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

• SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ 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 ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ 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 ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ 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

      • GeneralInterest@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Maybe. I think it might be okay if the government bans those things though, because people would still have political freedom to voice whatever political view they like, as long as they’re not promoting violence or harm to particular people in pursuit of political aims.

        Perhaps it’s not easy to decide where the line of legality should go though, which is why this topic is controversial.

        source

        • -> View More Comments