Twitter was increasing its censorship(, do you need proof for that affirmation ?), would you trust the government to own the “townsquare”/“marketplace of ideas” ? I would only trust a government truly owned by its citizens, in a real/direct democracy with efficient counterpowers.
He had many more ideas in order to use these 40 billions, but thought that twitter/‘freedom of expression’ is worth it(, that’s what he’s repeating, since you won’t believe in his good intentions what’s your opinion on such a huge loss a money ?), now everyone tries to ruin twitter, and you support them, because he’s not censoring enough for you apparently, is that the reason ? Bad nazis that shouldn’t be allowed to spread hate ? Can’t you see that our governments want to keep their control on the narrative, or do you just find “normal” that our newspapers agree between them on our foreign policy(, just as the medias of our unfree enemies brainwash their citizens(, yet we’ve strangely never read them once)) ?
A journalist who’s “anti-system” isn’t deemed acceptable for the owners of the (legacy )medias, hence s.he/we only have alternative medias and some fringe portions of the Internet left(, for now), seems worth fighting for.
One is a government punishing you for saying something. The other is a company saying, “not on my platform.”
If you cannot understand the difference already, you truly are too stupid to discuss this topic.
Keep in mind: This is not an endorsement of Twitter or X’s behavior. I’m just smart enough to understand that someone should have control of their own house in a “free” world.
One is a government punishing you for saying something. The other is a company saying, “not on my platform.”
Oh, ok, i could eventually agree with this definition.
My own definition is that you can moderate without censoring(, kinda like you can neutralize without killing), even if most social medias aren’t using things like warnings before censoring, or overall participation of the (unpaid )mods in the forums to guide newcomers, straighten flamewars by words, answer questions, register complaints and advices, create special events, bots on discord, and as many collective events than can be thought of, almost to the point of being more like a supervisor than a moderator. If such a distinction makes sense a moderator would be between a censor and a supervisor, a manager would be yet another word but i could mix these four into the same word, censorship is only the last resort of the moderator, it’s usually enough to point out the mistake for the user to amend h.im.er.self by acknowledging h.er.is faults and leaving the community or keeping the rules more in mind, it shouldn’t be a surprise ban but that’s commonplace on reddit, it’s not my philosophy but w/e, i’ve talked about it with 2-3 mods in the past and they don’t agree, it’s taking them a lot of time as well so they’re not thinking twice nor engaging.
That was a long introduction, hope it wasn’t too boring, i’ll take your definition and say that unfortunately the government is using the word moderation in its speeches and is making laws to censor illegal speeches on the internet, like defense of what they’ll choose to call terrorists, or denial of what they’ll call genocide, or the counter-informations that they may falsely deem disinformation(, covid could be an example, some conspiracies as well), E.Musk is annoying because the Community Notes also debunk our disinformation, and i’ll only mention astroturfing.
Do you want a short excerpt of my long list of examples of government censorship ?
Furthermore, what’s the censorship by companies if not the censorship by the wealthy/powerful for written(“legacy”) medias ? Don’t you think they have enough power like that. States should protect us from their censorship by allowing us some rights, like a proper explanation before being banned or the right to keep their data afterwards, or not i’m against government interference in one way or another(, except if our declared enemies can use this against us, but we’re going beyond that and are clearly aiming to prevent people from speaking uncomfortable/convincing proofs, WikiLeaks is emblematic of a larger movement, and the “cancel culture” as destroyed careers of some people for false reasons, our governments don’t trust the population to make their own conclusions.
Twitter was increasing its censorship(, do you need proof for that affirmation ?), would you trust the government to own the “townsquare”/“marketplace of ideas” ? I would only trust a government truly owned by its citizens, in a real/direct democracy with efficient counterpowers.
He had many more ideas in order to use these 40 billions, but thought that twitter/‘freedom of expression’ is worth it(, that’s what he’s repeating, since you won’t believe in his good intentions what’s your opinion on such a huge loss a money ?), now everyone tries to ruin twitter, and you support them, because he’s not censoring enough for you apparently, is that the reason ? Bad nazis that shouldn’t be allowed to spread hate ? Can’t you see that our governments want to keep their control on the narrative, or do you just find “normal” that our newspapers agree between them on our foreign policy(, just as the medias of our unfree enemies brainwash their citizens(, yet we’ve strangely never read them once)) ?
A journalist who’s “anti-system” isn’t deemed acceptable for the owners of the (legacy )medias, hence s.he/we only have alternative medias and some fringe portions of the Internet left(, for now), seems worth fighting for.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
repeating
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Twitter moderation is not censorship, dumbass.
What’s the difference ?
One is a government punishing you for saying something. The other is a company saying, “not on my platform.”
If you cannot understand the difference already, you truly are too stupid to discuss this topic.
Keep in mind: This is not an endorsement of Twitter or X’s behavior. I’m just smart enough to understand that someone should have control of their own house in a “free” world.
Oh, ok, i could eventually agree with this definition.
My own definition is that you can moderate without censoring(, kinda like you can neutralize without killing), even if most social medias aren’t using things like warnings before censoring, or overall participation of the (unpaid )mods in the forums to guide newcomers, straighten flamewars by words, answer questions, register complaints and advices, create special events, bots on discord, and as many collective events than can be thought of, almost to the point of being more like a supervisor than a moderator. If such a distinction makes sense a moderator would be between a censor and a supervisor, a manager would be yet another word but i could mix these four into the same word, censorship is only the last resort of the moderator, it’s usually enough to point out the mistake for the user to amend h.im.er.self by acknowledging h.er.is faults and leaving the community or keeping the rules more in mind, it shouldn’t be a surprise ban but that’s commonplace on reddit, it’s not my philosophy but w/e, i’ve talked about it with 2-3 mods in the past and they don’t agree, it’s taking them a lot of time as well so they’re not thinking twice nor engaging.
That was a long introduction, hope it wasn’t too boring, i’ll take your definition and say that unfortunately the government is using the word moderation in its speeches and is making laws to censor illegal speeches on the internet, like defense of what they’ll choose to call terrorists, or denial of what they’ll call genocide, or the counter-informations that they may falsely deem disinformation(, covid could be an example, some conspiracies as well), E.Musk is annoying because the Community Notes also debunk our disinformation, and i’ll only mention astroturfing.
Do you want a short excerpt of my long list of examples of government censorship ?
Furthermore, what’s the censorship by companies if not the censorship by the wealthy/powerful for written(“legacy”) medias ? Don’t you think they have enough power like that. States should protect us from their censorship by allowing us some rights, like a proper explanation before being banned or the right to keep their data afterwards, or not i’m against government interference in one way or another(, except if our declared enemies can use this against us, but we’re going beyond that and are clearly aiming to prevent people from speaking uncomfortable/convincing proofs, WikiLeaks is emblematic of a larger movement, and the “cancel culture” as destroyed careers of some people for false reasons, our governments don’t trust the population to make their own conclusions.