“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”.
He never was, that was just an excuse to amplify the voice of his far-right buddies.
I know. It was more about what he said.
deleted by creator
I’m not so sure about that. The big tell is that whenever a far-right user complained to him about getting a tweet removed or the account getting banned or something like that, he’d respond that he’ll personally take care of it. Just imagine, a billionare running a platform with millions of users personally taking care of a single one. This never happened with other people.
deleted by creator
Example: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FgKSQUrXoAABPWi.jpg
I agree with your assessment. I’m not claiming that he has a plan of any sorts, things just happen in a spur of the moment. However, that’s also the appeal of the far-right. It doesn’t need research or having a solid base of knowledge to base their opinions on, it’s just random stuff these people read on the Internet that feels good to them.
This seems more accurate somehow
Freedom of (my) speech.
I wish I was free from his speech, specifically.
deleted by creator