I do think it would be really ironic if Must does take Twitter, and then kowtow's to China desire for better portrayal of China on Twitter. So we end up with this free speech platform except when it comes to China.
I'm really not complaining, and don't mean to come off as sensitive. Insults are the norm on the internet, I get it. I personally try to steer away from it, and I think you tend to as well, but I understand that's not the status quo.
I support @Clutch owning all of Clutchfans I know some of you don't like private companies or one person ruling but that's the fact Jack (Dorsey)
China will definitely try it if history is a guide. If they do something that gets international anger they will absolutely try to censor as much speech as possible using every bit of leverage they have. They have proved this time and time again. If anyone understands this it should be Rockets fans. I wonder then if the government actually gets involved...that is if Musk bows to China and he has every economic reason to do that. I don't have a high opinion of Musk but I generally don't trust stupidly wealthy people, nothing personal, but I'd hail him as an American hero if he takes a stand when this inevitably happens.
ATW has directed hate speech against numerous posters myself included without any retribution. What I've learned with him, is that his personal attacks are designed to get a rise out of you, as that's what he enjoys. Ignore him. In terms of this thread. I think Clutchfans allows a lot of things that cross the line in D&D because they created D&D to be the cesspool away from the main site. Also, the advertising here is all programatic, so there's not a lot of pressure on the site to moderate content. Twitter sells to advertisers and brands directly, and they care where their brand is placed - so Twitter as a much stronger incentive to moderate content in order to maximize ad revenue from the bigger brands (with the biggest budgets). A lot of complex things happen behind these sites. I Don't think Twitter survives if it becomes a free for all....brands will pull their ad dollars and the company will fall apart. It's not the public town square, it's a for profit company and ultimately, free speech isn't part of its obligation in any shape or form. Same with Clutchfans. You can say things in the D&D today that would get you banned on Twitter, and you can say things on Twitter that might get you banned on here. But at the end of the day, it comes down to someone's discretion and motivations as to what content is good or not on any platform.
Musk is a very smart man. He's playing chess here and likely has considered many of the options. It is entirely possible that he is merely flirting with the idea still and it's really a big show to help improve his personal brand and influence. As for trust in Musk, it all depends on what it means to trust Musk. With what? I don't own Twitter stock and long ago sold what I had in FB once it became clear apple was going to hit their ad platform hard. So for me, trust means nothing. Elon can make Twitter sing or he can make it a dead bird for all I care. It makes 0 difference to me.
Twitter is a unique technology that utilizes opaque AI-driven algorithms to propagate informational / disinformational content in ways that are unprecedented. We've seen dramatic societal shifts brought about by social media platforms in a very short period of time. Much of it not positive. Any new technology has risks if not properly understood and controlled, and Twitter is no different. You can understand all the ins and outs of "free speech", as far as what the law permits. That doesn't mean you understand what the consequences of "free speech" + Twitter would be.
I am a free speech absolutist. It becomes a slippery slope otherwise and you risk turning into the CCP.
Would you still take that stance if you realized that it would cost you a ton of money? People keep saying they want Twitter to follow the laws. There are no laws regulating private company's speech out side of sedition, negligence and libel/slander. If someone goes on Twitter and posts that cyanide is good for you and 10,000 people die technically Twitter is not liable according the the law. But the company would collapse nonetheless as advertisers would pull their money and the company would be in financial trouble very quickly.
I applaud your thread. none of the art history dropouts here can conceive such level of cleverness, humor, and intelligence. they just run around like chickens in a chicken farm. (if the chicken farm is cageless)
The question was about clutchfans. However in general I am a free speech absolutist. I understand the concerns.
By "absolutist free speech", we're talking about not placing any additional restrictions on speech beyond what the law of the land requires. "Erring on the side of free speech" makes sense for the law of the land, since that's the baseline that everyone needs to abide by. It sounds like everyone is agreement that, at a minimum, Twitter should strive to remove any such content that is illegal, or at least any that poses a danger to someone. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe Mill ever envisioned something like social media when he wrote his treatise. Given the evidence we have about the harms social media can have on its users and the way it polarizes and entrenches divisions in our society, what are the downstream effects for our democracy if additional moderation steps aren't taken? I don't think anyone understands that, including Twitter. Nor is it obvious that Mill's wisdom about erring on the side of free speech applies here, given the uniqueness of the technology and its destructive potential if left unchecked. Twitter cherry-picking when to apply its TOS and when not in a biased manner is not good. Having a TOS that is vaguely worded is not good, for the same reason. Opaque algorithms that promote or demote content based on some subjective, wishy-washy assessment on how harmful it might be is also not good. All of these features are ripe for abuse. These are areas where I think most of us can agree Twitter should be better.
I guess I'm not sure what that means in terms of a platform such as Clutchfans or Twitter - or if there is a difference between the two. I get you are saying that the platforms should allow anything goes. But I don't think there is a platform anywhere on earth where that is allowed. So in a practical sense, it just seems to me that "free speech absolutist" doesn't have much meaning since it can never actually be implemented.
This should be interesting... what "law" is musk and you referring to? While you are at it... what is the "concept of free speech" and how does it apply to twitter?
What free speech in the "absolute" exists? If there is an absolute, can I go into a crowded building and shout "fire!" or "Bomb!"? And can I post the directions to building a bomb on twitter? Or how about p*rnography? Or how about a request to hang minorities? Or addresses of judges?
@Os Trigonum I'd also like to push back a bit on you saying that the Twitter vs Clutchfans comparison is dumb. There are obvious differences. But it's not clear to me that Mill's arguments for "erring on the side of free speech" wouldn't also apply to this forum. Sure, Clutch has every right to run this place as he sees fit and it's not our place to tell him any different. But why wouldn't a true free speech absolutist think that even for a forum of this size and scope, anything goes (including hate speech) should, theoretically, be the default. Afterall, posters who are abusive can always be placed on Ignore. Is there anything from your reading of Mill that would suggest to you he'd feel any differently?
Just to pin this down, let's define "free speech absolutist" as adhering to the principle "One shouldn't impose any restrictions on otherwise legal speech in a given locale."
