I agree with what you say and understand why you are worried. But I disagree with your solutions.
I think the underlying problem is the reliance on platforms. As long as we rely on big platforms for communication, then we will always be vulnerable. Vulnerable to censorship by the platform and vulnerable to someone shutting off the platfor…
I agree with what you say and understand why you are worried. But I disagree with your solutions.
I think the underlying problem is the reliance on platforms. As long as we rely on big platforms for communication, then we will always be vulnerable. Vulnerable to censorship by the platform and vulnerable to someone shutting off the platform.
On the other hand, there is no way anyone could stop you from hosting your own website and saying whatever you want to say. In that sense there is always free speech and it is impossible to keep you from what you want to say.
What the big platforms do is not enabling free speech (that is possible in many ways as I said) it is amplifying certain forms of speech. And I think this is really the question that people argue about. It is not: what are we allowed to say? But what type of speech should be amplified to billions of people?
full disclosure, I dont publish anything, just off and on comments re stories of interest on TFP, Daily Wire etc.
I feel you are confused though. To get your "message" out there, on your own website, you must use a platform. I have gmail. IF gmail (google) were pressured by the admin, or other countries governments to limit "misinformation, hate speech, etc", then they can easily turn off those messages. Thus limiting free speech. You can see folks who post on Youtube. Same thing applies, if Youtube is pressured, they can easily reduce ones exposure to the world.
I dont see X doing this , or doing this to any degree. The typical "inciting violence" , or "threatening someones life" on line, exceptions are minimal on X.
I feel Musk has stood his ground on what he is pressured to limit.
I think of Fuckerburg and Meta, who now admits to caving to government pressure and FBI "threats" and actively sensored and limited exposure to election issues, serious covid concerns etc. I feel he did this because he wants to be out in front of the fallout that is coming from all the government sensorship and curtailment of free speech the past 8+ years. Think about it, none of this occurred prior to Trump running for president in 2015-2016. Suddenly, we need to ensure our "democracy is secure", and people only see "fair and balanced news". What a croc of shit.
The other thing I don't get about X is: X/Twitter exists for about 10 years. So, if X is indeed essential for free speech and democracy, how could society ever evolve before X was invented? How is it that people put so much faith in X, when society has come so far before X was invented?
Respectfully the news media is not he same as your parents. Journalism is dead in regards to the national news media that is why people are turning to platforms like X, Podcasts and other outlets that don't restrict opinions, stories or suppress information.
I agree with what you say and understand why you are worried. But I disagree with your solutions.
I think the underlying problem is the reliance on platforms. As long as we rely on big platforms for communication, then we will always be vulnerable. Vulnerable to censorship by the platform and vulnerable to someone shutting off the platform.
On the other hand, there is no way anyone could stop you from hosting your own website and saying whatever you want to say. In that sense there is always free speech and it is impossible to keep you from what you want to say.
What the big platforms do is not enabling free speech (that is possible in many ways as I said) it is amplifying certain forms of speech. And I think this is really the question that people argue about. It is not: what are we allowed to say? But what type of speech should be amplified to billions of people?
Thanks for your comment,
full disclosure, I dont publish anything, just off and on comments re stories of interest on TFP, Daily Wire etc.
I feel you are confused though. To get your "message" out there, on your own website, you must use a platform. I have gmail. IF gmail (google) were pressured by the admin, or other countries governments to limit "misinformation, hate speech, etc", then they can easily turn off those messages. Thus limiting free speech. You can see folks who post on Youtube. Same thing applies, if Youtube is pressured, they can easily reduce ones exposure to the world.
I dont see X doing this , or doing this to any degree. The typical "inciting violence" , or "threatening someones life" on line, exceptions are minimal on X.
I feel Musk has stood his ground on what he is pressured to limit.
I think of Fuckerburg and Meta, who now admits to caving to government pressure and FBI "threats" and actively sensored and limited exposure to election issues, serious covid concerns etc. I feel he did this because he wants to be out in front of the fallout that is coming from all the government sensorship and curtailment of free speech the past 8+ years. Think about it, none of this occurred prior to Trump running for president in 2015-2016. Suddenly, we need to ensure our "democracy is secure", and people only see "fair and balanced news". What a croc of shit.
take care
and "Go Elon"
Rich
The other thing I don't get about X is: X/Twitter exists for about 10 years. So, if X is indeed essential for free speech and democracy, how could society ever evolve before X was invented? How is it that people put so much faith in X, when society has come so far before X was invented?
Respectfully the news media is not he same as your parents. Journalism is dead in regards to the national news media that is why people are turning to platforms like X, Podcasts and other outlets that don't restrict opinions, stories or suppress information.
So what if you just host your own website on your own server?
Then you can just write what you want to write and don't have to bow down to anyone.