It's a lot better than it was,and a huge help in winning the election. If X was no holds barred,total wild west,it would get blocked in most countries and pretty much worthless,for dropping red pills.
We have to slowly shift the narrative and wake people up.
Just because you can say slurs and not get banned immediately doesn't make the platform that much better. Even then there's countless people still getting banned on X in spite of the false promises of "free speech".
Keep thinking Twitter/X is not a corrupt woke shithole.
Musk might be an entrepreneurial genius, but he's still a lefty, he hired a WEF/deep-state plant as CEO, and his 'X' is censoring information that 'may' reflect unpositively on certain folks.
The Holocaust.
Sandy Hook.
Oct. 7th.
The CEO assassination.
The "murder" of George Floyd.
Who caused 9/11.
If you deny people the will to question Trump's assassination attempt, then you deny everyone the right to criticize or question any detail in any historical event.
did I mention 'everyone' being denied... I'm not talking about 'people questioning' I'm saying the press should not be able to deny that violent events occured when there is plenty of evidence to the contrary
of course ordinary people can think whatever the f* they want, but ordinary people are not guiding public opinion, or being paid with tax dollars.
listen to JFKs speech on the press and their responsibilities to the American public.
"Free speech" never includes the right to name the Voldemort People or deny the reality of the alleged Violent Event, of which the You-Know-Whos were the most notable victims who must continue to be compensated for their horrible suffering, and their country must be forever defended by American money and firepower to make sure that the Violent Event never, ever happens again. But you will find that "Violent Event Denial" does not encompass violent acts that They Who Must Not Be Named were involved in. In fact, accusing them of having ever been involved in those acts will get you banned.
I would argue it like this... (devil's advocate, defending this wording by X): If someone from any violent event denies that it happened this could be a valid flag. However, if someone were to say a violent event didn't actually occur - like questioning it as a narrative like Sandy Hook is that actually denying the violent event? I say its not... I would argue its claiming the reporting of it hasn't been correct. It happened in that it was an event so don't deny that - but questioning things about it isn't denying it. So if someone brings up the convenient lottery winnings from some of the "victim's" families that not denying anything. Ya, ok, I'm not doing a good job of this.
Congress cannot Constitutionally make a law restricting my right to say what I want. X is not Congress and neither is, for example, my house. There are places, like this website for another example, where you are not free to say just anything.
"Free Speech" does not mean free-for-all-say-anything-you-want-everywhere-anytime. It never did. No offense meant to anyone but I don't understand why people don't get that.
Arguably, X is funded by the government (Elon IS the biggest government contractor, right?) Henceforth it should be compelled to abide by the constitution. Even if it wasn't, that's not even the point. This is about Elon's brazen hypocrisy and denial of what X has become since he appointed that WEF CEO.
Also, free speech DOES mean "free-for-all-say-anything-you-want-everywhere-anytime". Free speech with conditions is not "free speech." Period.
1.Being contracted by the government does not make you a part of the government. However, X is a US company and still has to comply with US law.
Our freedom of speech is not as unlimited as you believe. There are free speech exemptions that have been determined by supreme court cases over time. Incitement to violence: we are not allowed to shout "fire" or "bomb" in a public space unless there is a credible threat because a stampede will form and people can get hurt. True threats of violence, obscenity, defamation, false statements of facts (which includes 'Violent Event Denial'), false advertising, and child porn are all examples of unprotected speech.
If Elon allowed these things on X, he would be subject to criminal and civil liability a.k.a. breaking the law and/or getting sued into oblivion. Even if all speech were legal, who the hell would want to visit a website with obscenity, lies, threats, child porn etc.?
All I can do is say again: X is not Congress and neither is, for example, my house. There are places, like this website for another example, where you are not free to say just anything.
"Free speech with conditions is not "free speech". Period." Right, just like X, my house, and right here where we are now have conditions on our speech. I bet there would be some conditions on my speech if I was at your house. I bet your mom put some conditions on your speech from time to time as well.
What you don't like is someone's rules, but do you have rules about other people using your stuff? You have to remember that Private Property is a thing too.
It's a lot better than it was,and a huge help in winning the election. If X was no holds barred,total wild west,it would get blocked in most countries and pretty much worthless,for dropping red pills.
We have to slowly shift the narrative and wake people up.
Just because you can say slurs and not get banned immediately doesn't make the platform that much better. Even then there's countless people still getting banned on X in spite of the false promises of "free speech".
Musk needs to get rid of his WEF grad CEO.
Keep thinking Twitter/X is not a corrupt woke shithole.
Musk might be an entrepreneurial genius, but he's still a lefty, he hired a WEF/deep-state plant as CEO, and his 'X' is censoring information that 'may' reflect unpositively on certain folks.
The censorship is still there.
Its merely less visible now.
Dig deep, you'll see it.
I'm in a 6 day ban right now for responding to some dolt congressman who was sucking bill gates' dick and I said he deserves death lol.
And they make u delete the post to even begin the ban
You are smarter than this Anon.
Read our sidebar to understand what our mission is both here and abroad on the interwebs.
"We do battle in the sphere of ideas and ideas only. We neither need nor condone the use of force in our work here."
Use ideas in your digital soldiering, not violent rhetoric. Expose individuals and prove guilt or culpability in scandals or conspiracies.
Never call for violence.
guess we can report people for denying the vax genocide
If the 'violent event' actually happened, and someone 'denies' it, that has nothing to do with free speech, it's lying.
Who are the arbiters of truth to determine what is and isn't real? To what extent - to what facts are we allowed to deny?
"It's lying". What a dangerous and wreckless way of thinking.
do you have an example? mine would be President Trump's assassination attempt. we all saw it, but many claim it didn't happen. they 'deny' it.
should we allow that? Or should they be held accountable for accepting tax payer dollars, but gaslighting, withholding & morphing the news.
I think an event either happens, or it doesn't. to 'deny' would be to 'lie'
it's withholding the truth, and sharing false information.
perhaps you have another way to explain what I'm missing ...
The Holocaust. Sandy Hook. Oct. 7th. The CEO assassination. The "murder" of George Floyd. Who caused 9/11.
If you deny people the will to question Trump's assassination attempt, then you deny everyone the right to criticize or question any detail in any historical event.
did I mention 'everyone' being denied... I'm not talking about 'people questioning' I'm saying the press should not be able to deny that violent events occured when there is plenty of evidence to the contrary
of course ordinary people can think whatever the f* they want, but ordinary people are not guiding public opinion, or being paid with tax dollars.
listen to JFKs speech on the press and their responsibilities to the American public.
...are you saying lying isn't protected speach?
I'm saying that the press should not be able to 'deny' that a violent event occured. They need to report the facts, not opinions on facts.
Oh, yes! Understood
🐸🇺🇸
"Free speech" never includes the right to name the Voldemort People or deny the reality of the alleged Violent Event, of which the You-Know-Whos were the most notable victims who must continue to be compensated for their horrible suffering, and their country must be forever defended by American money and firepower to make sure that the Violent Event never, ever happens again. But you will find that "Violent Event Denial" does not encompass violent acts that They Who Must Not Be Named were involved in. In fact, accusing them of having ever been involved in those acts will get you banned.
I would argue it like this... (devil's advocate, defending this wording by X): If someone from any violent event denies that it happened this could be a valid flag. However, if someone were to say a violent event didn't actually occur - like questioning it as a narrative like Sandy Hook is that actually denying the violent event? I say its not... I would argue its claiming the reporting of it hasn't been correct. It happened in that it was an event so don't deny that - but questioning things about it isn't denying it. So if someone brings up the convenient lottery winnings from some of the "victim's" families that not denying anything. Ya, ok, I'm not doing a good job of this.
There was a violent event in the gas station bathroom the other morning... smelled like it anyway...
Congress cannot Constitutionally make a law restricting my right to say what I want. X is not Congress and neither is, for example, my house. There are places, like this website for another example, where you are not free to say just anything.
"Free Speech" does not mean free-for-all-say-anything-you-want-everywhere-anytime. It never did. No offense meant to anyone but I don't understand why people don't get that.
Arguably, X is funded by the government (Elon IS the biggest government contractor, right?) Henceforth it should be compelled to abide by the constitution. Even if it wasn't, that's not even the point. This is about Elon's brazen hypocrisy and denial of what X has become since he appointed that WEF CEO.
Also, free speech DOES mean "free-for-all-say-anything-you-want-everywhere-anytime". Free speech with conditions is not "free speech." Period.
Two things here.
1.Being contracted by the government does not make you a part of the government. However, X is a US company and still has to comply with US law.
If Elon allowed these things on X, he would be subject to criminal and civil liability a.k.a. breaking the law and/or getting sued into oblivion. Even if all speech were legal, who the hell would want to visit a website with obscenity, lies, threats, child porn etc.?
All I can do is say again: X is not Congress and neither is, for example, my house. There are places, like this website for another example, where you are not free to say just anything.
"Free speech with conditions is not "free speech". Period." Right, just like X, my house, and right here where we are now have conditions on our speech. I bet there would be some conditions on my speech if I was at your house. I bet your mom put some conditions on your speech from time to time as well.
What you don't like is someone's rules, but do you have rules about other people using your stuff? You have to remember that Private Property is a thing too.