Good stuff.

Due to the above, I am adamantly against "free speech" in the context of algorithm-driven social media, and I wish that people complaining about being censored on social media would stop using the term, because they're (knowingly or not) conflating two very different ideas.

In the USSR, you could say what you wanted inside your own home, to your own family, but were you to speak it where others could hear it, or publish it so others could read and share it...

So, no, you are wrong: the ideas are not different at all, and if you are against one, you are against the other. You judge yourself to be worthy of deciding what others are allowed to hear. Would you allow me to judge what you are allowed to hear? If you would, I would feed you a steady diet of history and philosophy until you discarded such ideas, ideas which enabled much oppression and suffering in the 20th century.

I’m specifically against the amplification of radical content through profit-driven social media algorithms, which has no analogue in the 20th century or indeed any other time in human history. There is no historical or philosophical context that I’m aware of that you could share with me that would be equivalent.

This is what I mean by “free reach” — radical content keeps eyeballs on apps/websites, so it gets amplified so that shareholders can make more money via advertisements. The algorithms that do this need to be banned and/or heavily regulated, and until they are I am in favor of banning/silencing entities who use those algorithms to their advantage to spread dangerous content.

Any of the above-mentioned entities is free to post whatever content they want on their own sites, blogs, or social media that isn’t profit/algorithm-driven. Therefore, no “free speech” (ugh, again, I hate that term in this context) rights are lost, nor is anyone being deprived of the right to hear something.

It isn’t that they don’t understand how disinformation and propaganda is powerful and problematic. It is that they actively want to push said propaganda and it is difficult to do so when you have pesky things like technology that can automatically fact check you.

My hope is that eventually the people will develop habits such as distrusting any information without a clear chain of custody.

It doesn't, millions of people see it before community notes show up. Musk is sharing fake news himself[1]. This is dangerous, this impacts people emotions and their actions.

1. https://www.politico.eu/article/elon-musk-share-fake-news-uk...

It’s 2024 and we’re all quite “online” people who are aware how Elon is operating Twitter. Let’s not feign ignorance here.

In other news, I'd be more than happy to never have another discussion with you.

I hope your weekend treats you better than you deserve.

I don't have inside info on how they tackle these issues, but I imagine it's an especially tricky problem when a word isn't hateful when used by a minority group, so they probably can't ban all uses of a word, otherwise you'd risk silencing a whole group of people that are "allowed" to say the word.

Anyway, in the US "free speech" is primarily important to us in reference to being allowed to criticize the US government and it's officials.

I’m going to choose to assume you’re just a bit sheltered and leave this comment thread, since you’ve already stated you’d rather not discuss anything with me

If you extend any charity to him, you are being conned. He's not on your side.

Don't both words get equally restricted views?

Is Musk such a proponent? His professed absolutist views have been shown to be a lie and farce many times over

What on earth... "Cisgender" is as much of a slur as "cislunar" or "cisalpine". And who are "its opponents"? The opponents of being cisgender? Are you trying to suggest that trans people are against the existence of cis people? Have you considered spending less time on Twitter?

No, it's not used only in negative contexts.

I don't support the artificial broadcast/amplification of content that is hateful, bigoted, misinformation, etc to thousands or millions of people that otherwise wouldn't see it, were it not for an algorithm that picks it up due to it generating more eyeballs to sell advertisements to.

If we, as a society, can manage to muster the courage to regulate social media algorithms, then we can start talking broadly about free speech rights. Until then, people who want to post vile garbage should be banned permanently and forever from participating in social media sites that use unregulated and opaque algorithms. They are, of course, still free to post whatever they want on their own sites, blogs, or on social media that doesn't make use of opaque algorithms (e.g. some Fediverse sites).

Hate speech is a slippery slope that I'm not knowledgeable enough in to speak to more in depth.

Also, once again, even if you’re banned from saying something on social media, no free speech rights (in any sense of the term) are lost. You are free to say it elsewhere via a mechanism that does not give you automatic free reach.

> Brazil’s Supreme Court has drastically expanded its power to counter the antidemocratic stances of Mr. Bolsonaro and his supporters.

https://archive.is/plQFT

Being allowed to criticize our government (and any government) is precisely the "free speech" Americans hold dear. Brazil doesn't seem to find that to be of value, hence the comment I made in response to someone saying X should comply with the government of Brazil: "I'm guessing you're not a huge proponent of free speech".

Regardless, I don’t believe the removal of content from one washed-up spammy social media site constitutes an infringement of free speech, in any sense of the term.

The commenter I originally replied to was suggesting that the Brazilian government's self appointed power to silence it's oppressors is acceptable.

The context of the original article is that X is leaving Brazil because the people there that work for X are at risk of being arrested and jailed for what people are saying about the Brazilian government and officials.

If you stand up for a government that silences it's opposition I'm going to believe you don't support even the most basic core tenets of free speech (as set forth in the first amendment of the US Constitution).

Edited to add: For the record, I support Twitter’s move to leave Brazil. Also, you’re welcome to believe whatever incorrect things you want about me.

I didn't reply to this:

> I don’t believe the removal of content from one washed-up spammy social media site constitutes an infringement of free speech, in any sense of the term.

because you're making a generalization on the broader topic. But in this case the government of Brazil believes that what is said on a washed up spammy social media site is problematic to the continuation of their power, and it's willing to jail those who not only say these things, but also those who allow it to be said.

I think it seems like the government here disagrees with you. Do you not agree, or am I still missing your point?

EDIT: Yes, I saw your misuse of /sarcasm, which only reinforced your disdain for TikTok, China, Kamala Harris and free speech.