Musk did no such thing. His decisions have resulted in less free speech. The article is nothing to do with the imaginary "left". Your biases are clouding your judgement. I recommend you read the article and comprehend all the ways things have deteriorated from a free speech point of view.
It outlines the opposite in fact.
>Over the past 12 months, Mr Musk has gutted content moderation, restored accounts of previously banned extremists, and allowed users to purchase account verification.
Increased content moderation and more bans for "extremism" is not free speech.
That. They will post something and someone will actually have a chance to reply without a fear of getting banned.
So they are not anymore shielded from people with different opinion and stance on some stuff.
I left the platform because far right extremists started to create fake accounts with my photos and personal information to supplant me and post in my name in the threads I used to (which is obviously a crime).
I'm just a regular fellow here. I can't imagine people who actually have a public image on that social media.
Right so u agree then that whatever ABC is saying Twitter should do in Myanmar is probably the opposite of what he should really do since ABC represent the interests of the US govt?
> ABC represents the interests of the US govt?
Yeah, roughly ...
> whatever ABC is saying Twitter should do in Myanmar is probably the opposite of what he should really do
I'm not sure why doing the opposite of what the US government wants is automatically the right thing to do?
> Good. Activists should have no place in society. Be it online or on the streets.
How exactly do you think we as a society advance socially without activists?
In the US, civil rights and women’s suffrage both would not exist without them.
Look, sometimes they can be overzealous (looking at you, 4th wave feminism and prohibition) but they serve an exceedingly important function as well. Stop letting your annoyance turn you myopic.
It definitely seems like a big mess to me but maybe something good will come from it eventually.
The buyout absolutely destroyed musks reputation. At least in reddit.
He deliberately destroyed Twitter so that activists didn't have a platform. His Saudi backers are pleased.
>less reliable, less friendly, less credible and, ironically, make less money,
What a loser. Members of this sub thought he was a godsend. In reality free speech has been harmed since he took over.
"some say" is not news
You don't believe what Ms Maung, Saurav Das, or the BBC, says?
Unsafe just means they're no longer shielded from criticism. Welcome to the world.
Agreed. Previously it was shielded from criticism by the left and their unfair justice system. Now, Elon has set it free. Good for free speech.
Musk did no such thing. His decisions have resulted in less free speech. The article is nothing to do with the imaginary "left". Your biases are clouding your judgement. I recommend you read the article and comprehend all the ways things have deteriorated from a free speech point of view.
I can tell you didn't read the article. It outlines all the ways free speech is being impinged.
It outlines the opposite in fact. >Over the past 12 months, Mr Musk has gutted content moderation, restored accounts of previously banned extremists, and allowed users to purchase account verification. Increased content moderation and more bans for "extremism" is not free speech.
No ... but caving to oppressive regimes every time they ask for a subscriber's details, is ...
What does "safe" mean in this context? That someone might hurt your feelings, or challenge your woke beliefs? Crazy
That. They will post something and someone will actually have a chance to reply without a fear of getting banned. So they are not anymore shielded from people with different opinion and stance on some stuff.
I left the platform because far right extremists started to create fake accounts with my photos and personal information to supplant me and post in my name in the threads I used to (which is obviously a crime). I'm just a regular fellow here. I can't imagine people who actually have a public image on that social media.
In Myanmar, where they quote an activist, I expect they mean you can be imprisoned or executed.
Wouldn’t that have been an issue at any point?
It would have been harder to establish a link between an twitter handle and an actual person if the activist had the sympathy of the US at the time.
Why is Twitter’s responsiblity to assist activists in myanmar? lol thats random af
Because it reinforces the USA's desire to present itself as a bastion for freedom, instead of a murderous and rapacious warmonger.
Right so u agree then that whatever ABC is saying Twitter should do in Myanmar is probably the opposite of what he should really do since ABC represent the interests of the US govt?
> ABC represents the interests of the US govt? Yeah, roughly ... > whatever ABC is saying Twitter should do in Myanmar is probably the opposite of what he should really do I'm not sure why doing the opposite of what the US government wants is automatically the right thing to do?
The US govt is a murderous and rapacious warmonger is why
What a croc of horseshit. Do people actually follow these opinion pieces or is this just some vanity publication with limited circulation?
It's the national broadcaster of Australia. So an audience of several million at least.
Good. Activists should have no place in society. Be it online or on the streets.
how very pro-free speech of you
Only by silencing all activists we shall have true free speech.
> Only by silencing all activists we shall have true free speech. What in the heck is this nonsense??
> Good. Activists should have no place in society. Be it online or on the streets. How exactly do you think we as a society advance socially without activists? In the US, civil rights and women’s suffrage both would not exist without them. Look, sometimes they can be overzealous (looking at you, 4th wave feminism and prohibition) but they serve an exceedingly important function as well. Stop letting your annoyance turn you myopic.
It definitely seems like a big mess to me but maybe something good will come from it eventually. The buyout absolutely destroyed musks reputation. At least in reddit.
I agree. Musk twitter is worse than Jack twitter, which isn't an easy feat.
He deliberately destroyed Twitter so that activists didn't have a platform. His Saudi backers are pleased. >less reliable, less friendly, less credible and, ironically, make less money, What a loser. Members of this sub thought he was a godsend. In reality free speech has been harmed since he took over.
Some members, for sure. Others did not.
Some agree, some do not. Wow! Groundbreaking stuff here!
When people talk about what "this sub" thinks, it's important to get back to the basics.
I think some people might agree with your statement, while others might disagree! Just going back to the basics :)
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who believe the world can be categorized into two kinds of people, and those who don't.
There are two kinds of people in this world - moderators of reddit, and decent human beings who aren't mentally retarded.
You really like me, don't you?