[lettergram]

I’ve been wondering why people are just now talking about mastodon.

Musk per his own statements wants to increase free speech… why is that bad?

Regardless, Gab and Truth.social both use mastodon. So it’ll improve their platforms the more people switch (and improve mastsdon). Technically the nodes can interconnect; though I believe that’s not happening today

[xena]

Gab has been throughly banned throughout most of the fediverse because of the constant spew of abuse. I don't believe that truth.social federates but I see it a lot in blocklists. Some people will automatically block people using the Gab fork of Mastodon as a last ditch attempt to curb hate and spam.

This is kind of the nature of the beast. If the problem is that the remote instance allows things that you find intolerable, then you have to ban the remote instance from federating with you. Speech may be free, but actions have consequences.

[kzrdude]

More than just thinking about what people say, compare with what they do. Musk "per his own actions" is seemingly taking the chainsaw to the existing company's organization, it's going to be a bumpy ride that way no matter what changes he wants to do.

[leephillips]

Often when I talk to people about their belief in “free speech” I soon discover that they really only mean speech that they like.

[billdietrich1]

I "like" plenty of speech I disagree with, if the speech is fact-based and informative and rational and interesting. I enjoy a good debate, I learn stuff, it's good.

I don't "like" speech that lies, hates, tries to manipulate, tries to shock, or is just incoherent.

So, do I have a belief in "free speech" ?

BTW, the USA's First Amendment just prevents the govt from stopping religion or the press etc. It's doesn't mean anyone has to listen to anyone. It doesn't mean some platform such as Facebook or a newspaper is required to propagate your speech.

[lettergram]

> BTW, the USA's First Amendment just prevents the govt from stopping religion or the press etc. It's doesn't mean anyone has to listen to anyone. It doesn't mean some platform such as Facebook or a newspaper is required to propagate your speech.

I always love this argument… you do know building owners in New York are required to allow protests outside? It’s not just the government Some (such as malls) even have a requirement to allow them inside. Company towns (think Disney, Hershey, etc) couldn’t shut down free speech either.

The public square, regardless of ownership, is protected by the first amendment. Print is similarly protected by the first amendment, though you may have to own your own news org, no one can stop your distribution. Basically, you can’t impede others blocking roads), but you can stand and preach and distribute. This has been upheld MANY times by the Supreme Court.

They will likely not do too much to social media quite yet, as there are 5-6 alternatives to distribution AND congress has passed specific laws governing internet speech. However, I’m sure as these court cases work up to SCOTUS we will eventually see it upheld again (might just take 2-3 more years).