Well actually it's not is it. Even Gab and Parler have/had rules, albeit lax ones, they just can't enforce them. If you actually were aware of the definition of free speech you'd understand it doesn't mean 'say what you like at any time, anywhere, without consequence'. If you do think that's what it is, then you'll always be disappointed.

And, frankly, they're all part of a marketplace. They're businesses. You're free to choose a platform that doesn't have enforced rules and allows you to say anything you like unchecked. Twitter isn't government. It's a business. Don't like it? Go somewhere else.

Ironically a lot of those bleating about it being heavily left biased are jumping ship to heavily right biased sites. Which is fine, it's a marketplace, your decision.

And I'm not terrified at all. I just feel that if you can't create a platform that is capable of moderating itself properly, then don't be surprised at the outcome.

Twitter and Facebook are the same – impossible to moderate billions of tweets with a few hundred thousand moderators. That is the big issue with social media, and why we're here, talking about this. But at least they attempt to do so, and at least the content is more diverse than the above mentioned platforms. It's not the sole output.

Finally, even if Twitter etc. were able to properly moderate according to their rules... you'd end up with Gab anyway, as more people would be banned, kicked off or prevented from posting vitriol. And you'd also end up with the exact opposite, a left leaning version of Gab with exactly the same content on it. So really it makes little difference.

Essentially, don't post violent s*** and you'll be fine, on any platform. Problem is most people can't have a debate without resorting to it because they simply don't have the tools, so they get frustrated and reach for the bluntest one. A tool.

Edited by SW19 CPFC (14 Jan 2021 12.23pm)

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

Yep, but many conveniently forget about that. It’s always been one rule for some, different rules for the many.

Ok boomer.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

By it's inherent nature, free speech cannot be contained within the rules you have set up above. And as Eaglecoops pointed out those rules are one sided. Why can I not come down on you like a tonne of bricks because you refuse to accept the election's fraud?
If you want a level playing field It should work both ways but even then you can't call it free speech.
As for your points about measuring censorship and making comparisons between the different platforms, it doesn't matter, does it? Each platform wishes to suppress the truth so they're all as bad as each other. Sorry - I should've added "I think" to that last sentence.

His point is that with such a huge backlog of flagged posts they are either in the business of intentionally not removing troubling or illegal content, or they are ill-equipped to do so. And both lead to the same kind of outcome. The result is certainly freedom of expression, but it will have a biased towards being skewing towards illegality (endless person specific death threats, illegal uploads and so on) over time if people know they can get away with it. Pr-0nhub recently had a similar situation [Link] Hopefully that shines a light on naive takes on what happens when platforms are not appropriately moderated and some of the inevitable consequences of it.

Edited by BlueJay (14 Jan 2021 4.28pm)

No it can't entirely, but it does operate under some boundaries, always has done. You don't say some things in public that you'd say in private now do you? Why do you expect to be able to say things on a public forum, anonymously, that you know you wouldn't risk saying in a public space? No different.

The 'rules' have always been one sided. It's nothing new... People need to be led and power structures need to exist in order for some semblance of civilisation to operate. It's human need and nature. So complaining about that beyond the realms of realism is a little rich.

Also – define 'you' re. 'tonne of bricks'. You're free to do so, but if you come to that party spewing vitriol without credible facts or evidence then don't be disappointed when you get swatted away, sued or worse. Even now you're still talking in absolutes despite the simple fact that nothing significant has been upheld in a court of law.

If you then decide to set up a website posting faux journalistic articles that have no traceability in fact and begin aggressively marketing it to drive income... then expect to be challenged. If you have nothing behind those articles other than 'well I think it's true so there' then what, exactly, do you think is going to happen?

I mean, even a child would understand that. Everyone is being played or playing the system at any point in time – it's just that some don't realise it or know how to, and then they lash out when they fail at life looking for something or someone to blame. Always winners, always losers. Blame whoever you want, but ultimately it won't change anything. It'll just take up valuable time you could be spending doing something of worth/enjoyment.

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.