Freedom of Speech, Not Reach: An update on our enforcement philosophy
blog.twitter.com
Our mission at Twitter 2.0 is to promote and protect the public conversation. We believe Twitter users have the right to express their opinions and ideas without fear of censorship.

“Freedom of Speech, not Freedom of Reach - our enforcement philosophy which means, where appropriate, restricting the reach of Tweets that violate our policies by making the content less discoverable.”

Surprise! Our great ‘X’ CEO has brought back one more bad thing that we hated about twitter 1.0: Shadowbanning. And they’ve given it a new name: “Freedom of Speech, Not Reach”.

Perhaps the new approach by X is an improvement? At least they would “politely” tell you when you’re being shadow banned.

I think freedom of speech implies that people have the autonomy to decide what they want to see, rather than being manipulated by algorithm codes. Now it feels like they’re saying, “you can still have your microphone… We’re just gonna cut the power to it if you say something we don’t like”.

  • Brave Little Hitachi Wand@lemmy.worldEnglish
    223·
    2 years ago

    Like it or not (I don’t), free speech has nothing to do with social media. Platforms are free to do this, it’s the government that can’t limit your speech like this.

    Given those circumstances, I wonder if social media should be treated like infrastructure. That would fuse constitutional rights and the platform itself.

    • sugarfree@lemmy.worldEnglish
      322·
      2 years ago

      Free speech has nothing to do with social media or governments. Freedom of speech is a universal, natural right that has been with our species since we gained the power of speech through evolution.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldEnglish
        61·
        2 years ago

        Universal? So I can go to all of your neighbors and tell them you’re a pedophile and that’s ok?

      • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        2 years ago

        Sounds like it doesn’t matter what Twitter does then. Human history spans several thousand years, possibly ten thousand. If freedom of speech has been there throughout, then Twitter is completely inconsequential, considering free speech was doing fine literally thousands of years before it.

      • Brave Little Hitachi Wand@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        2 years ago

        You’re generally right and I have nothing to take away from that. Right now I’m talking specifically about the “law” of free speech with regard to the US Constitution.