X violated its own policy by blocking First Amendment group’s ads
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
'According to X, the account had been labeled as political in 2020 "when political ads were prohibited"'(prior to Musk's takeover)
I don't see the reason for deliberately doing it.
Is this the “woke mind virus”?
Your version sounds like they just asked and the ban was lifted because it was an error.
That's not what happened.
Not X.
See also: Google/Alphabet, Blackwater/MurderInc/Whatevertheyrecallednow
Though for me personally, if someone changes their name, I usually try to call them by that name. But usually not the easiest, I admit.
Socially they are not.
I feel no social obligation to cooperate with a private for profit corporation's marketing strategy. If I ever have legal documents relating to Twitter I will use whatever their legal name is. Until then, they're Twitter.
Your lord and xavior is never going to notice you. get the fuck over it.
Writing and speech does none of those things. It may inspire people to take those actions, but that does not make it violence in and of itself.
We can discuss the morality of speech and writing that stimulates others to violent action without the coercive construction of attempting to convince people they are the same thing.
Alice tells Bob to kill Charlie. Bob murders Charlie with a knife. Bob is a moral agent and is the one who committed the violence. Alice instigated it. The questions that must be answered as to how much or how little Alice is to blame are:
1. Does Alice have authority or coercive power over Bob, making her urging carry more weight? (Was it a command that Bob had some degree of need to carry out?)
2. Is Bob's moral reasoning (will) impaired, and does Alice know this?
3. Did Alice know that her urging would result in Charlie's death?
4. Did Alice intend for Charlie to be harmed?
The answers to these questions attach guilt of varying levels to Alice. They also weigh on the punishment. If Alice is a commander ordering troops to commit war crimes, she's absolutely culpable. She has not been violent, but she is responsible.
If however, Alice is a stranger on the ground who shouts at Bob to push Charlie off a ledge at random, Bob bears the majority of the responsibility. Alice is still to blame, but Bob made the decision to act and should bear the brunt of the punishment.
This has nothing to do with free speech absolutism. It has everything to do with clarity. Yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater is not violence, but it is morally wrong, and punishable by law. Speech can cause violence, but that doesn't mean that it is violence, nor does it have to be seen as violence in order to attach blame and consequences.
Oliver Wendell Holmes was talking about handing out anti-war pamphlets as akin to "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" and thus ruled that the First Amendment didn't protect protests during wartime—a decision even today's most anti-free-speech advocates would probably disagree with. He later backtracked on it.
Using "fire in a crowded theater" to justify suppressing speech is like quoting Pope Urban VIII as support for your argument that the sun revolves around the Earth.
I don't know how Twitter will reimplement content moderation, but I'd support something like what Google has whenever somebody mentions 9-11 or COVID, etc, there is a factual blurb there to attempt to moor readers to reality.
People are monkeys. Monkey see, monkey do.
(This also implies that a spam filter that can't be configured or disabled by the user can result in censorship.)
This is only true if these companies only ever show you content from the people you have explicitly followed/subscribed to.
But suppose they write a generic algorithm that tries to show people what it think they will like. Then they find that some people like sexiness and political memes from The Other Tribe, so they modify the algorithm to not show those things to people even if it's what they want to see. Clearly and intentionally censorship.
You could even plausibly argue that not allowing the user to substitute an algorithm of their own (or one of their choosing from an independent third party) is censorship, if the only way to receive the data on that platform is through their algorithm which will not show you information that you want.