Return to space is cool, but the problem with free speech surveys is that mostly the aggrieved are going to respond to the survey. Fraud, slander, misrepresentation, inciting violence, assault (personal threat) and terrorizing (group threat) are illegal and harmful. It is far too risky for Twitter to cave to the "free speech" arguments that it should not filter any of these things. It must because it is too risky not to.
You say you understand "some" censorship of "hate" speech, but I think it becomes a difficult question as to what is or is not "hate" speech. An "absolutist" approach such as "zero tolerance" or on the other side of the spectrum "anything goes" cannot work either.
And here in the USA (which is where a lot of these issues get tested) the elephant in the room is the rise and fall of the "Donald Trump" Twitter account. "The Donald" claims to be the "victim" of Twitter censorship when the bulk of his Twitter rants were all about painting the free press as the "enemy of the state."
It is diabolical how this works and it is no coincidence that Russia has become the master of state run media painting the free press as the enemy. Twitter and Facebook to some extent have actually been the saviors of free speech by taking action against those who break the rules on what they post.
Is there room for improvement for Twitter? Most certainly there is. Could Elon be that leader? He most certainly could. But, unblocking Donald Trump is not the answer either. Donald Trump has proven that he is unable to follow rules or obey laws. About all he has accomplished is threaten this brave experiment we call "democracy."
Return to space is cool, but the problem with free speech surveys is that mostly the aggrieved are going to respond to the survey. Fraud, slander, misrepresentation, inciting violence, assault (personal threat) and terrorizing (group threat) are illegal and harmful. It is far too risky for Twitter to cave to the "free speech" arguments that it should not filter any of these things. It must because it is too risky not to.
You say you understand "some" censorship of "hate" speech, but I think it becomes a difficult question as to what is or is not "hate" speech. An "absolutist" approach such as "zero tolerance" or on the other side of the spectrum "anything goes" cannot work either.
And here in the USA (which is where a lot of these issues get tested) the elephant in the room is the rise and fall of the "Donald Trump" Twitter account. "The Donald" claims to be the "victim" of Twitter censorship when the bulk of his Twitter rants were all about painting the free press as the "enemy of the state."
It is diabolical how this works and it is no coincidence that Russia has become the master of state run media painting the free press as the enemy. Twitter and Facebook to some extent have actually been the saviors of free speech by taking action against those who break the rules on what they post.
Is there room for improvement for Twitter? Most certainly there is. Could Elon be that leader? He most certainly could. But, unblocking Donald Trump is not the answer either. Donald Trump has proven that he is unable to follow rules or obey laws. About all he has accomplished is threaten this brave experiment we call "democracy."