No!
…. basically no control over hate speech, lies and conspiracies is giving me goose bumps (more than it does already). This is one of the things that causes the problems of todays world, and my understanding is that he wants to extend this even further.
Free speech should not be suppressed in my opinion, and the decision to listen to it should be up to the individual. Ignoring or taking steps to suppress a different viewpoint will only widen the division. In addition, “Hate speech”, “conspiracies” and “misinformation” will end up equating to anything a majority deem as such.
An example: you personally witness a murder and you try to report to authorities the person who’s responsible. However, 10 other people contradicts your truthful report and make it seem as if you were purposely spreading misinformation.
Believe it or not, but some people don’t want certain truths to be told. You can best believe “some” things currently labeled as misinformation is indeed the truth. ….
Free Speech doesn't apply to private websites. The First Amendment only applies to the government.
Who determines what is hate speech, lies, conspiracies? You would be an extraordinary individual if your “goose bumps” seemingly only applied to everything that’s honest, benevolent and doesn’t counter what is conventionally believed.
This may be shocking to hear but conventionally believed truths, that which is hateful, that which is a “conspiracy” ended up ultimately as important changes for humanity. What was also ultimately important for humanity is when all institutions and powerful said X, a few lone voices said Y. But I suppose as long as lone voices that said Y can first be filtered through what you, the powerful and the institutional think shouldn’t be said, it’ll be great for us all.
Already when typing this, I expected replies like 'no limits on free speech!', 'who decides on hate speech or lies or conspiracies' etc. etc.No!
Any more unconditional 'free speech', plus the retweet feature, plus basically no control over hate speech, lies and conspiracies is giving me goose bumps (more than it does already). This is one of the things that causes the problems of todays world, and my understanding is that he wants to extend this even further.
And it doesn’t apply to any other country where Twitter operates.
The first Amendment to my homeland’s Constitution has nothing to do with “freedom of speech”. It has to do with the rights of the Indigenous peoples (post-1982) and territorial changes (pre-1982).
In regards to me, the freedom of expression is a relative freedom enshrined in the the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (to which Royal Assent was given 40 years ago today ). And it still applies to the interactions between persons (natural or moral) and the Crown (understand here, State).
——
On a different, but related note, does Musk want to deal with legislative changes like this one: https://www.socialmedialawbulletin....-social-media-companies-and-streaming-giants/ and https://justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/charter-charte/c10.html.
Bill C-10 died when the writs were dropped (I love that name) in August 2021, but it is likely to come back in a reviewed form.
And Canada isn’t alone, the ECJ already ruled that social media content is subject to laws of every country: https://www.independent.ie/business...-all-banned-or-defamatory-posts-38559877.html
My conclusion: If you want to have a daily headache, buy Twitter, and be ready to have your own hands tied because you’re doing business in hundreds of countries.
——
Edit - 2022-04-17 at 20:53 UTC: The goal of my post is to bring a perspective not centred on the United States of America. More often than not, it seems (to me) that some people seem to extend the USA to the rest of the globe.
Who determines what is hate speech, lies, conspiracies?
And it doesn’t apply to any other country where Twitter operates.
The first Amendment to my homeland’s Constitution has nothing to do with “freedom of speech”. It has to do with the rights of the Indigenous peoples (post-1982) and territorial changes (pre-1982).
In regards to me, the freedom of expression is a relative freedom enshrined in the the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (to which Royal Assent was given 40 years ago today ). And it still applies to the interactions between persons (natural or moral) and the Crown (understand here, State).
——
On a different, but related note, does Musk want to deal with legislative changes like this one: https://www.socialmedialawbulletin....-social-media-companies-and-streaming-giants/ and https://justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/charter-charte/c10.html.
Bill C-10 died when the writs were dropped (I love that name) in August 2021, but it is likely to come back in a reviewed form.
And Canada isn’t alone, the ECJ already ruled that social media content is subject to laws of every country: https://www.independent.ie/business...-all-banned-or-defamatory-posts-38559877.html
My conclusion: If you want to have a daily headache, buy Twitter, and be ready to have your own hands tied because you’re doing business in hundreds of countries.
——
Edit - 2022-04-17 at 20:53 UTC: The goal of my post is to bring a perspective not centred on the United States of America. More often than not, it seems (to me) that some people seem to extend the USA to the rest of the globe.