1682
Twitter seems to ban all Threads links to reaffirm its position as a “free speech absolutist” platform (www.theverge.com)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
142 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 62 points 3 years ago (19 children)

People are free to either agree with the CEO view or to not use the platform. Sad but true. At least it reminds us all that it is a private for-profit company and always has been. No matter whether the "value" of it was mostly provided by user-created contents.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
    •
  • [–] 41 points 3 years ago

    It's kind of a good example as to why the "benevolent dictator" idea is fundamentally flawed—you don't really get two benevolent dictators in succession unless you're incredibly lucky, and doesn't matter how lucky you are, you're not getting three in a row

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 3 years ago (6 children)

    But, I really hope this twist of fate of how he accidentally bought Twitter in the first place helps people learn the lesson about all that "free speech" they were whining about. Your speech is not free when it is moderated by a corporation. Yes, the constitution allows you to say what's on your mind, but it does not tell media corporations that they must allow you to say whatever is on your mind. If the uneducated people haven't caught on yet, they shall never catch on, which really might mean stupid is just stupid, no matter how much education you throw at it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 3 years ago

    It's not even that, free speech is about the government, not private entities, it's about not being arrested for what you say, it has nothing to do with what private companies do on their platforms, they're free to do what they want and they're not limiting any free speech by doing so because they're not the government.

    It's baffling how many people still don't understand that and go on crying about free speech related to private entities.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago* (4 children)

    the constitution allows you

    I thought the point of the constitution was that it confirms existing rights, not allows or forbids something. While the usual laws do allow or forbid.

    Free speech in the web was really funny in the 00s, when moderators could partake in long discussions about it, and then just ban somebody for looking at them wrong (figuratively).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [+] 1 point 3 years ago (3 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    I'm glad you do, it's just that many people don't get this very important difference. If this wasn't important for your message, then fine.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -22 points 3 years ago (9 children)

    He's done everyone a few favors. He showed us that the government sticks it's fingers into social media in ways that are illegal, and he also showed us that corpos aren't a good alternative because they'll stick their fingers into social media in ways that are legal.

    Decentralization and self-hosting is ultimately the only protection against forces that want to force us to see what they want us to see and nothing else.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 41 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    He showed us that the government sticks it's fingers into social media in ways that are illegal

    That's what a few right wing media repeatedly claim but I haven't seen anyone actually providing any proof. Or do you mean the recent crazy judge decision?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -9 points 3 years ago

    The fact that there's censorship is self-evident. It's highly documented that in the past 3 years social media companies have cracked down on specific political speech. They banned a sitting president, and are continuing to ban speech from political candidates from both US political parties.

    So was this caused by the government? Well, we do know that there's the twitter files, but maybe you go "hey, he's a far right electric car guy, don't believe him" -- I know what happened to me.

    I donated to a protest I agreed in. The company returned my money.

    Hey, ok. Maybe it was just that this specific company didn't agree with the protest. The protest moved to another company that agreed with the protest. The money was prevented from reaching the cause by the government.

    People started looking at new ways to help, and the government threatened to sieze our bank accounts.

    This is highly documented, was a public event. So we at least circumstantially know that western governments directly engaged in censorship.

    Eventually you end up with a preponderance of the evidence.

    Hey, you disagree with my political speech and think I deserve to be censored by the government? Great. Fine. Just remember that tomorrow it might be you who has something unpopular to say.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 33 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    Ah great. Here comes another believer of the "Twitter Files".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •