Elon Musk x Twitter: The Joke that Keeps Giving

[ethomaz]

I think misinformation should be banned.
Sorry but any Dr. or said specialist should not to use false information to manipulate less instructed people.

Free speech is not about lies used to try manipulate masses.

I mean you can be the highest specialist ever if you come to Twitter and to says to your followers that the Earth is flat then you should be banned.

That is not free speech.
That is using false information to manipulate your peers.

If you are a specialist you hold some level of truth in what you say… so it should be a crime to use that to manipulate less instructed people… as being a crime it should be banned from social networks.

 

[Explosive Zombie]

lol why did I check this thread, "please ban people who offend me or disagree" lolololol

 

[Nym]

"Less free areas" hahahahaha. Twitter must abide by local laws if it wants to operate in other countries. And being able to be a racist piece of shit does not make the US a freer place.

It actually does by definition it's unfortunate most people don't take advantage of their freedom of speech but rather enjoy controlling that of others

 

[Satoru]

It actually does by definition it's unfortunate most people don't take advantage of their freedom of speech but rather enjoy controlling that of others

No, it really doesn't. Hate speech and free speech are entirely different things. There's a reason why public displays of Nazism in Germany are criminal in nature, for example.

 

[Nym]

No, it really doesn't. Hate speech and free speech are entirely different things. There's a reason why public displays of Nazism in Germany are criminal in nature, for example.

If I'm restricted from saying words, then I am by definition less free to speak than if I was not restricted from saying the words, pretty simple.

 

[Explosive Zombie]

No, it really doesn't. Hate speech and free speech are entirely different things. There's a reason why public displays of Nazism in Germany are criminal in nature, for example.

LOL we're using Germany as a positive example of freedom?

 

[Sircaw]

If I'm restricted from saying words, then I am by definition less free to speak than if I was not restricted from saying the words, pretty simple.

So the scream "Fire in a theatre? conundrum" do you think you should be allowed to say/do this?

I personally think censorship has gone too far not just on Twitter but in general, we are now in a world where everything is censored because it might offend someone, saying that there is a lot of nastiness out there, with people purposely looking to insult and belittle people with hateful rhetoric.

There needs to be a better balance in the world,

 

[Satoru]

LOL we're using Germany as a positive example of freedom?

Freedom of Speech? Yes. As long as you're not a nazi, you're fine. Are you trying to argue that people should be allowed to be nazis in the country where nazis started a world war that killed upwards of 20 million people?

I think you and others that argue for "muh freedom" should actually do some reading, starting by this

Paradox of tolerance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Then this

Hate speech - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I get that for assholes it's important to be free to be an asshole, but check yourselves before wrecking yourselves. After all, the US censors swearing in music, television, even certain obscene gestures. These are allowed in most european countries, for example. So... Lol. Muh freedom to be racist, but no freedom to say cunt on a song that plays on the radio.

 

[Nym]

So the scream "Fire in a theatre? conundrum" do you think you should be allowed to say/do this?

Yes. Do you think this somehow makes the definitions of the words free and restrictions less correct? Restrictions by definition are less free than not having restrictions.

We are talking about whether certain forms of speech, those that merely offend sensibilities such as derogatory words, should be grounds for federal censorship. Nobody is going to argue over the fire in a theatre thing, it's not speech anybody is concerned about being off limits and the reasoning for that is understood and agreed upon by most I would imagine.

IMO a person should be free to say anything they want but then be held liable for consequences that occur as a result of speech. As in, you made a statement which people reasonably took to mean their life is in imminent danger, and panic resulting from that causes injury or death or property damage. So, we're not going to lose our shit if someone yells fire in an arcade but if he does and then the riot kills someone, that guys ass in on the line.

Not as in, I heard someone drop the N-word and my butthole is puckering please lets punish the offender. Not as in, words are violence. Mean words that are not direct threats or rising to the level of harassment do not make people reasonably interpret them as an imminent danger to their life. I'm more than happy with the social consequences that exist for people engaging in uncouth behaviour like saying the n word publicly and don't believe hate speech should be a crime as it is more or less a thought crime. I think the fact that people are having absolute meltdowns about speech that was previously acceptable on twitter not all that long ago, AND is considered legal by your justice system, just shows how far the decline has gone.

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it

Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me

I heard these from liberal teachers growing up, but haven't heard anything like this in decades. Now the sentiments are almost totally inverted - I disapprove of what you say and would gladly restrict your right to say it, and words are literally violence omg I can't even

 

[Explosive Zombie]

Freedom of Speech? Yes. As long as you're not a nazi, you're fine. Are you trying to argue that people should be allowed to be nazis in the country where nazis started a world war that killed upwards of 20 million people?

I think you and others that argue for "muh freedom" should actually do some reading, starting by this

Paradox of tolerance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Then this

Hate speech - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I get that for assholes it's important to be free to be an asshole, but check yourselves before wrecking yourselves. After all, the US censors swearing in music, television, even certain obscene gestures. These are allowed in most european countries, for example. So... Lol. Muh freedom to be racist, but no freedom to say cunt on a song that plays on the radio.

Communism killed more people, why are people free to be communists?

 

[Sircaw]

Yes. Do you think this somehow makes the definitions of the words free and restrictions less correct? Restrictions by definition are less free than not having restrictions.

We are talking about whether certain forms of speech, those that merely offend sensibilities such as derogatory words, should be grounds for federal censorship. Nobody is going to argue over the fire in a theatre thing, it's not speech anybody is concerned about being off limits and the reasoning for that is understood and agreed upon by most I would imagine.

IMO a person should be free to say anything they want but then be held liable for consequences that occur as a result of speech. As in, you made a statement which people reasonably took to mean their life is in imminent danger, and panic resulting from that causes injury or death or property damage. So, we're not going to lose our shit if someone yells fire in an arcade but if he does and then the riot kills someone, that guys ass in on the line.

Not as in, I heard someone drop the N-word and my butthole is puckering please lets punish the offender. Not as in, words are violence. Mean words that are not direct threats or rising to the level of harassment do not make people reasonably interpret them as an imminent danger to their life. I'm more than happy with the social consequences that exist for people engaging in uncouth behaviour like saying the n word publicly and don't believe hate speech should be a crime as it is more or less a thought crime. I think the fact that people are having absolute meltdowns about speech that was previously acceptable on twitter not all that long ago, AND is considered legal by your justice system, just shows how far the decline has gone.

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it

Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me

I heard these from liberal teachers growing up, but haven't heard anything like this in decades. Now the sentiments are almost totally inverted - I disapprove of what you say and would gladly restrict your right to say it, and words are literally violence omg I can't even

A lot of this boils down to civil discourse, I for one do not want to live in a world where words like the N-word become the norm in everyday general conversation usage, I prefer a bit of decorum, not a free for all as like in comments at the bottom of an online tabloid newspaper.

What I don't like are forms of censorship that stop me from debating or challenging certain aspects of things in life.

I would like to give examples of that but that is out of the scope of this Gaming forum and will course this thread to be closed.

 

[Sircaw]

Communism killed more people, why are people free to be communists?

Take that Che Guevara shirt of FFS, you wanna be hippy.

 

[Nym]

I for one do not want to live in a world where words like the N-word become the norm in everyday general conversation usage, I prefer a bit of decorum, not a free for all as like in comments at the bottom of an online tabloid newspaper.

That word is very commonplace in everyday conversation usage. Depending on your skin colour of course.

I think the freedom to communicate mean words and ideas doesn't necessarily mean the world will turn into an uncivil hellscape. From my perspective, people in general are angrier and ruder to each other than I've ever experienced, as people are more censorious and support limiting the reach of people whose opinions they disagree with, even going further and not just demanding silence but seeking punitive action taken for things as simple as decade old jokes. I heard Penn of Penn & Teller fame years ago say that the best way to fight bad speech is not censorship, but more speech and I couldn't agree more.

What I don't like are forms of censorship that stop me from debating or challenging certain aspects of things in life.

Totally agree. I think all topics are fair game for civil discourse.

 

[ethomaz]

 

[Nym]

 

[Nym]

oh clearly a public utility now lmao?

 

[ethomaz]

There is a move from Brasilians to Koo.
The Indian platform even had instability issues due that new push of users.

I don't use twitter that much so I won't bother

 

[Nym]

 

[Sircaw]

Did you see Alyssa Milano's tweet the other day about her giving up her Tesla?

I gave back my Tesla. I bought the VW ev. I love it. I’m not sure how advertisers can buy space on Twitter.

Publicly traded company’s products being pushed in alignment with hate and white supremacy doesn’t seem to be a winning business model.

You can't make this shit up haha.

 

[Nym]

Advertisers advertising on extremist twitter is analogous to the same companies doing business and advertising in the United States where all of the same opinions you can now share on Twitter are considered protected speech. Their consciences should direct them to cease all operations in the U.S.A to be consistent.