moochedit
I'm not feeding seagulls
Yes i remember him saying he would get rid of blocking but he could have changed his mind.
Laurence Fox. The twat.
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
Well, the issue really is about how long the freedom of speech string is. But regardless of personal beliefs in the issue, I think it’s fair to propose that if someone like Musk, as the new proprietor of a mass social media platform and massive advocate of unrestricted speech, restores the accounts of individuals with a previous long history of posting statements of an inflammatory, prejudiced, misogynistic and racist nature and allowing them to carry on, they should have absolutely no right whatsoever to block others from expressing their differing opinions about their beliefs on their account.
We all know most right wing self-proclaimed freedom of speech championing, anti woke warrior, snowflake-bashing individuals’ enthusiasm for the cause stops right at the point when they are faced with certain opinions they don’t like. Their bare cheek hypocrisy is out there for all to see. But as much of a hypocritical cunt Fox and his chums are, they don’t run one of the largest social media platforms in the world whilst claiming unrestricted freedom of speech is their most important value, and have the power to regulate the level of freedom of speech allowed on said platform. By Musk’s core principles, no Twitter user should be allowed to block people they don’t like unless their post content qualifies as genuinely problematic, threatening or illegal.
Not saying you are in any way in agreement with the double standards displayed by the likes of Fox, but as the owner of Twitter/X, if it’s really the case that users can block others under the stewardship of Musk, the very man who as owner has restored foul individuals’ accounts and allowed abominable content to be posted in the name of the sacred freedom of speech right, and the same time allows users to block anyone they don’t like the opinions of even when lawful and non-threatening, then yes, there most certainly is an issue. An issue of massive double standards with the absolute freedom of speech principle Musk wanks to every morning. And he should be taken to task daily by Twitter users and media alike regardless of whether it might make a difference or not.
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
Which in the case of a medium like Twitter is irrelevant to the account holder as they are not forced to read or listen to any individual opinion from third parties. If Fox or any other user doesn’t want to read comments on their posts from other users, all they have to do is not read them.
Perhaps a suitable solution would be for account holders to ignore content from any user they wish, much like on these boards. But blocking them from their opinion about their posts being seen by any other Twitter users it’s most definitely an act of censorship in my book.
danny la rouge
I have a cheese grater in the dishwasher.
Who said that?
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not arguing that the feature to block other users on social media platforms is a bad thing. In fact, I think it’s both good and necessary because the world is full of cunts and most of them seem to have Twitter accounts, and nobody should be exposed to their toxic barbs.
What I am saying is that Musk should be denounced en mass on a daily basis as a fucking hypocrite for allowing lowlife scumbags on his social media company to express their vile bigoted views in the name of freedom of speech whilst allowing them at the same time to block others to retort to their comments on their account. Either there is unrestricted speech on Twitter or there isn‘t.
scifisam
deleted
Nah, Twitter is a shitshow and Musk is a lunatic, but this is actually reasonable. It's basically a libertarian POV where the market - ie users choosing to block other users and therefore not interacting with them, until they're posting to nobody - will deal with it. It doesn't work, but it's not like Twitter was a haven of well-reasoned, non-hateful posts before either.
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
Musk is a massive hypocrite on free speech but not for that reason. If someone posted 'Laurence Fox is a wanker' and got banned for it or it was taken down that's one thing but blocking someone? I don't see it.
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
Did you not get many followers?
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
People have a right not to be exposed to content that harms or upset them
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
You mean that you can turn it off/leave the platform? There's no right not to be upset that I'm aware of.
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
I agree. So Fox should not be allowed to tag (if that’s what it’s called) anyone he’s talking about when he posts an opinion about them. Yet he is, and then be allowed to block them at any time.
If you are allowed to tag someone while accusing them of being a terrorist and a paedophile, they are by default exposed to harmful content. Either you allow both or neither.
This is why I stay well clear of social media. Toxic rabbit hole.
Puddy_Tat
happy mew year
while there is a line between 'free speech' and 'hate speech', i'm not sure what you're arguing here.
where someone else has a right to free speech, that's not the same as me being obliged to read / listen to what they have to say.
nobody's forcing me to buy / read (say) the sun, i choose not to buy it or read it. i don't see that there's anything wrong with that, or choosing not to read what some people say on social media. i get by on tweeter by using 'following' so i see stuff posted by accounts i've chosen to follow, so don't think i've felt a need to do the 'blocking' thing. some people prefer to. i'm not sure what the problem is.
scifisam
deleted
Urban is social media.
Storm Fox
Trying the find the next noun to verb
But Urban is the exception that proves the rule. I know I've not been here that long, but to me, it's a fantastic, if slightly dysfunctional family.
Raheem
Well-Known Member
No general right, but it sort of depends on what it is that is upsetting you.
_Russ_
Never not Knowingly Misunderstood
Never had an account, how about you?
_Russ_
Never not Knowingly Misunderstood
Fucking hell if you think this place breaks the rule on social media being toxic I shudder to think what the other platforms you expose yourself to must be like
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
Yeah, I had an account.
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
I tend to see message boards as quite different from the likes of Twitter or FB. Most message boards outside of extreme right sites have well defined red lines about what’s acceptable or otherwise regarding freedom of speech, and rightly so. I get the impression that Twitter under Musk tolerates such shit, and even the likes of FB have a half-arsed approach to policing unacceptable content. In my mind message boards are social media only in name and far for the most part much better policed.
scifisam
deleted
I get that, but they are social media by any reasonable definition.
The difference is, twitter etc is full of Russells, whereas thankfully here they're carefully monitored and their numbers kept low.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Every family's fucked up in its own way
_Russ_
Never not Knowingly Misunderstood
Thank you for your continued monitoring, im sure one day all your concern and hard work will be rewarded.
What is Russells?
LeytonCatLady
Well-Known Member
Storm Fox
Trying the find the next noun to verb
I can feel the heat from that burn here!
LeytonCatLady
Well-Known Member
She is a cute dog. Pity she's got such an irresponsible human.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Many people learn from their mistakes. But not fox
Similar threads
- Poll
