|
| ▲ | 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. |
|
|
