New Twitter policy is freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach.
(media.greatawakening.win)
Comments (18)
sorted by:
Sigh. Who decides if it's negative or hateful? It's always been about who decides.
True. That's what it comes down to. Who and how. Anyway, this is just the whole "you have the right to say what you want, but that doesn't mean you have to be heard" thing.
ADL
I think he is talking about Name Calling.
Calling someone a dirty name is immature and childish. That's most likely what he is talking about.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1593673339826212864
Okay, so when do I get unbanned?
When the Musk gets your 8 bucks. kek
He did specifically mention "Trump decision has not yet been made."
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1593673844996288512
Did you recently appeal?
I'll try it again, every time I appealed before I didn't get a response.
Yeah, I did once Elon took over and received a received confirmation email right away then about a week later was reinstated.
Haha, he trapped the sponsors from backing out from contracts due to the content found along side of their ads.
That's great......as long as people making the decisions on whether a tweet is hateful or not hateful, is not biased and one sided.
I've seen many lefty tweets in the past that have been left unbanned even though they've said some of the most despicable things ever. So if that will change where they will no longer be able to do that, then that's great. We shall see though.
I mean, it is a private company and they have freedoms too. As long as they don't disappear it, that's a win for free speech.
Don’t expect an African to understand what it means to be an American and have inalienable rights. The shysters with the ADL probably came up with this legal ease.
Once people put Elon's chip on their brains they will have their mouths volume turn down as soon as they think about saying hate speech.
So you're free to speak, but twitter is going to use an unconstitutional authority to interfere with what you say.
Anyone care to show me where in the constitution does it claim that owning property allows the property owner to suspend the first amendment rights of others?
I hear you, but no one, not even the owner of a platform is obligated to amplify your voice.
If we invent this idea of a town square, and call twitter one of them, you have the right to speak there, but the government (or the private company) does not owe you a megaphone.
Twitter is using public airwaves (our megaphone) to amplify their reach. If they want to block speech, then maybe we need to block them from transmission over the 2.4ghz band.