Why is it censorship? They can still talk anywhere that accepts them, including public property; that they can’t do it in my backyard isn’t censoring them.
Interesting point. But are you willing to put your theory into practice?
If you truly believe this, you must now end all your messages with:
“veraticus@lib.lgbt said that free-speech maximalism is for fools but I disagreed because I am a fool.”
If you don’t do this you are suppressing my speech and censoring me. And please don’t object on the grounds that the content is, perhaps, objectionable to some; remember, objectionable content is especially worthy of free speech protections.
Stop censoring me. I know you might find the content objectionable, but my freedom of speech demands you include that phrase in all your posts from this moment on. You aren’t going to suppress speech you don’t like or agree with, are you?
Censorship doesn’t mean refusing to repeat other people’s speech. It means preventing others from speaking. Not sure what part of this you’re not getting. It is not a difficult concept.
It’s not a public forum, it’s a privately owned social media website/app…
The owners can kick anyone out they want.
Musk knew that, but apparently didn’t know why the old owners kicked them out, it’s because the vast majority of advertisers and users don’t want them their.
It’s not. Platforming speech is endorsing speech. I mean, there’s nuance to how it should be handled if someone says something you can’t endorse, but that sentence is rule 1 of owning social media platforms.
Why is it censorship? They can still talk anywhere that accepts them, including public property; that they can’t do it in my backyard isn’t censoring them.
The problem is you’re trying to redefine censorship to fit your narrative.
censor
verb
censored; censoring ˈsen(t)-sə-riŋ ˈsen(t)s-riŋ
transitive verb
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable
Suppressing speech, regardless of where or how, is censorship.
Interesting point. But are you willing to put your theory into practice?
If you truly believe this, you must now end all your messages with:
“veraticus@lib.lgbt said that free-speech maximalism is for fools but I disagreed because I am a fool.”
If you don’t do this you are suppressing my speech and censoring me. And please don’t object on the grounds that the content is, perhaps, objectionable to some; remember, objectionable content is especially worthy of free speech protections.
I have no idea how you got this from what I said but no, that’s not how any of this works.
Stop censoring me. I know you might find the content objectionable, but my freedom of speech demands you include that phrase in all your posts from this moment on. You aren’t going to suppress speech you don’t like or agree with, are you?
Censorship doesn’t mean refusing to repeat other people’s speech. It means preventing others from speaking. Not sure what part of this you’re not getting. It is not a difficult concept.
I think because X/Twitter is a public forum, not your backyard?
It’s not a public forum, it’s a privately owned social media website/app…
The owners can kick anyone out they want.
Musk knew that, but apparently didn’t know why the old owners kicked them out, it’s because the vast majority of advertisers and users don’t want them their.
Not saying he shouldn’t but it is a slippery slope.
It’s not. Platforming speech is endorsing speech. I mean, there’s nuance to how it should be handled if someone says something you can’t endorse, but that sentence is rule 1 of owning social media platforms.
I agree.
If you keep letting them have a platform next thing they’ll be building showers in their camps again.
deleted by creator
In what sense is it public? It’s owned by X and no one else.
People want to think it’s a public forum because a lot of people use it. But that doesn’t actually make it public.