As did Russian opposition leader Alexey Navalny: <a href="https://mobile.twitter.com/navalny/status/1347969772177264644" rel="nofollow">https://mobile.twitter.com/navalny/status/134796977217726464...</a>
I've often heard people claiming that twitter/facebook/etc. can be considered public forums .. and as much of a stretch as it is, I'm inclined to agree. This is where people get their news. It is kind of like to taking a TV station off the air due to their political leanings. Tbh I've tuned out the news in the last few months for my own sanity so I might not have all the info to hold a strong opinion. Always good to default to freedom of speech though, the most sacred thing we have.<p>Looking back on the last few years, the most disappointing thing in society is the intolerance and tribalism. I bet if people were to state their own opinions, without any outside influence, we would all be at each other's throats given the current state of affairs. You don't agree with me on X so fuck you, where X >= petty. I have friends with varying political leanings but we seem to be the exception -- when did the slightest differences in political opinion become devastating deal breakers? You don't support BLM? You're an awful person. You want to ban guns? Burn in hell. These could otherwise be nice people that you could be friendly with. Has it always been this bad or has the internet underscored the black-and-white nature of politics?
The real dilemma to me sounds like what we define as freedom of speech in the first place?<p>If we say let anyone say anything, we end up with someone encouraging discrimination or even genocide.<p>From the other side if we introduce restrictions on what's allowed to say and what's not, who decides black and white?<p>Even if we build a trustworthy system for decisions, what about gray areas? E.g. antivaxxers. Their efforts might make people die. Indirectly. But it can happen. If antivaxxers are banned, should we do the same for flatearthers?
"ALL censorship is bad, free speech is good. Counter bad arguments with good arguments" has long been the consensus, but when applied it has fundamentally failed. You don't have reasoned debates with people that have been brainwashed into cults, and who cannot tell the difference between truth and fiction. There are demonstrated dangers, recently and throughout history, of allowing certain people (particularly violent and powerful people) to have unlimited, unrestrained free speech.<p>Saying that Twitter should not be allowed to ban Trump is taking away Twitter's free speech rights to decide who they want to have in their community and on their private, non governmental platform. If you disagree with that, you are proposing to regulate Twitter as a public utility that will be able to censor Twitter's right to do that. But even without that, inciting riots and threatening people was never considered protected speech anyways, and that's exactly what he was doing with his account.<p>What's happened on Twitter instead, is that instead of banning him long ago for violating their policies multiple times over, they've in fact protected him unduly as he does things that would have gotten other people removed from the platform and probably sued or arrested a long time ago. He has in fact gotten more free speech rights than other people have.<p>This shouldn't surprise anyone that has studied American history. Free speech laws disproportionately empower people of means of using them, and much less people like their victims. The flavor of free speech in this country I'm told to unconditionally believe in was conceived by landholders and plantation owners. How much freedom of speech did Thomas Jefferson's slaves have? Unconditional "free speech", which thanks to Citizens United now includes money, still principally serves the Masters: the rich and powerful, the owners, far more than it will ever serve their victims. We don't do free speech or it's victims any favors by whitewashing the history of free speech, who disproportionately benefits from it, and who are the victims of it.<p>I'm not opposed to "free speech", but the tech crowd needs to get a lot better about understanding that there are nuances and complexities to it, and stop treating it like a religious edict that has to be worshiped unconditionally. They need to understand that applying it in a pure form can lead to outcomes that are dangerous to our safety and our society. If 2020 hasn't made this crystal clear, I really don't know what else I can do to convince people of this. I can't even eat at restaurants anymore.
I will say this it's a good sing, that twitter did the right call.<p>I'm from Mexico, and the current president it's the definition of a demagogue. All word days, he spends 2 hours of his time in a press conference to his achievements and attacking opponents (not only other politicians, but the press that speaks about scandals of his party).<p>Despite presenting himself as a "leftist", AMLO it's closer to Trump or Bolsonaro, that to Trudeau or Jacinda Ardern. To them freedom of speech, it's "talking without facing the consequences of their words".<p>Relevant xkcd <a href="https://xkcd.com/1357/" rel="nofollow">https://xkcd.com/1357/</a>
> "When do we beat Mexico at the border? They're laughing at us, at our stupidity. And now they are beating us economically. They are not our friend, believe me."<p>- Donald Trump, during his presidential bid [1]<p>[1] - <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/06/16/full-text-donald-trump-announces-a-presidential-bid/" rel="nofollow">https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/06...</a>
Am I the only one being very smug about all this? Not only am I glad the president is gone, but watching everyone who otherwise defends free markets tooth and nail get mad when the free market does what it's supposed to do is very gratifying also.