[Beijinger]

Is it? I always thought the uttermost definition of "Free speech" is that you have the right to have a stupid, ugly or wrong opinion? And as long as you don't violate any ToS (e.g. Hackernews, as a private enterprise or organization) or laws (kill XYZ type of people) you are within the rights of "free speech".

[ta1243]

> I always thought the uttermost definition of "Free speech" is ... you don't violate any ToS or laws

So a meaningless statement then. By that definition North Korea has free speech.

[reducesuffering]

Musk's version of "free speech" should be in quotations. Twitter was banning accounts, even Paul Graham's, for saying "This is the last straw. I give up. You can find a link to my new Mastodon profile on my site.”

[consteval]

> stupid, ugly or wrong opinion

You can only have a stupid, ugly or wrong opinion so long as Musk shares it. Luckily Musk is uniquely dumb, so that covers most awful takes you can have, perhaps giving the perception of free speech.

[Beijinger]

That is his right. It is his company. You don't have the right to free speech on another man's property.

You have the right to be an antisemite. But just please not in my house, I may ask you to leave.

[consteval]

Literally nobody argued otherwise. All I said is that X is not a free speech platform as Musk claims, which is objectively true.

He, Musk, argues you can say whatever you want on X. This is not true plainly - he is lying. This isn't up for debate so don't bother trying.

[ta1243]

So "free speech" is "speech Musk is happy to have"

That's fine, and is why "free speech" is in quotes