| ▲ | arrowsmith 4 hours ago |
| What does proxying someone else's content have to do with free speech? |
|
| ▲ | zahlman 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Can someone please explain to me any actual guidelines-based reason for the parent comment to have been flagged and killed (I vouched for it)? |
| |
|
| ▲ | Forgeties79 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You have to admit, the “free speech” shield-wielding megalomaniac working so hard to keep people from freely accessing info isn’t exactly great optics. |
| |
| ▲ | immibis2 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Optics and logic are two different things. The optics seem to be working out well for him, for some reason. | |
| ▲ | freedomben 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'm very much on the side of xcancel and nitter on this one, but I do think it's fair to point out that Twitter is free of monetary charge. It's not free in the sense that you do have to provide some personal information and data to them in exchange for that free account, but it isn't a huge roadblock for most people, however annoying it may be. Now that said, I sure hope Elon will pivot this and make these services unnecessary. I'm not holding my breath though. | | |
| ▲ | Operyl 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The biggest frustration for a lot of people is that their municipalities use Twitter almost exclusively to communicate with their constituents, it _sucks_. I've pleaded and begged my city and county to have some other form of communication, in addition to Twitter/X, to mass distribute information. | |
| ▲ | bakies 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | right, it's not free, like you said | |
| ▲ | angoragoats 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The phrase "free speech" does not typically mean "free as in beer," rather it means "free as in freedom," so in this case you're conflating the two meanings of "free" in English. The fact that Twitter is login-gated makes it objectively less free as in freedom. | |
| ▲ | InsideOutSanta 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Elon Musk, gratis speech absolutist. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | angoragoats 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Twitter is heavily login-gated, to the point that I can't see Twitter threads at all unless I have an account. I do not wish to make an account. Services like Nitter/XCancel allow me to read those threads, making that speech more free. |
| |
| ▲ | throwatdem12311 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | That’s not what free speech is. | | |
| ▲ | angoragoats 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes, it is. It seems self-evident to me that the speech on Twitter is more free when it isn't behind a login wall. How could it not be? If you'd like to provide an actual counter-argument, I'd be happy to consider it. | | |
| ▲ | weberer 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | "Freedom of speech" means you are allowed to express your opinion without fear of being censored or persecuted for it. It is not the same kind of "free" as in "no cost". Twitter is a paid service. To access Twitter, you have to pay for it. Either by purchasing a subscription or viewing ads. Think of it as having to buy a newspaper before being able to read it. That doesn't stop the paper's editors from being able to criticize the government. | | |
| ▲ | immibis2 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Then they should be glad Nitter instances are offloading some of their traffic, right? Some requests are cache hits, so I handled that whole request myself and spared an Elon server from handling it. |
| |
| ▲ | throwatdem12311 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Free Speech isn’t about who is listening, it’s about who is speaking. Just because you can’t hear it doesn’t necessarily mean the person did not speak freely. | |
| ▲ | zahlman 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. Nobody is being censored by the inability of a third party to act as a parallel distribution channel. Nor does freedom of speech have anything to do with entitlement to an audience. No website infringes upon freedom of speech by having a paywall on UGC, as neither the contributors nor readers are worse off than if the site didn't exist. | | |
| ▲ | p-o 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Nobody is arguing about the legal boundary of Freedom of speech, you're the only one making this argument. We're talking about the quolloquial "free speech", here. | | |
| ▲ | weberer 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Could you give your colloquial definition, because its clearly different than mine. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | HumblyTossed 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | angoragoats 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I would argue that when he is talking about "free speech" he is always referring to the more general, non-US-Constitutional meaning of the phrase; i.e. the freedom to say what you want without being censored. So when a discussion about free speech on Twitter comes up, I assume that's the kind of free speech we're discussing. To bring in the the more narrow, first amendment meaning of the term is just a distraction or diversion. | | |
| ▲ | applfanboysbgon 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | You are the only one who brought up that distraction from the fact that he routinely violates the first definition you mentioned. |
|
|
