Seemed fine to me.
If you don't like what you see on the internet, walk away, turn off your device, uninstall the app, stop visiting that address.
If you don't like what you see on the internet, walk away, turn off your device, uninstall the app, stop visiting that address.
And this is especially a problem on social media, because everyone sees a different algorithmic feed - which means I might not even know that my neigbour is being slowly radicalized. It's one thing if Tucker Carlson starts praising Putin, we can have a conversation in public about what Carlson thinks and whether Russians committing genocide should be praised. It's out in the open for us to see and discuss. But if Alex Jones' clips are being drip fed into the newsfeed of people without ever facing the scrutiny of public discourse we have a problem. This was very well established by Youtube, and eventually addressed to some extent by youtube.
Do we think Musk is going to have thought this through, or are we going to see more "Move fast break things".
I have no right to complete silence in my apartment block, but I do have a right to not have to listen to my neighbor's loud music at 3am in the morning.
I have no right to never breathe in second hand smoke, but I do have a right to not have to breath it in inside small enclosed rooms.
Our society and the law makes these kinds of trade-offs all the time.
Also, the issue isn't people having to read the speech, it is the speech negatively impacting people (sometimes severely if you are an Asian person that just got knifed on the street) in indirect ways. There is this false belief that speech can't be mortally harmful unless it's a direct call to violence, which I hope we can dispense with since the evidence doesn't line up with that narrative.
"Harm" is very fuzzy though. Twitter's extremophiles call reading something they don't like "genocide". So basically, anything is harm. Harm can be real, imagined, perceived, understated, overstated, direct, indirect, grasping at straws.
Further, any matter of importance or division has no clear-cut right or wrong. There's always a gray zone.
What I advocate for is basically what we have now. Non-governmental, voluntary and minimal censorship of things that are likely to cause outsized harm in the real world. Also called moderation. I want these platforms to voluntarily remove ISIS propaganda, outright hate speech, election misinformation, and a few other categories, and otherwise allow open discourse. These are all slippery slopes (especially election misinformation removal), but that shouldn't resign us to simply throw up our hands and allow Kremlin propaganda to destabilize democracies.
But here's the thing: you aren't qualified to act as the arbiter of what constitutes 'misinformation'. No one is.
You may rail against this because asserting an (unearned) claim over objective reality - what is true and what is false - is advantageous in spreading narratives favor to your personal interest. But let's be clear: that's all it is, and that's all it will ever be.