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."
Good points James, and well said. But there’s also the other side of the coin:
Like it or not, it is a fact that about half of the voters in your country have voted for DT twice in 2016 and 2020, and will likely vote for him again in 2024. Silencing a person whom half of the voters have chosen as President doesn’t sound like democracy to me.
DT used to speak his mind very clearly on Twitter, with no deception. If what he wants is so bad, a democracy should allow the citizens to realize it and vote against him.
Silencing DT will likely have the opposite effect. He will sound like an oppressed champion of the people, and the people will vote for him again. We’ll see in 2024.
You can’t educate people by force. If you need using force to teach, then your teachings are not good enough.
DT attacking the free press as "the enemy" is straight from the "autocrat's playbook."
Trump never had 1/2 the voters either. Not even a full 25% in 2016.
Most people don't get that only 54% of voting eligible voted in 2016. 2016 ended up being proof a flaw in the electoral college that a staunch support of less than 25% of voting eligible can win an election.
Trump lost the popular vote 2016. We know this is true though Trumpublicans hate to admit it. Hillory Clinton won the pipular vote.
Trump's 25% popularity is waining even more now. Why so many people do not see the danger of Mr. Putin and how he has shaped American politics delivering the 2016 election to Donald Trump was pretty amazing.
Even Republicans may reject him in 2024. Elon Musk may kill Twitter if he turns it into "Truth Social" (name for Donald Trump's Social Media network). As for me I prefer it when there are actual rules where "yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire" is not free speech. Elon Musk is just wrong about "absolute free speech." Lies, fraud, and incitement of violence are still wrong and actually anti-free speech.
Even if only 10 percent of the voters support a position, it is still a position that is supported by a lot of people. Therefore, silencing it goes against democracy. And perhaps democracy is flawed, but as Winston Churchill said we have found nothing that works better so far.
As I say in the OP, I'm not against reasonable moderation of real hate speech. But I insist that moderation must be symmetric and impartial. At this moment on Twitter, conservatives are punished for calmly supporting moderate positions that question liberal dogmas, but liberals are free to engage in hate speech, including death threats and exhortation to violence (just open Twitter and check, or I could send recent samples).
This must stop. So if we need rules, let's have rules, but let's apply them equally to everyone and punish *all* hate speech. Twitter would be a better place.
Re Elon, on second thought I'm afraid he is spreading himself too thin. He is a superman, but he is not Superman. SpaceX and Tesla are *important* - much more important than Twitter if you ask me - and I would prefer that Elon focuses his mind and resources on SpaceX and Tesla. But if so I hope others will fix Twitter, or develop popular alternatives.
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."
Good points James, and well said. But there’s also the other side of the coin:
Like it or not, it is a fact that about half of the voters in your country have voted for DT twice in 2016 and 2020, and will likely vote for him again in 2024. Silencing a person whom half of the voters have chosen as President doesn’t sound like democracy to me.
DT used to speak his mind very clearly on Twitter, with no deception. If what he wants is so bad, a democracy should allow the citizens to realize it and vote against him.
Silencing DT will likely have the opposite effect. He will sound like an oppressed champion of the people, and the people will vote for him again. We’ll see in 2024.
You can’t educate people by force. If you need using force to teach, then your teachings are not good enough.
DT attacking the free press as "the enemy" is straight from the "autocrat's playbook."
Trump never had 1/2 the voters either. Not even a full 25% in 2016.
Most people don't get that only 54% of voting eligible voted in 2016. 2016 ended up being proof a flaw in the electoral college that a staunch support of less than 25% of voting eligible can win an election.
Trump lost the popular vote 2016. We know this is true though Trumpublicans hate to admit it. Hillory Clinton won the pipular vote.
Trump's 25% popularity is waining even more now. Why so many people do not see the danger of Mr. Putin and how he has shaped American politics delivering the 2016 election to Donald Trump was pretty amazing.
Even Republicans may reject him in 2024. Elon Musk may kill Twitter if he turns it into "Truth Social" (name for Donald Trump's Social Media network). As for me I prefer it when there are actual rules where "yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire" is not free speech. Elon Musk is just wrong about "absolute free speech." Lies, fraud, and incitement of violence are still wrong and actually anti-free speech.
Even if only 10 percent of the voters support a position, it is still a position that is supported by a lot of people. Therefore, silencing it goes against democracy. And perhaps democracy is flawed, but as Winston Churchill said we have found nothing that works better so far.
As I say in the OP, I'm not against reasonable moderation of real hate speech. But I insist that moderation must be symmetric and impartial. At this moment on Twitter, conservatives are punished for calmly supporting moderate positions that question liberal dogmas, but liberals are free to engage in hate speech, including death threats and exhortation to violence (just open Twitter and check, or I could send recent samples).
This must stop. So if we need rules, let's have rules, but let's apply them equally to everyone and punish *all* hate speech. Twitter would be a better place.
Re Elon, on second thought I'm afraid he is spreading himself too thin. He is a superman, but he is not Superman. SpaceX and Tesla are *important* - much more important than Twitter if you ask me - and I would prefer that Elon focuses his mind and resources on SpaceX and Tesla. But if so I hope others will fix Twitter, or develop popular alternatives.