Again, I think it's a stretch. However, do you agree that being active on Twitter/X with one or more accounts, posting, reposting, replying, paying for gold check verification, etc. is "contributing" to Twitter/X a lot more? Many major corporations do just that including Apple. Are you saying that all of these companies therefore agree with Musk and support the direction Twitter/X is going?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Twitter Finally Turns to 'X' on Apple's App Store
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Again, I think it's a stretch. However, do you agree that being active on Twitter/X with one or more accounts, posting, reposting, replying, paying for gold check verification, etc. is "contributing" to Twitter/X a lot more? Many major corporations do just that including Apple. Are you saying that all of these companies therefore agree with Musk and support the direction Twitter/X is going?
Paid ads (or commercials) are labeled as such with "Ad" in the top right corner. Also, Twitter/X allows you to tell them you’'e not interested in that ad, report the ad, mute or block content from that advertiser, etc.
I don’t know why you’re so caught up on this “what’s worse” scenario. I’ve explained what my issue is with embeds and my request for publications to stop that.
(1) If you're not seeing white supremacists and nazis on Twitter then you must not be using it much, or must not be looking very hard - because it's everywhere, and far worse since Musk took over;
(2) Characterizing the rejection of neo-Nazi white supremacy as "intolerance with [sic] opposing viewpoints" is absolutely bizarre. This is not like having an academic disagreement over sales tax policies. Not all "viewpoints" are entitled to bandwidth or tolerance.
As I mentioned in another post, I mostly follow sports and tech. I have literally never seen a racist or Nazi post, before or after Musk took over. I'll take your word there are some. They certainly never appear on any feed I see.
While I utterly and completely despise what the nuts who believe in white supremacy stand for, people have a right to post their opinions, even if I strongly disagree with it. And remember, people were banned for lots of viewpoints. We were told that the "science" on vaccines was settled, covid did come from the lab in China, that vaccines had no side effects and would stop the spread of covid and masks worked. Many people were banned for questioning some of these.
So while you may find it bizarre to tolerate a viewpoint you disagree with, you'd might feel vastly differently if the "collective" decided your opinion needed to be silenced.
Last edited by a moderator:
Exactly. As I said before: white nationalists and racists are bad. Deplatforming them is good. These shouldn’t be especially controversial statements.
Furthermore, of course it’s manifestly obvious that these types of accounts have exploded on Twitter/X. Not only have I documented it, I have these things called eyes.
So yeah. Just a second vote for the “some viewpoints shouldn’t be tolerated” position.
Last edited:
They are controversial to some, not because they agree with some nuts on the fringe, but because of the slippery slope it opens. Who decides who should be de-platformed or not? Should Antifa be banned from social media? After all, banning anarchy and violence should't be particularly controversial. How about BLM because of the damage and injuries caused during the protests? That shouldn't be controversial either. There are countless examples across all ideologies that aren't especially controversial. Who decides?
I wonder how many years it’ll take before people start referring to it as ‘X’ instead of Twitter? It’s a strong brand and synonymous for what it is and I don’t think it’s easy to change the reference.
Anyone else noticed increase of bots on "X" lately?
If you have to ask why nazis are bad, well omg.
No, they do not have a right. Nazis have the right to nonviolent expression on government property in the United States, hate speech excepted. There is no right to post on a private social network. There is a privilege extended to users and the owner of that network has the right to restrict membership based on adherence to certain guidelines.
“You will not advocate for the destruction of non-white people” seems a reasonable guideline to me.
Are you suggesting that in order to allow people who complained surgical masks tickled their noses back into a social network we need to also readmit groups who claim entire lineages of people are subhuman and should be expelled or exterminated?
Because how can we find a line between them?
None of those are equivalent to RACISTS and supporters of white nationalist terrorism.
You had said “they are controversial to some”, I don’t think “some” is a good choice of words. And I don’t think a group made to advance rights of oppressed people is in any way similar. Giving any hate/terrorist group a platform is dangerous and intolerable as these sort of fanatics only seek to remove the freedoms of others. It is a fact that musk has platformed and boosted these fanatics, and it has nothing to do with freedom of speech as musks twitter “censors” more than they did before he took it over. He recently defended a user who posted csam, and un-suspended the account. And now he’s thrown away 16 years of brand recognition in one of the dumbest corporate moments ever by renaming it “X”. It’s no longer a tweet, it’s a generic “post”. So where is twitter? Seems pretty dead to me, musk didn’t improve it, he wrecked it and than chose to rebrand it into something else. It’s now “X”, and he has no qualms about using it to interfere in elections around the world at the whim of every dictator. This shouldn’t even be allowed ffs.
Just wait. Musk will (I’m guessing) sell the Twitter brand to someone else.
We’ve been over this point several times with the Musk defenders but clearly it deserves emphasis.
Twitter/X is a privately owned site. Just like MacRumors. Does anyone posting HERE have the expectation that they can say anything they like because of “free speech”?? No! Of course not! The terms of service for this site do not include “it’s your free speech platform.” Twitter/X is the EXACT SAME THING. Just like this site, Twitter can allow or disallow anything (legal) they choose. They can provide or deny service to anyone they choose.
This notion that any of this has to do with the US Constitution’s definition of free speech is just asinine nonsense. This isn’t about free speech. It’s about one man’s egregiously bad management of the company and the resulting social fallout.
And by the way. If a person can’t tell the difference between legitimate free speech and hateful racist and authoritarian incitement then the problem is with them, not the moderators of such content.
There is no gray area when it comes to racist and white nationalist content. Suggesting there is seems disingenuous.
Musk’s comment came in response to a question about whether or not there’s “ever a reason to block” someone rather than mute them. “Block is going to be removed as a ‘feature,’ except for DMs,” he said. “It makes no sense.”
At this point, who cares? I mean, Twitter as a valid platform is already dead and the race is on to replace it.