans certain content, like pro-suicide content, or pro-terrorism content, etc. You could call that censorship but you could also call it safety. I don’t think anybody really believes in 100% free speech anyway, because if a person shouts “FIRE!” in a crowded theatre, when there is actually no fire, and it causes a stampede which kills people, should we not punish their speech because they’re free to say it?
    
    Freedom of political speech is important, but maybe there should be some fundamental rules about certain types of speech.
    
    source
    SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
    
    On the censorship thing, maybe it is okay if an online messaging website bans certain content, like pro-suicide content, or pro-terrorism content, etc. You could call that censorship but you could also call it safety.
    
    I think that should go either way and I have no problem if a platform decides to ban that kind of stuff. I certainly have no desire to consume such material.
    
    I have a BIG problem when the government decides that platforms are required to ban things. Even if they’re things I don’t myself want to read.
    
    It’s a slippery slope.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments