Of course, only one tribe had any say in the expanding definition of 'bots, hate speech, and disinformation'

Hate remained perfectly acceptable, perhaps outright encouraged, for certain groups of targets. Disinformation was perfectly fine if it was propaganda/spin for the correct tribe.

Do you have any examples of left-wing disinfo that Twitter let spread previously?

It's crazy that even on HN, saying what was, is seen as an attack on the other side.

If this black/white lens continues to drive the discussion, the most neutral person will be seen as the enemy by both sides.

Sorry for the DV's

I don't understand how your comment is relevant. It feels like word salad and does not appear to logically follow the PC. What is "truth to power"? Did those ex-intelligence officers survive the Musk purge? How does this all relate to the events of today?

The USAID revelation revealed how they were funded. Along with thousands of other news organizations domestically and globally.

You're still not making sense. Who is "they" here, USAID? What does your second sentence even mean? How "news organizations [are funded]"? I'm seriously unclear what you are trying to say.

USAID had thousands of premium subscriptions to newspapers and magazines. One such was for 8000 monthly subscriptions. I don't remember the publication with 8000 but the NYT also got money from USAID.

Not sure if that's what we're talking about here. For the record I am against that practice.

I would argue it appeared after the Twitter purchase. Originally Twitter had been dying through excessive bans, now you can find major political influencers on both sides of the spectrum

The biggest problem with the term "Free Speech" is that almost everyone makes exceptions for things that they believe should be restricted/censored.

Therefore the only standard should be the legality of that speech in a particular country. In the US those things you put as exemptions are permitted. So pre-musk Twitter wasn't about free-speech as those exemptions are restrictions on speech that are greater than US law restricts (which isn't much tbh).

Generally you have a trade off on any of these platforms between what you can say without breaking terms of service and the popularity of that platform. Generally less popular platforms are less restrictive.

If you don't want your speech restricted, you should probably just go back to hosting your blog and using a mailing list.

> about free speech, except it was trying to fight bots, hate speech

> about free speech

> fight hate speech

Do you realize how absurd you sound?