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 to Increase Tweet Character Limit to 4,000, Elon Musk Says
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think some people find it nefarious because they don't believe the TOS guidelines or claims were being applied evenly and fairly and therefore Twitter was misrepresenting the platform to its users and advertisers.
That would be more about self-censoring which is different than what is being discussed here regarding Twitter.
Suppressing, deleting, etc. someone’s account or tweet can be viewed as censorship and that’s what Twitter does.
If Twitter censors people in a way that doesn't follow its own TOS, product/service claims, etc. than it can be viewed as unfair and misrepresenting the service to its users and advertisers.
The entire ElonJet thing, much to Elons chagrin, is showing us how this all works.
Elon booted him from Twitter (because he can -- it's a private platform), but there's still active discussion on a reddit sub, tracking on Mastodon, a direct web link to the publicly available tracking data, probably a private web site with links, etc
i.e. Elon can shut down ElonJetGuy on his own private platform (Twitter), but he can't suffocate his speech elsewhere. It's working exactly as it should.
The part that isn't "as it should be" is just that Elon has been (purposely I think) misusing the term "free speech". That's not what he's opening up on Twitter. He's banning whoever and whatever he wants. He's made Twitter his little play thing and nothing about its operation now is about creating a zone of "free speech"
Elon booted him from Twitter (because he can -- it's a private platform), but there's still active discussion on a reddit sub, tracking on Mastodon, a direct web link to the publicly available tracking data, probably a private web site with links, etc
i.e. Elon can shut down ElonJetGuy on his own private platform (Twitter), but he can't suffocate his speech elsewhere. It's working exactly as it should.
The part that isn't "as it should be" is just that Elon has been (purposely I think) misusing the term "free speech". That's not what he's opening up on Twitter. He's banning whoever and whatever he wants. He's made Twitter his little play thing and nothing about its operation now is about creating a zone of "free speech"
Last edited:
Welp so much for that ‘freedom of speech’ on Twitter promise. Like all his promises and visions they always end up broken.
The terms and conditions seems to be ‘If you offend the thin skinned manbaby he will ban you and all his critics.’
The terms and conditions seems to be ‘If you offend the thin skinned manbaby he will ban you and all his critics.’
What is his goal?
Musk spent a buttload of his own money... and he borrowed enough money that he now owes a billion dollars a year in interest alone... and he tanked the value of his other company Tesla.
Mission accomplished?
🤔
Great. Some people believe something. I'll file that next to flat earth theory.
Did old Twitter apply rules unevenly? Of course! They weren't perfect. They had millions of posts in a bunch of countries and languages with many, many edge cases.
Does Musk Twitter apply rules unevenly? Of course! They aren't perfect. They have millions of posts in a bunch of countries and languages with many, many edge cases.
To call one free speech and one censorship is silly. Both are moderating based on their own judgment.
Not at all. Burger King chooses what get said by other people in it ads. Again, no reasonable person talks about how Burger King is censoring people by only choosing to include people that say nice things about it.
The only reason they choose to call what Twitter does "censorship" is because on the negative connotation of the word. Similarly, the same people call Musk's Twitter, which also moderates people, "free speech". If you want to have a rational discussion, try and use neutral words that don't beg the question.
Private site. He can do that if he wants. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech. He was blowing smoke up your behind when he said that BS.
“Censor” is still not the correct word in this context. Unfair? Sure. Misrepresenting? Hard to say. Have you read Twitter’s TOS? Doesn’t seem like it.
Musk : I support free speech maximalism
Muskrats : Yay we can post hate speech and troll people!!!
Musk critics : You’re a fraud and a man child who uses a jet to travel 20 miles.
Musk : Banning all my critics how dare you threaten my family and my child X138473@bdkC3PO.
Muskrats:
Again, many people feel (hence all of the discussions, debates, etc.) that old Twitter and new Twitter unfairly have censored and/or are censoring user accounts and content. It is far from a "flat earth" theory has there appears to be plenty of evidence that is has happened and is still happening.
Burger King would not be censoring by not including Big Mac content in their ads. At best, their are SELF-censoring (themselves) which is not the same as censoring (others).
A definition of censor is to suppress or delete something considered objectionable, unacceptable, undesirable, etc. and can refer to actions by a government or private company. If Twitter has been suppressing or deleting such content then they have been censoring that content. That's the "context" I am using.
Alternatively, "Twitter's enforcement of its moderation policies is inconsistent." More accurate. Less inflammatory.
The are certainly "others" in commercials. You're proving my point. No one would discuss this situation as a censorship issue.
That's not the point. The point is you're choosing to use a word with a negative connotation in order to beg the question. Humans are by definition animals and things. But if someone goes around referring to people as animals or things, they're being an ass.
Continually framing it as if you’re a victim of censorship is ridiculous. What you’re seeing is moderation. Really bad, inconsistent and in some cases straight up offensive moderation, but moderation none the less. No matter how often Musk yammers about free speech and censorship, he’s still completely full of crap and looking to snow people who don’t fully comprehend these terms.
And again: it isn’t possible for Twitter to censor anyone. Take president Trump for example. He was banned. He went and starred his own version of Twitter. He hasn’t been silenced. He hasn’t been censored.
Another example: if you browse multiple Apple/Mac related forums you’ll come across disgruntled people who were banned from one forum or another complaining about how they got censored or suppressed. Neither is true in that case either. They were simply denied service to a specific site at the discretion of the owners of that site.
If you want Twitter to be a public square that enjoys protections for freedom of speech then it would have to become a utility, be free for anyone to use and be regulated by the federal government. Just like ANY public space. As long as it’s a private company they can allow or deny anyone access to the service that they want, regardless of whether anyone feels it’s “fair” or not.
Last edited by a moderator:
The correct spelling is arse. An ass is a donkey. A donkey is an ass that has an arse. So what is an arse? An arse is a very wealthy tech CEO who makes themselves look like the arse of an ass in real time 20 hours a day.
Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.
He can bemoan whatever he wants. We can ridicule his bemoaning. That is free speech.
He can exclude whomever he wants from using his service, for whatever dumb reason he wants, or not provide one at all. We do not have to use his service, again, for any reason we choose, or none at all. That is free speech.
Because they get it mixed up (understandably) with court judgements against denying service in private businesses for other reasons. If Twitter doesn't have to post my ramblings, why does Woolworths have to serve me at the lunch counter or Joe Baker have to make my wedding cake?
You can't delete speech, and private companies can't censor. Correct for those and it's less interesting.
If you read carefully and thoroughly enough, you will find a catch-all term to the effect "Twitter has final say on all content and service", which is the equivalent of the "right to refuse service" sign found in many physical businesses. It doesn't have to be "fair".
Under Federal law a business cannot systemically refuse service for certain protected classes--race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. I don't see anything about the content of speech in there, but if you think otherwise, take them to court.