Is free speech suppressed on the internet's main public squares | |||
| Yes | 56 | 53.85% | |
| No | 44 | 42.31% | |
| Undecided | 4 | 3.85% | |
| Total: | 104 | ||
ironmanDX said:
|
First board member if Elon bothers with one.
Hmm, you didn't really seem to be a Peterson fan considering the length of mental gymnastics required in your posts, twisting the posts and asking a questions nothing to do with the post much like that reporter who interviewed him.
Strange. Reading those posts made me wonder if you where Cathy Newman who had decided to join vgchartz.
EnricoPallazzo said:
The question wasn't for me, but no I dont think he is confused, he know exactly what he is doing. He is not the typical billionaire and I wish more billionaires could be like him instead of Jeff Besos for example, or bankers (fuck bankers). He understands of course twitter is a private company, but he thinks (my opinion) that twitter reached a status where it is more than a company, it became de facto the public square for people public discourse. I would include other places alongside such as reddit and facebook, reddit is the worst. In being a "public square" it has the responsibility to allow free speech, to allow ideas to be discussed and let public decide which ones are good or not, and not a board of people deciding "this can be published, this cannot". As he have seen recently, a combined effort by just a few of those companies is enough to bury a story, a person, a subject to be discussed. But I think his strategy is not the best. I think the impact of him and a few other people by leaving twitter and opening an account in another lookalike company would have a much bigger impact in the discussion. Or open himself a new company, or buy a smaller one and throw money in it. |
If he took a non Twitter route, it would take a lot more time and wouldn't really solve the problem unless the new platform was far far better or offered something else extremely valuable that somehow couldn't easily be duplicated by Twitter. Odds are for quite some time, even if Twitter started to falter somewhat, they would remain the go to source for most media until they had no choice.
Now if he took over Twitter and made the changes he says he might, the media has little choice but to keep focusing on Twitter because those users really have no where else to go where things aren't far more open than on old Twitter. Might as well just stay put. Then it would be up to another existing platform to change course and take old Twitters place, or for a new Twitter to emerge. Which could happen, but again, would take time, and may also come under hostile money exchanges from more billionaires.
| ironmanDX said: Hmm, you didn't really seem to be a Peterson fan considering the length of mental gymnastics required in your posts, twisting the posts and asking a questions nothing to do with the post much like that reporter who interviewed him. |
Do you think Elon is strange?
Strange how "freedom of speech" suddenly depends on these new platforms. 20 years ago they didn't even exist, yet I don't remember people claiming we didn't have freedom of speech then.
Either way, I don't think these platforms (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube etc) should be allowed to exist, at least not in their current form. Things seemed to work better before they were allowed to drive public decay.
Is Elon Musk the solution? Very doubtful. He is not very specific on what he wants to do "better".
Free speech absolutist? Does that mean he will allow Islamic State and Russia to freely spread their propaganda on Twitter? I am sure that will be interesting...
Elon could add Netflix for a Dollar or so right now, down from nearly $700 to $200 stock price. I hope you didn't put your life savings into US media companies.
| Vinther1991 said: Strange how "freedom of speech" suddenly depends on these new platforms. 20 years ago they didn't even exist, yet I don't remember people claiming we didn't have freedom of speech then. |
Add on top of that there are people claiming “Twitter is the public square,” and often in the same paragraph “therefore one man should own it,” oblivious to the contradiction.
I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.
Lol at Twitter is public square. I mean seriously what the fuck. You Twitter heads need to grasp reality and realize your platform is shit and not everyone wants to deal with it. Hopefully it will turn in yahoo messenger chat channels and be overwhelmed by bots till it dies a slow painful death. Fuck twitter
Shadow1980 said:
There are multiple problems with that line of reasoning. First off, why should a discussion board or website lose their right to free association simply because they got popular enough? The state would be the only entity capable of enforcing that, and why should the state have that power? I totally get giving the state the power to prohibit businesses from pumping toxic waste in the ocean or engaging in wage theft, but telling a website that it can't kick someone off of their property for using racial slurs or spreading dangerous conspiracies is not something I think the state should be doing. While private property rights are not absolute, restrictions on their use should be narrowly-defined and have a very, very good reason for existing (e.g., preventing direct harm to others). Second, the law by necessity frequently deals in arbitrary limits, and using popularity to determine a line above which a website is stripped of their right free association would be one of those arbitrary things. How will popularity be measured? Total active users? Average daily post counts? Once we've determined what we'll be using as our criteria, what's the threshold? 100,000? A million? Ten million? Why that threshold and not some other threshold? What if it eventually gets lowered to "one" and therefore no website can have a code of conduct governing user behavior? Giving governments the power to limit freedom of association like how some are proposing opens up a huge can of worms and could potentially set a dangerous precedent. |
I think part of the problem in this discussion, as it is usual, is liberals not understanding what conservatives want, and conservatives not understanding what liberals want.
Agree 100% a solution based on a proper law will open a can of worms/pandora box and it is the worst solution ever.
I am pretty sure Musk and most of the people that would like to have free speech on twitter and reddit are not against having community rules. People dont want it to become 4chan (although I see some value in 4chan) where people call each other (insert here word that cannot be spoken today) or talk about murdering people to install a comunist state, rage ethnical cleansing to have a white state only, etc. And to have fairness of treatment and not double standards from "fact checkers" or closing of community/members matters.
Anyway, I dont think the government should jump in to regulate it, in general it only causes more trouble than solutions. The solution is much simpler than that, is people that do not agree with the platform to just stop using it and look for solutions elsewhere, is possible. If all famous people that complain about twitter (including Musk) closed their account and opened a new one in another platform it would bring millions of people to other places.
Of course.. if those other options are allowed to exist. Unfortunately, and this is a very direct criticism of the radical left actions, some try to shut down those options.
"You dont like it here, build your own platform"
"Hey this platform you created do not follow what I believe, shut it down"
"You did not shut it down? Lets presure government and banks to not allow it to exist, lets cut your financials ties so we strangle you financially"
To be honest I think this all sucks because it only creates more division and I would prefer everyone to be able to expose it's ideas everywhere with no fear of retaliation or cancelling. But a divided world is a reality and I think there is no coming back unfortunately.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
