[landemva]

> he is unable to hold participants hostage

I observed Twitter/X was recently loosening previous owner's restrictions and censorship. I'm apparently misinformed, so how is enabling previously banned accounts hurting free speech?

[callalex]

If it was actually about free speech, the Elon Jet Tracker account wouldn’t be banned. It’s actually about being able to say bigoted things without consequences.

[Regnore]

Also if it was actually about free speech, he wouldn’t immediately capitulate every time a foreign government asks him to remove content they deem inappropriate.

[toomuchtodo]

> I'm apparently misinformed, so how is enabling previously banned accounts hurting free speech?

I never said it was. That is a choice. Elon doesn't like advertisers pulling their spend (free speech) and the general public leaving (free speech and association). He wants to demand an audience under his terms (participants must stay, advertisers must continue to spend under his terms), leading to this natural experiment. I apologize if that wasn't clear from my turn of phrase with regards to being held hostage.

Twitter will die, Elon will take the L (but probably not learn from it until some future wealth destruction event), and everyone will move on to other forums and digital third spaces. Enjoy the show.

[trothamel]

Of course, criticizing advertisers for pulling their spend because they do not like the free speech of other users is also free speech. It's quite reasonable to name and shame companies that take actions that try to restrict other peoples' free speech.

(I'm using 'free speech' outside of the governmental context - the government can't abridge free speech, but outside of that free speech is simply a good idea.)

[toomuchtodo]

Let's be honest here. It isn't some objective definition free speech, it is whatever Elon believes to be free speech at the time [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. It is absolutely silly to expect any company to financially support a platform with a dynamic and fluid version of "absolute free speech." I certainly don't want my consumer dollars flowing through companies to Twitter/X as marketing spend based on how it operates.

If you have speech others don't like, be prepared to get your wallet out and pay for it yourself. No one is obligated to financially support speech they don't agree with. You might believe that to "name and shame companies that take actions that try to restrict other peoples' free speech" is going to result in some backlash against these companies; it won't except in some small, immaterial population. Let Elon put comms out and say, "If you don't directly pay for Twitter, Twitter will die" and lets see how many people show up to pay their expenses and fiat behind their belief system.

> but outside of that free speech is simply a good idea.

This is an opinion, and other takes are going to be based on the limits involved [6].

> 65% of Americans support tech companies moderating false information online and 55% support the U.S. government taking these steps. These shares have increased since 2018.

> Americans are even more supportive of tech companies (71%) and the U.S. government (60%) restricting extremely violent content online.

> Democrats are more supportive than Republicans of tech companies and the U.S. government restricting extremely violent content and false information online. The partisan gap in support for restricting false information has grown substantially since 2018.

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/15/media/twitter-musk-journalist...

[2] https://www.thefire.org/news/twitter-no-free-speech-haven-un...

[3] https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/twitter-elon-musk...

[4] https://time.com/6229960/twitter-bans-accounts-elon-musk-imp...

[5] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/twitter-suspends-user...

[6] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/07/20/most-amer...