> This is a really good compilation that should make any "free-speech absolutist" reconsider their support for the current administration.
The adoption of the "free speech absolutist" brand by certain elements of the Right was never an honest statement of ideology, it was a smokescreen of Orwellian doublespeak for efforts to impose right-wing bias on platforms both by platform owners and by government regulatory efforts.
Those people aren't going to reconsider their support for this administration because it isn't actually committed to free speech, because it is doing what the "free speech absolutist" label they adopted was always cover for.
> In my understanding, the commonplace interpretation of the first amendment is largely due to a series of landmark cases through the early to mid-20th century.
The one thing that the "free speech absolutist" Right-wing crowd was always honest about was that their position had nothing to do with "commonplace interpretation of the first amendment". (
Then the center-left Democrat progressives need to stop discussing the term "free speech absolutism" because it conceptually muddies the water. Leftists believe in free speech, freedom of inquiry, freedom of the press, even "burden of proof beyond doubt"--these are all liberal ideas. There's a mainstream pseudo-left that has decided to dispense with all nuance of these basic liberal values, and that is far worse in the long run, because that is happening inside the house, in service of Democrat elites. It's like internalized oppression: the fascists and reactionaries are so bad, that we've decided to forget our own principles.
Do we deride free speech absolutists simply because Musk might have trolled us? Is that truly a reasonable explanation for anyone's motivations? Would you be so petty as to base your principles on that idea?
No. Our criticism is aimed at their inability to defend their own values, leading to fruitless debates and real-world situations where shameless hypocrisy undercuts everything they claim to support.
Yes, it is and this is projection again. We had years with arguments "they are a private company", "free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences", etc. pp.
Perhaps integrity would demand that people speak up and in my experience they indeed still do. But you shouldn't be surprised if the criticism is quite a bit less loud if it concerns speech from a politicized crowd that demanded more content control and censorship just a few weeks before. Petty? Maybe. Wrong? Maybe. But certainly not surprising that bad life decisions in the past do have an effect.
Listen up, because this needs to be crystal clear: there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with revoking someone’s platform when they violate terms and conditions that are no stricter than the rules you’d set for your own kids.
On the flip side, there is something profoundly, undeniably wrong — practically evil — when a government detains peaceful people not for breaking laws but for virally posting about their wish for an immediate cease-fire in the midst of violent conflict. Which is the exact inverse of having sensible limits.
You can rattle off half-baked “maybe” and “perhaps” scenarios all day long and keep twisting definitions beyond recognition. You can continue to argue that governmental abuse of power is an inevitable consequence simply because the world contains some ugly, petty sociopaths that will hold grudges until they die. But by that logic there shouldn't be norms, limits, rules, terms, conditions or laws at all, because it will only inconvenience sociopaths on their rise to power and they'll eventually come after you.
Welcome to the paradox of tolerance. We need rules because it keeps our imperfect society civil.
There is nothing wrong with it, that is your right.
Since the composition of the net is what it is a free speech culture protected people from being removed from platforms because of commercial interests. This protection has been removed because some people were too sensitive about the opinions of others and demanded their removal until more and more platforms gave in to those demands. This broke the prevailing culture and more and more views got removed. Plain and simple.
The conflict in the middle east is of no relevance here. Government already found a neat little trick and let commercial entities do their dirty work to remove non-sanctioned voices. Indirectly to not violate any laws. This has been abused by any political party already and in most other countries as well. Many just waited for a precedent that was promptly delivered.
> virally posting about their wish for an immediate cease-fire
How virally? Virally hateful? Yes, that pretty much qualifies for content removals as a direct consequence of these content controls.
Interesting you call it a "brand". People picked up the term because it was meant to be an insult and that is quite relevant to understand the current political situation and why Trump can sell himself as free speech defender while doing the opposite.
Bascially because his opposition is that much slower...
The adoption of the "free speech absolutist" brand by certain elements of the Right was never an honest statement of ideology, it was a smokescreen of Orwellian doublespeak for efforts to impose right-wing bias on platforms both by platform owners and by government regulatory efforts.
Those people aren't going to reconsider their support for this administration because it isn't actually committed to free speech, because it is doing what the "free speech absolutist" label they adopted was always cover for.
> In my understanding, the commonplace interpretation of the first amendment is largely due to a series of landmark cases through the early to mid-20th century.
The one thing that the "free speech absolutist" Right-wing crowd was always honest about was that their position had nothing to do with "commonplace interpretation of the first amendment". (