[ditonal]

I don't know why it's so impossible to believe there are people who truly do want free speech.

I wasn't sure if Musk was going to deliver it, but I tried to remain open-minded. I did think previous Twitter management leaned left with some admittedly difficult moderation decisions, but obviously I'm finding out that Musk is even less supportive of true free speech.

Ironically this banning of Mastodon links is the #1 thing pushing me to start exploring Mastodon or other platforms.

[epistasis]

It's impossible to believe because we know people who say that, and we know that their fundamental belief is that rules exist in two ways: 1) to protect and serve a certain class, without binding them, and 2) to bind the other class, without protecting the other class.

This is not a new phenomenon, the only thing that changes is the terms used to signal the meaning.

[AnimalMuppet]

That is extremely flawed logic. It is logically equivalent to "We know there are counterfeit dollars, therefore there cannot be real ones."

Sure, there are phonies. Therefore it is impossible to believe that anyone is genuine? No.

[xenospn]

Let me know when you find them. So far, every “free-speech“ platform has been a dumpster fire full of instant bans for anyone the user base does not agree with.

[anonymoushn]

I don't think this is true of 4chan

[AlexandrB]

4chan is interesting because it feels like a holdover from the "old" internet. Less a "platform" and more an unruly forum with its own distinct culture.

If 4chan had anywhere near the size/reach of Twitter or Facebook, I think it would either be more toxic or more restrictive in its moderation.

[cmh89]

>don't know why it's so impossible to believe there are people who truly do want free speech.

Because everybody has a point where they don't want free speech anymore. If I gathered your home address and told everyone you were a pedophile that needed to be killed, you'd probably be less stoked about free speech.

[drcongo]

> I don't know why it's so impossible to believe there are people who truly do want free speech.

Anyone intelligent enough to think it through knows it's a paradox, so anyone who truly does want free speech clearly hasn't actually thought it through. They exist, but nobody should take them seriously.

[bheadmaster]

> Anyone intelligent enough to think it through knows it's a paradox

I don't, so I assume I'm not that intelligent. Would you please explain to me how is it a paradox?

[coldpie]

Sure. Speech can, itself, restrict speech. "I have a gun in my pocket and I will shoot anyone who disagrees with me." It's just speech, but it restricts others' willingness to speak. If you allow all speech, some speakers will use that tool to restrict others' speech, which means not all speech is actually allowed. "Free speech" is a paradox.

[bheadmaster]

> It's just speech

It's not just speech - it's speech with an intention to do harm. That's like saying going into a bank and saying "my partner there has a gun and he will start shooting unless you give me money" is also abusing free speech - it's not about speech, it's about actions in the real world.

> If you allow all speech, some speakers will use that tool to restrict others' speech, which means not all speech is actually allowed

Nobody uses speech on its own to restrict others' speech.

> "Free speech" is a paradox.

I'm not convinced, see above explanations.

[coldpie]

Right, so now we've moved from "free speech" to "free speech unless it has an intention to do harm" which means you agree that some speech ought to be restricted. Suddenly things get really complicated (how do you define "harm" and "intention" and even "has"?), and now you're on the same page as the rest of us who understand that "free speech" is a paradox.

[bheadmaster]

> Right, so now we've moved from "free speech" to "free speech unless it has an intention to do harm"

We haven't moved anywhere, because it's not speech that's illegal, it's the intention to do harm. You could perfectly well communicate your intentions to do harm with no speech at all, e.g. by pointing a gun to a bank teller without saying a word. If you use speech to offer to sell drugs to somebody, and a cop arrests you for it, that's not an issue of free speech, that's an issue of drug dealing.

The fact that you aren't allowed to commit crimes by using your speech doesn't make free speech itself a paradox - otherwise any use of the word "free" in the context of humans in society might as well be paradoxical. "We're not free to commit a murder, therefore individual freedom is a paradox" - that'd be quite a naive take on the matter.

[drcongo]

Perfect, thanks.

[throwayyy479087]

I encourage you to think more highly of those that disagree with you, and to consider their points more earnestly.

[drcongo]

Believing in a logical fallacy is not a difference of opinion.