this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2025

91 points (96.0% liked)

Technology

37690 readers

317 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.

Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.

Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

MinutePhrase@lemmy.ml

They Criticized Musk on X. Then Their Reach Collapsed. (www.nytimes.com)

submitted 11 hours ago by psychothumbs@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.ml

15 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 15 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] tfm@europe.pub 4 points 3 hours ago

If you are still on this platform, you are part of the problem. No excuses.

[–] gargolito@lemm.ee 38 points 10 hours ago

It's almost like free speech absolutism is bullshit.

[–] Manmoth@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 hours ago

Reminds me of COVID

[–] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.ml 9 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Never expect free speech (or other constitutional protections) in a private forum, which is one reason the right is always gung-ho for privatization.

[–] koper@feddit.nl 2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

*in the US.

The EU recognizes that human right such as freedom of speech also should be protected against private parties. Platforms can't ban or restrict you for arbitrary reasons here.

[–] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.ml 3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Link to that? I don't see any such protections except for children and some for journalists. Nothing saying you can't be banned if they want.

https://epthinktank.eu/2024/06/28/regulating-social-media-what-is-the-european-union-doing-to-protect-social-media-users/

https://www.thejournal.ie/social-media-audits-digital-services-act-6151679-Aug2023/

[–] koper@feddit.nl 5 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

Sure. For the fact that many jurisdictions outside of the US also consider freedom of speech and other human rights to apply between private parties: this is called "horizontal effect" and covered extensively in case law by e.g. the European Court of Human Rights. See also this chapter for an international comparison and this paper for a European perspective.

As for the specific rules in the EU for platforms: Article 17 of the Digital Services Act requires that users who are banned or shadowbanned from any platform are provided with specific information of what rule they broke, which they can then appeal internally or in court. Article 34 and 35 requires very large platforms (such as X) to take broad measures to protect i.a. the users' freedom of speech.

More to the point, one person who was shadowbanned by X in a similar way used the DSA and won in court

(Edited to add the last paragraph)

[+] jeena@piefed.jeena.net -23 points 11 hours ago (3 children)

So what, it's his platform, he can do whatever he wants on it, he paid a lot of money for it.

I really don't get why this would upset anyone, he is not forcing you to use his platform.

[–] balder1991@lemmy.world 10 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

it's his platform, he can do whatever he wants on it, he paid a lot of money for it. […] I really don't get why this would upset anyone

lol

Champions “free speech” to justify buying Twitter in a legitimate way.
Wins over idealists who think they’re fighting for openness, calling it a “public square”, “Greek Agora” etc.
Bans critics and content he just doesn’t align with.
Gets called out.
“Whoa whoa, I meant my free speech. The rest of you? Peasants.”
People leave the platform: “I don’t get why this upsets anyone, it’s his platform”.

This reminds me of the behavior most common in subreddits such as /r/Bitcoin, we can even put it side by side:

Step 1: Preach a grand ideal — “X is the free speech Agora!” / “Bitcoin is your path to financial freedom!”
Step 2: Rally support by moralizing it — “If you’re against this, you’re against liberty!” / “Only fools ignore Bitcoin!”
Step 3: When the consequences hit — censorship or market crashes — suddenly the ideal becomes personal: “It’s his platform, he can do whatever he wants.” / “You fool! You shouldn’t have invested more than you can afford to lose.”

[–] jeena@piefed.jeena.net 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

You're misunderstanding what I wrote, because:

People leave the platform: “I don’t get why this upsets anyone, it’s his platform”.

Is exactly the opposite of what I was trying to say with:

he is not forcing you to use his platform

you can just leave, there are so many alternatives available, if you don't then you are part of the problem, giving him power and putting more money into his pockets. In fact you should have seen the writing on the wall many years ago and latest when he bought it.

Being upset about this now after he did so many worse things is just silly.

[–] blinx615@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 hours ago

Upset? I think we're all just reveling in his pain.

[–] Firipu@startrek.website 22 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

"Twitter should be the global town square"

"free speech absolutist"

"make humor great again"

"leftists are snowflakes"

Sure, he doesn't force anyone to use Twitter. It's still unfortunately the de facto communication platform for a lot of government agencies. It's still an important tool for the world. Let's hope some large governments (EU? Please?) grow balls and leave Twitter alltogether...

This is absolutely newsworthy and worth being upset about.

[–] doeknius_gloek@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

I mean, calling out Musks hypocrisy is not a bad thing per se, but is it really news?

At the end of the day a lot of people choose to remain on a platform that got bought by an gigantic asshole, who can now do whatever he wants with it. That's how it works and being upset about it just shows that many users are either naive or delusional. Twitter can't be saved, there's nothing left.

Combined with the fact that most Lemmy users probably know about this and already chose alternative platforms a long time ago, articles like these rarely cause more than a shrug, at least for me.

But hey, if it get's a few more people off of twitter (especially like large institutions as you mentioned), I won't complain. As time passes I just tend to think that everyone who still stays on Twitter maybe belongs there.

[–] Firipu@startrek.website 2 points 9 hours ago

Fair enough. It's still more news than the endless reporting major news websites do (I'm looking at you bbc) about his fucking tweets.

But I can see your point that it's not very newsworthy on Lemmy (nor is this new btw, he has done similar shit before)

[–] koper@feddit.nl 5 points 9 hours ago

I'm of the opinion that having a lot of money shouldn't, in fact, allow you to do what you want. No person should have this power to do mass censorship, not in the last place because manipulating online discourse means manipulating a fundamental aspect of democracy.

Musk specifically is meddling in elections, both in the EU and the US by e.g. bribing voters. Turning the dials of the algorithm lets him do this even more effectively.