So what, it's his platform, he can do whatever he wants on it, he paid a lot of money for it.
I really don't get why this would upset anyone, he is not forcing you to use his platform.
this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2025
1 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
42797 readers
106 users here now
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
"Twitter should be the global town square"
"free speech absolutist"
"make humor great again"
"leftists are snowflakes"
Sure, he doesn't force anyone to use Twitter. It's still unfortunately the de facto communication platform for a lot of government agencies. It's still an important tool for the world. Let's hope some large governments (EU? Please?) grow balls and leave Twitter alltogether...
This is absolutely newsworthy and worth being upset about.
it's his platform, he can do whatever he wants on it, he paid a lot of money for it. […] I really don't get why this would upset anyone
lol
- Champions “free speech” to justify buying Twitter in a legitimate way.
- Wins over idealists who think they’re fighting for openness, calling it a “public square”, “Greek Agora” etc.
- Bans critics and content he just doesn’t align with.
- Gets called out.
- “Whoa whoa, I meant my free speech. The rest of you? Peasants.”
- People leave the platform: “I don’t get why this upsets anyone, it’s his platform”.
This reminds me of the behavior most common in subreddits such as /r/Bitcoin, we can even put it side by side:
- Step 1: Preach a grand ideal — “X is the free speech Agora!” / “Bitcoin is your path to financial freedom!”
- Step 2: Rally support by moralizing it — “If you’re against this, you’re against liberty!” / “Only fools ignore Bitcoin!”
- Step 3: When the consequences hit — censorship or market crashes — suddenly the ideal becomes personal: “It’s his platform, he can do whatever he wants.” / “You fool! You shouldn’t have invested more than you can afford to lose.”
You're misunderstanding what I wrote, because:
People leave the platform: “I don’t get why this upsets anyone, it’s his platform”.
Is exactly the opposite of what I was trying to say with:
he is not forcing you to use his platform
you can just leave, there are so many alternatives available, if you don't then you are part of the problem, giving him power and putting more money into his pockets. In fact you should have seen the writing on the wall many years ago and latest when he bought it.
Being upset about this now after he did so many worse things is just silly.
It's almost like free speech absolutism is bullshit.
Free speech for me, not for thee
If you are still on this platform, you are part of the problem. No excuses.
Never expect free speech (or other constitutional protections) in a private forum, which is one reason the right is always gung-ho for privatization.
*in the US.
The EU recognizes that human right such as freedom of speech also should be protected against private parties. Platforms can't ban or restrict you for arbitrary reasons here.
Link to that? I don't see any such protections except for children and some for journalists. Nothing saying you can't be banned if they want.
https://www.thejournal.ie/social-media-audits-digital-services-act-6151679-Aug2023/
Sure. For the fact that many jurisdictions outside of the US also consider freedom of speech and other human rights to apply between private parties: this is called "horizontal effect" and covered extensively in case law by e.g. the European Court of Human Rights. See also this chapter for an international comparison and this paper for a European perspective.
As for the specific rules in the EU for platforms: Article 17 of the Digital Services Act requires that users who are banned or shadowbanned from any platform are provided with specific information of what rule they broke, which they can then appeal internally or in court. Article 34 and 35 requires very large platforms (such as X) to take broad measures to protect i.a. the users' freedom of speech.
More to the point, one person who was shadowbanned by X in a similar way used the DSA and won in court
(Edited to add the last paragraph)