this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2023
1675 points (98.8% liked)

Technology

59298 readers
4665 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] GunnarRunnar@kbin.social 223 points 1 year ago (2 children)

No surprise there. Weren't they banning people for posting their Mastodon/Cohost accounts or something?

[–] IHeartBadCode@kbin.social 163 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yes. Twitter was at one point tagging links to Mastodon as "potentially harmful" and removing them.

But the one thing that's been shown consistent about Mr. Musk's ownership of Twitter is that it is consistently self-contradicting. So as Twitter positions itself as "free speech absolutist" one can rest assured that the reality will be "self-contradicting".

Let us not forget that time that Musk said that "Elon Jet Tracker" would not be banned WHILE it was indeed banned. Literally tweeting verifiably false information and then subsequently being called out on it, only for Musk to do the traditional "ignore and move on".

[–] fearout@kbin.social 28 points 1 year ago

Yeah, I think at this point it’s easier to compile a list containing categories of platforms/people/accounts they didn’t ban :)

Just thought it was kinda funny.

[–] Anomander@kbin.social 183 points 1 year ago (2 children)

And no one is surprised.

Elon made it clear shortly after taking over that "free speech" was speech he happened to agree with, and he had no intentions of ethical consistency on 'free speech' when it came to speech that was critical of him or his platform. Twitter already went nuclear on links to Mastadon and similar alternative platforms earlier this year while their dumpster fire was raging.

[–] TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world 82 points 1 year ago (16 children)

Fee speech, pay $8/mo to post hate speech at your leisure.

[–] Anomander@kbin.social 28 points 1 year ago

lmao that is such a good descriptor of what's going on there. Elon figured he could make money from racists wanting to be racist around normal people.

[–] pufferfischerpulver@feddit.de 14 points 1 year ago

Honestly seems like it could be the GOP's definition of free speech.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] bilb@lem.monster 31 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, I think what he said was that anything allowed by law would be permitted, whatever that means. But then when they started impeding links to mastodon he was like "we don't have to let you advertise our competition >>>:(." Elon/Twitter has gotten so tedious to hear about.

[–] Anomander@kbin.social 21 points 1 year ago

The thing there is that like ... it's not about consistency or values. The fact that he lied is meaningless to him, throwing it in his face is wasted effort. Communication is a tool to get what he wants, not a goal unto itself.

[–] MarioBarisa@lemmy.ml 93 points 1 year ago (9 children)

how is that free speech, twitter is blocking a competitor for obvious reasons

[–] Cyyy@lemmy.world 79 points 1 year ago (1 children)

same as reddit did with lemmy and kbin when they banned users and sub for mentioning it and giving migration howto's

[–] Syrc@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They did? Have a source? That seems like one more argument against the "Lemmy doesn't matter to Reddit" crowd.

[–] kep@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Syrc@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago

Man, and that's before the protests. For "spam" lmao, there's entire communities built on self-promotion, those are fine I guess?

[–] dangblingus@lemmy.world 47 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

[–] FightMilk@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago (15 children)

Anyone that cries "free speech" when government isn't involved at all is a dolt

[–] xavier666@lemm.ee 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Musk fans then: finally! We have absolute free speech

Musk fans now: it's a private company. He can do whatever he wants

[–] pazukaza@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Twitter's "free speech" rule after the musk takeover was utter hypocrisy and pure bullshit. It was never about "free speech" or, in his own words, "free speech absolutism". The latter would mean "zero moderation platform". Wouldn't take long for it to be nothing but bot posts of scams, hateful shit, pedophilia and snuff. Nobody in their right mind would favor zero moderation. Even fucking chans (4chan, 8chan) have moderation, not even they want to be swamped with even worse shit than they produce.

In short, musk uses "free speech" as a dog whistle and smoke screen.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Epicurus0319@lemmy.world 36 points 1 year ago

Musk was only appealing to right wing idiots who think “freedom from social consequences” is a human right and co-opt “free speech”, making it a meaningless term

[–] zeppo@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It’s some form of sarcasm

[–] Morphit@feddit.uk 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They didn't put a /s at the end, so that can't be it.

load more comments (1 replies)

You can tell Lemmy's getting bigger when the gullible people start showing up.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 31 points 1 year ago

Musk purported to be a free speech absolutist when he bought Twitter. He said only illegal content should be suppressed. Obviously, he's a liar. He banned tons of Leftist accounts shortly after he took over.

[–] 17000HerbsAndSpices@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago (19 children)

Logic doesn't matter. Literally do anything at all and say "it's because free speech" or "it's to stop cancel culture" and the fan boys will cheer it.

load more comments (19 replies)
[–] minnow@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

"Free speech absolutism (but not if you link to my competitor)" isn't free speech absolutism. It's just another hypocrisy to throw on the pile.

[–] Grant_M@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago

Free speech Moscow style by Eloon Muskovite

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] IHeartBadCode@kbin.social 84 points 1 year ago

Ah yes. The exact kind of action I would expect from someone who has measured responses like "Zuck is a cuck".

Use a platform ran by a five year-old, expect five year-old behavior.

[–] DarkGamer@kbin.social 62 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

Although it won't absolve one of crimes, affluenza seems to be a real thing. The social isolation and deference that money brings seems to have a host of well-documented psychological issues that accompany it. Musk, like Trump, seems to believe that he can do whatever he wants without meaningful consequences, because he exists in a bubble of sycophants and wealth, where rules for the plebs do not apply. Normal people can't burn this much good will and go on with their lives unhindered. Normal people would be permanently financially ruined if they lost that much doing stupid and illegal business moves.

[–] Neato@kbin.social 37 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Geez that's rough and must really suck. We should help all of those rich people get over their lack of personal connections. By taxing most of their money away.

[–] DarkGamer@kbin.social 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Geez that's rough and must really suck. We should help all of those rich people get over their lack of personal connections. By taxing most of their money away.

This could be done in a generation if we made sensible inheritance laws, a wealth tax, or did away with capital gains and implemented an income tax with the highest bracket >90% like the US did in the 1940s-1960s instead, (provided this is done without loopholes.) There's huge benefits to living in a country with more economic equality in terms of crime, political engagement, home ownership, economic competition, social mobility, terrorism, poverty reduction, mental health, etc., It's harder to exploit people when they have resources.

[–] fearout@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago

made sensible inheritance laws, a wealth tax, did away with capital gains, ...done without loopholes

So it's not going to happen, got it.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] hiyaaaaa23@kbin.social 21 points 1 year ago

Is anyone surprised?

[–] skellener@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

Of course. That’s who they are. Why would anyone continue to use either of those?

load more comments
view more: next ›