Hacker News Reader

Comment by davidmurdoch | Hacker News Reader

I'm guessing you're not a huge proponent of free speech?

Community Notes seems to be highly effective at combatting misinformation, at least of the most popular tweets.

> Community Notes seems to be highly effective at combatting misinformation, at least of the most popular tweets.

It doesn't, millions of people see it before community notes show up. Musk is sharing fake news himself[1]. This is dangerous, this impacts people emotions and their actions.

1. https://www.politico.eu/article/elon-musk-share-fake-news-uk...

So what do you propose? We can't just shut off the Internet?

Well you bin the biggest shitheads on the site and make it hard for them to make new accounts. It’s probably impossible to fix but he’s clearly not trying to fix it at all

It’s 2024 and we’re all quite “online” people who are aware how Elon is operating Twitter. Let’s not feign ignorance here.

Who decides who the shitheads are? Do you expect people to self organize, or maybe the US government just gets to choose who to silence again?

I still remember when Elon was threatening to change how the block function works and how he got a community note saying that Apple's App Store rules would prohibit it, even though they said nothing about it.

Good stuff.

> I'm guessing you're not a huge proponent of free speech?

Is Musk such a proponent? His professed absolutist views have been shown to be a lie and farce many times over

Eh, better than Jack Dorsey, and almost certainly better than the government of Brazil and the UK.

He’s made “cisgender” a banned word, c’mon

I don't think he did. I just tweeted with the word and it's getting views and some engagement

If you ban slurs against minorities you should ban slurs against majorities. And, yes, c**ender is a slur. It's only ever used by its opponents and in a negative context.

> And, yes, c*ender is a slur. It's only ever used by its opponents and in a negative context.

What on earth... "Cisgender" is as much of a slur as "cislunar" or "cisalpine". And who are "its opponents"? The opponents of being cisgender? Are you trying to suggest that trans people are against the existence of cis people? Have you considered spending less time on Twitter?

It's used as an insult it to make fun of people over on TikTok sometimes. It's typically just harmless in-group banter not directly aimed at someone, but it occasionally leaks over to "the other side" and people get mad.

Just because you randomly use as aster*sks doesn't make the world a slur.

No, it's not used only in negative contexts.

update: my tweets using "cis" and "cisgender" both got slightly more views and engagement than my usual posts.

ya, he/she preferred it when the nypost couldnt share a real article about hunter biden's laptop. I honestly cant believe people want to live in a world where anything (beyond the obvious illegal content like child porn, slander etc) is censored. If you dont like, it ignore it.

Please clearly define what you mean when you say "free speech." It's an overloaded term that confuses people every time I see it in this context.

I don't support the artificial broadcast/amplification of content that is hateful, bigoted, misinformation, etc to thousands or millions of people that otherwise wouldn't see it, were it not for an algorithm that picks it up due to it generating more eyeballs to sell advertisements to.

If we, as a society, can manage to muster the courage to regulate social media algorithms, then we can start talking broadly about free speech rights. Until then, people who want to post vile garbage should be banned permanently and forever from participating in social media sites that use unregulated and opaque algorithms. They are, of course, still free to post whatever they want on their own sites, blogs, or on social media that doesn't make use of opaque algorithms (e.g. some Fediverse sites).

I mean it in the context of being able to criticize the US government and its officials. I think that's what most from the US think is why free speech is so important.

Hate speech is a slippery slope that I'm not knowledgeable enough in to speak to more in depth.

Who is preventing someone from criticizing the US government? Maybe I’m dense but I don’t understand what that has to do with anything being discussed here.

Also, once again, even if you’re banned from saying something on social media, no free speech rights (in any sense of the term) are lost. You are free to say it elsewhere via a mechanism that does not give you automatic free reach.

The context of the whole conversation is related to the Brazilian government silencing it's opponents:

> Brazil’s Supreme Court has drastically expanded its power to counter the antidemocratic stances of Mr. Bolsonaro and his supporters.

https://archive.is/plQFT

Being allowed to criticize our government (and any government) is precisely the "free speech" Americans hold dear. Brazil doesn't seem to find that to be of value, hence the comment I made in response to someone saying X should comply with the government of Brazil: "I'm guessing you're not a huge proponent of free speech".

So you were talking about the ability for people to criticize the Brazilian government, not the US government as you stated. Brazil is not the US and free speech protections there are not the same as they are in the US.

Regardless, I don’t believe the removal of content from one washed-up spammy social media site constitutes an infringement of free speech, in any sense of the term.

No, I'm talking about the free speech values pioneered by the first amendment of the US. Constitution, and that these values are notable especially because we can criticize our government (and any) freely.

The commenter I originally replied to was suggesting that the Brazilian government's self appointed power to silence it's oppressors is acceptable.

The context of the original article is that X is leaving Brazil because the people there that work for X are at risk of being arrested and jailed for what people are saying about the Brazilian government and officials.

If you stand up for a government that silences it's opposition I'm going to believe you don't support even the most basic core tenets of free speech (as set forth in the first amendment of the US Constitution).

They’re tenets, not tenants, and I don’t think you understand what I’m saying at all so I hope you have a good day.

Edited to add: For the record, I support Twitter’s move to leave Brazil. Also, you’re welcome to believe whatever incorrect things you want about me.

Sorry, I'm on my phone using voice dictation and didn't proof read thoroughly enough. Fixed the typo. Thanks.

I didn't reply to this:

> I don’t believe the removal of content from one washed-up spammy social media site constitutes an infringement of free speech, in any sense of the term.

because you're making a generalization on the broader topic. But in this case the government of Brazil believes that what is said on a washed up spammy social media site is problematic to the continuation of their power, and it's willing to jail those who not only say these things, but also those who allow it to be said.

I think it seems like the government here disagrees with you. Do you not agree, or am I still missing your point?

All americans are going to be censored on TikTok by the government tho.

Ah, that was last month. Kamala loves TikTok now that she's learned she can use it as a propaganda machine while China slowly molds the youth of America. /sarcasm

Oh, so your enemies using social networks is a propaganda machine? What a bastion of free speech.

EDIT: Yes, I saw your misuse of /sarcasm, which only reinforced your disdain for TikTok, China, Kamala Harris and free speech.

I can't tell if you didn't see my sarcasm tag, or if you just don't know what sarcasm is.

You might be confusing me with someone else.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com