|
|
|
|
|
|
by maxlin
24 days ago
|
|
|
Lots of words to say nothing. Obviously the original mission statement of EFF has been bipartisan, turning against Musk and by that turning a lot more anti-freedom of speech and anti-liberty has soiled their image. Them continuing on such extremely partisan platforms like Truth Social for the left (BlueSky) just makes them unsupportable. Which is something I'd thought I'd never say, but that's the world we live in. Where champions of justice get attacked, and censorious hate mills get even officially boosted. Just read your own arguments. X bad because it fires a team they'd never needed to have as a social media company just to stay afloat, especially as it was proven that those firings were tacitly necessary for the platform to survive? >"previously" fought off censorship demands This just proves you're either uninformed or lying on purpose. The furor with which Musk pushed Brazil and De Moraes to not censor people on X was awe-inspiring. Something the old Twitter never managed to do in such scale. |
|
|
Especially but not exclusively due to the fact that whatever "censorship" Bluesky imposes can be avoided with different clients in most cases and different PDSs in worst cases, I'm not going to pretend that Bluesky and Truth Social are anywhere near the same in terms of speech diversity [1] (aside: nor will I pretend that X has more speech diversity than Bluesky). (In the context of this post and thread, I use "censorship" to mean a company's own moderation and censorship to mean speech restrictions backed by government coercion/threats.)
> X bad because it fires a team they'd never needed to have as a social media company just to stay afloat, especially as it was proven that those firings were tacitly necessary for the platform to survive?
By "proven" "tacitly necessary", I assume you mean proven in hindsight, to which I disagree. You're arguing that after Musk bought the company it had to fire its anti-censorship team [2] to "fix" its money situation ($13 billion debt that banks ended up reselling instead of collecting from Twitter/Musk), even though before Musk bought the company it could have continued on with its anti-censorship team for years without losing $13 billion. You're also arguing that post-buyout Twitter is better because sometimes getting revenue may matter more than fighting censorship (which I don't necessarily disagree with), while pre-buyout Twitter was foolish for more heavily prioritizing fighting censorship over getting revenue. (Aside: Musk launched a frivolous lawsuit against advertisers that was bad for both getting revenue and fighting censorship [3].)
> The furor with which Musk pushed Brazil and De Moraes to not censor people on X was awe-inspiring. Something the old Twitter never managed to do in such scale.
Holding the record for most government censorship demands resisted in one incident, does not make up for overall acquiescing more often to censorship demands [4] or for reducing the company's ability to resist censorship demands [2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_Social#Censorship_allega...
[2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/11/twitters-monetizable-u...
[3] https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/27/turns-out-that-advertise...
[4] https://restofworld.org/2023/elon-musk-twitter-government-or...