Twitter

Remove this Banner Ad

Maggie5 said:
Are you really that stupied? Who is talking about speaking? Do you even know what Twitter is?

Musk blocks them from posting on his twitter feed, t h e y c a n no l o n g e r post on his account, he blocks them if he doesn't like to read what they have to say. Musk's definition of free speech is it is okay if he agrees or likes what is being posted.



Not sure why you are following Bruce's thoughts on listening, this thread is about twitter. Written posts!

Free speech is: the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint; to express information, ideas, and opinions.
Free speech doesn't have to be spoken.

help.twitter.com

How to block accounts on X

Learn how to use X's block feature when you want to restrict an account from following you or viewing your posts.
help.twitter.com help.twitter.com
Click to expand...
Free speech doesn't have to be listened to. I think it is fair one can elect to choose to block people from posting on one's personal site (the equivalent here in bigfooty land is putting posters on ignore). To me restriction of free speech would be preventing someone from posting anywhere on the site (so if theres evidence that those who make anti musk comments cant post anywhere on twitter then that would be a free speech problem - though also arguable that its a private company who doesn't have to publish anything they don't want publish)
 
HairyO said:
The point is unless you are willing to allow people to say horrible things, you arent in favour of free speech.

And if you cant handle people saying horrible things, youre a snowflake.

There was a time when liberal thinking people believed in things like free speech. The US even chose it as their 1st amendment. But these days people tend to need censorship because they are scared of anything they dont like.

LWNJ and RWNJ (ie all the ones who want censorship) share this common belief.
Click to expand...
So you are ok with people saying horrible things that encourage people to commit horrible acts as "the price of free speech"
If thats the price of free speech then it can get in the bin.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Crankyhawk said:
So you are ok with people saying horrible things that encourage people to commit horrible acts as "the price of free speech"
If thats the price of free speech then it can get in the bin.
Click to expand...

Depends. Are those acts illegal?

That isnt free speech, its criminal speech.

If its mean words then allowing that to ensure that important speech cant be silenced is the cost paid.

Are you more worried about mean words or about governments and corporations in bed together at our expense ?

Look at Public Private Partnerships. Governments make multi billion dollar deals with companies and we dont get to know the details. Surely that is far more damaging than mean words we voluntarily read ?
 
HairyO said:
Depends. Are those acts illegal?

That isnt free speech, its criminal speech.

If its mean words then allowing that to ensure that important speech cant be silenced is the cost paid.

Are you more worried about mean words or about governments and corporations in bed together at our expense ?

Look at Public Private Partnerships. Governments make multi billion dollar deals with companies and we dont get to know the details. Surely that is far more damaging than mean words we voluntarily read ?
Click to expand...
Yeah was meaning criminal speech. Because that isn’t a distinction that was drawn in the post I was replying to.

Edit and yes I would also throw commercial confidence when dealing with government in the bin. Transparency!
 
Crankyhawk said:
Free speech doesn't have to be listened to. I think it is fair one can elect to choose to block people from posting on one's personal site (the equivalent here in bigfooty land is putting posters on ignore). To me restriction of free speech would be preventing someone from posting anywhere on the site (so if theres evidence that those who make anti musk comments cant post anywhere on twitter then that would be a free speech problem - though also arguable that its a private company who doesn't have to publish anything they don't want publish)
Click to expand...
It seems that you too have missed the point of my posts.

Just to repeat... I think it is hypocritical for someone who believes in free speech, then blocks people from his twitter feed.

Which is what Musk does.
 
FhzgMDqXkAIF-DT
 
Maggie5 said:
It seems that you too have missed the point of my posts.

Just to repeat... I think it is hypocritical for someone who believes in free speech, then blocks people from his twitter feed.

Which is what Musk does.
Click to expand...
That's not hypocritical.

Free speech is the freedom to say it on Twitter. But part of free speech is being able to not listen/block things you don't want to hear. You have the free speech to say whatever you like, but not the freedom to be heard.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Satan said:
The ppl have spoken , trump to go back on . What will happen to truth social ?
Click to expand...
I imagine it will slowly flounder. Gab already exists to cover the free speech niche and is more inclusive.
 
Werewolf said:
I imagine it will slowly flounder. Gab already exists to cover the free speech niche and is more inclusive.
Click to expand...

‘Free speech niche’. It’s really no surprise you refer to a nazi mother*er as part of a free speech initiative. You’re cooked.

The owner of the site is an anti semitic neo nazi.


Hopefully he follows his leader.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top