A search for Threads content on Twitter currently brings up zero results, despite plenty of links to Meta’s microblogging rival being posted on the platform.
A search for Threads content on Twitter currently brings up zero results, despite plenty of links to Meta’s microblogging rival being posted on the platform.
Because anyone who cries “freeze peach!” at any provocation are really just people that want to say hateful shit without repercussions. Generally, those same people are the ones to shut other people down from expressing their own freedom of speech.
Anyone that cries “free speech” when government isn’t involved at all is a dolt
Musk fans then: finally! We have absolute free speech
Musk fans now: it’s a private company. He can do whatever he wants
Isn’t Twitter’s free speech kinda the same as Fediverse or Reddit’s free speech? Pretty sure if someone says something homophobic or transphobic in here, they’ll get kicked out (which, for me, is good. Keep reading). It’s free speech for the people that align with the admin ideals. I see nothing wrong with it besides the echo chamber effect, but at least people can create spaces where they feel safe.
Someone could argue “but Lemmy also has right wing instances”. Then just imagine Twitter is a right wing instance of Mastodon that has been defederated. And that’s what the free market is about. The free market is a fediverse and a company is an instance, you can create an instance and put whatever rules you want in it. It’s up to everyone else if they want to use it or federate with it. Twitter just “defederated” Threads. How is that different from a Lemmy instance defederating other instances?
Is it against free speech when Lemmy admins kick right-wing people or defederated right-wing instances? I think it is against free speech, but I don’t think everyone needs to allow free speech in their home. Go ahead and kick out the people you consider offensive. I believe Lemmy and private companies should have the right to do this.
I do agree, it’s his company. He can create his own rules. I don’t agree with his rules, so I don’t use the service.
If they think there are legal requirements then yes they are. But wanting platforms to be more open in general is not necessarily a doltish thing. Yes twitter has the legal right to ban anyone they want, but that doesn’t mean that’s a good thing or we shouldn’t seek out platforms that aren’t so arbitrarily censorious.
When people cry free speech they are invoking the US constitution. They fail to recognize it only pertains to the government.
You cannot claim this on behalf of other people. I myself sometimes refer to lax moderation rules as “free speech focused” moderation. It has nothing to do with the government.
That isn’t to say that some, or even many, people don’t use the phrase assuming that it is their constitutionally protected right to spread vitriol on the internet. But to imply that this is the only common meaning is disingenuous.
Free speech is the freedom to speak about the government. That’s all it is. That’s it. If a company practices free speech all they’re doing is exercising thier freedom to criticize the government. Same with an individual.
There is no other form of free speech. It exists solely to counter the government.
You don’t police the English language. I don’t know what else to tell you.
One phrase can refer to multiple things; “free speech” often refers to the ability to say whatever you like* without repurcussions from an authoritative figure, be that the government, Elon Musk’s cronies, or Lemmy moderators. Obviously it is not a constitutionally protected right in the latter contexts, but then again the phrase wasn’t “right to free speech.”
Ok dude sure thing.
Excuse me, I have swim my car to work.
are you saying that free speech as a concept was invented by the US Government? and that the right to free speech can only be enforced by it?
free speech can mean, and has meant, many things to many different people. the concept has been around for over 1000 years. there’s plenty more to say about “free speech” than just the rights specifically provided to american citizens.
Freedom of speech is an ideal before it is a law. Even if we lived in a utopian classless society without a government we could still have the concept that everyone deserves the right to say what they wish.
If it can exist without the government then logically it cannot strictly refer to the government.
Freedom of speech from what?
From your peers. For example if I say I am an atheist in a group of religious people and they kill me because of it - I don’t have freedom of speech.
That’s not what freedom of speech is.
You obviously have no desire to learn anything so I’ll just say have a good day. Enjoy.
Go to Google and search “define freedom of speech”
It doesn’t say government anywhere there. I think I know where you are coming from - lots of people complain about private businesses or organizations not honoring freedom of speech and they may not be aware that legally only the government gives you the right to speech.
Ie a business can tell you to leave if you say something offensive or a university doesn’t have to accept a fascist lecturer.
I think you learned something about that and want to tell everyone but don’t worry - everyone knows. I’d imagine most people here are college educated.
Freedom of speech is an ideal borne out of the enlightenment. Just like the pursuit of happiness or liberty. These ideas are not inextricably tied to governments.
For example a slave owner giving their slave freedom. Nothing to do with government but it is an expansion of liberty. Of course modern liberal governments also guarantee liberty but it didn’t originate the idea nor has exclusive use of the concept.
It’s a general, abstract thing.
Also you’re right, I have no desire at all to learn from you because I have determined you’re out of your element. Really this message is for other people reading
Or they are neolibs who are seemingly incapable of thinking critically about anything
I’m a simple man, I see anyone use the word “neolib”, I downvote