1y ago

Twitter seems to ban all Threads links to reaffirm its position as a “free speech absolutist” platform

www.theverge.com Something odd is happening when you try and search Twitter for Threads links

A search for Threads content on Twitter currently brings up zero results, despite plenty of links to Meta’s microblogging rival being posted on the platform.

TechNews @radiation.party

VERGE

Something odd is happening when you try and search Twitter for Threads links

www.theverge.com /2023/7/11/23790834/twitter-search-for-threads-urls-broken-zero-results

9 2

142 comments

Elon Musk runs the whole of Twitter like the jealous, power-drunk moderator of a small 5,000-member Discord server.
- People are free to either agree with the CEO view or to not use the platform. Sad but true. At least it reminds us all that it is a private for-profit company and always has been. No matter whether the "value" of it was mostly provided by user-created contents.
  
  It's kind of a good example as to why the "benevolent dictator" idea is fundamentally flawed—you don't really get two benevolent dictators in succession unless you're incredibly lucky, and doesn't matter how lucky you are, you're not getting three in a row
  
  well not really free if their job depends on Twitter.
  
  But, I really hope this twist of fate of how he accidentally bought Twitter in the first place helps people learn the lesson about all that "free speech" they were whining about. Your speech is not free when it is moderated by a corporation. Yes, the constitution allows you to say what's on your mind, but it does not tell media corporations that they must allow you to say whatever is on your mind. If the uneducated people haven't caught on yet, they shall never catch on, which really might mean stupid is just stupid, no matter how much education you throw at it.
  
  He's done everyone a few favors. He showed us that the government sticks it's fingers into social media in ways that are illegal, and he also showed us that corpos aren't a good alternative because they'll stick their fingers into social media in ways that are legal.
  Decentralization and self-hosting is ultimately the only protection against forces that want to force us to see what they want us to see and nothing else.
- Maybe he is aware of that, but wants to remind us all how internet communities were in the 00s.
  Banning people for mentioning competing platforms just brings nostalgic tears.
  Or maybe he doesn't, just all the benevolence social media owners would show goes down the pipe when there really are decentralized alternatives which work. When they didn't feel threatened, they could seem wiser.
  
  Maybe he is aware of that, but wants to remind us all how internet communities were in the 00s.
  This i don't know. Any news references or links?

No surprise there. Weren't they banning people for posting their Mastodon/Cohost accounts or something?
- Yes. Twitter was at one point tagging links to Mastodon as "potentially harmful" and removing them.
  But the one thing that's been shown consistent about Mr. Musk's ownership of Twitter is that it is consistently self-contradicting. So as Twitter positions itself as "free speech absolutist" one can rest assured that the reality will be "self-contradicting".
  Let us not forget that time that Musk said that "Elon Jet Tracker" would not be banned WHILE it was indeed banned. Literally tweeting verifiably false information and then subsequently being called out on it, only for Musk to do the traditional "ignore and move on".
- Yeah, I think at this point it’s easier to compile a list containing categories of platforms/people/accounts they didn’t ban :)
  Just thought it was kinda funny.

And no one is surprised.
Elon made it clear shortly after taking over that "free speech" was speech he happened to agree with, and he had no intentions of ethical consistency on 'free speech' when it came to speech that was critical of him or his platform. Twitter already went nuclear on links to Mastadon and similar alternative platforms earlier this year while their dumpster fire was raging.
- Fee speech, pay $8/mo to post hate speech at your leisure.
  
  lmao that is such a good descriptor of what's going on there. Elon figured he could make money from racists wanting to be racist around normal people.
  
  Honestly seems like it could be the GOP's definition of free speech.
  
  Anything I don't like = hate speech. Got it.
- Yeah, I think what he said was that anything allowed by law would be permitted, whatever that means. But then when they started impeding links to mastodon he was like "we don't have to let you advertise our competition >>>:(." Elon/Twitter has gotten so tedious to hear about.
  
  The thing there is that like ... it's not about consistency or values. The fact that he lied is meaningless to him, throwing it in his face is wasted effort. Communication is a tool to get what he wants, not a goal unto itself.

how is that free speech, twitter is blocking a competitor for obvious reasons
- same as reddit did with lemmy and kbin when they banned users and sub for mentioning it and giving migration howto's
  
  They did? Have a source? That seems like one more argument against the "Lemmy doesn't matter to Reddit" crowd.
- Because anyone who cries "freeze peach!" at any provocation are really just people that want to say hateful shit without repercussions. Generally, those same people are the ones to shut other people down from expressing their own freedom of speech.
  
  Anyone that cries "free speech" when government isn't involved at all is a dolt
  
  Or they are neolibs who are seemingly incapable of thinking critically about anything
- Musk was only appealing to right wing idiots who think “freedom from social consequences” is a human right and co-opt “free speech”, making it a meaningless term
- Musk purported to be a free speech absolutist when he bought Twitter. He said only illegal content should be suppressed. Obviously, he's a liar. He banned tons of Leftist accounts shortly after he took over.
- Logic doesn't matter. Literally do anything at all and say "it's because free speech" or "it's to stop cancel culture" and the fan boys will cheer it.
  
  I won't, and I really am against cancel culture (I'm for developing reputation systems to help you automatically ignore those you don't want to read, but to be able to read what they say in case you suddenly want that).
  Now, this whole Twitter-Threads dynamic seems like an exemplary "toad vs viper" case.
- It’s some form of sarcasm
  
  They didn't put a /s at the end, so that can't be it.
  
  You can tell Lemmy's getting bigger when the gullible people start showing up.
- "Free speech absolutism (but not if you link to my competitor)" isn't free speech absolutism. It's just another hypocrisy to throw on the pile.
- Free speech Moscow style by Eloon Muskovite

Ah yes. The exact kind of action I would expect from someone who has measured responses like "Zuck is a cuck".
Use a platform ran by a five year-old, expect five year-old behavior.

Although it won't absolve one of crimes, affluenza seems to be a real thing. The social isolation and deference that money brings seems to have a host of well-documented psychological issues that accompany it. Musk, like Trump, seems to believe that he can do whatever he wants without meaningful consequences, because he exists in a bubble of sycophants and wealth, where rules for the plebs do not apply. Normal people can't burn this much good will and go on with their lives unhindered. Normal people would be permanently financially ruined if they lost that much doing stupid and illegal business moves.
- Geez that's rough and must really suck. We should help all of those rich people get over their lack of personal connections. By taxing most of their money away.
  
  Geez that's rough and must really suck. We should help all of those rich people get over their lack of personal connections. By taxing most of their money away.
  This could be done in a generation if we made sensible inheritance laws, a wealth tax, or did away with capital gains and implemented an income tax with the highest bracket 90% like the US did in the 1940s-1960s instead, (provided this is done without loopholes.) There's huge benefits to living in a country with more economic equality in terms of crime, political engagement, home ownership, economic competition, social mobility, terrorism, poverty reduction, mental health, etc., It's harder to exploit people when they have resources.
- Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=IP2EKTCngiM
  https://piped.video/watch?v=0b6ewG7hZXg
  Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
  I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
  
  Good bot
  
  ill check that out
  
  Meh, you don't work all the time.
- I just looked up the word, but isn't this "affluenza" something rooted in guilt and which leads to near-conscious self-destructive actions? I don't think it applies, Elon probably doesn't even know what guilt feels like.
  
  isn’t this “affluenza” something rooted in guilt and which leads to near-conscious self-destructive actions?
  Not exactly. "Affluenza," is loosely defined, and definitions vary, but was popularized as a defense presented at Ethan Couch's trial with the premise that his killings were due to psychological effects of being wealthy and the lack of boundaries it afforded. Nowadays it's generally used to mean a behavioral illness caused by wealth/affluence.

Is anyone surprised?

Of course. That’s who they are. Why would anyone continue to use either of those?

This has a very "let's de-federate from Threads" vibe.
Don't get me wrong the guy is a tool but it feels similar to an instance admin blocking threads and not letting users decide.
- My gut reaction is defensiveness that the fediverse has a different motive, but no. The motive IS the same. Both are fueled by self-preservation.
  There IS a difference in circumstance, however. The fediverse has to measure potential gain vs potential risk of working with a greedy rich billionaire.
  Twitter is already a giant that’s been going through a lot of abuse and bleeding users. It stands to gain nothing from Meta’ new copycat, only lose even more.
  So, Yes. Same motivation for blocking/defederating. The difference between the two is what thy stand to gain vs what they risk losing.

I mean, you're free to speak. The article doesn't mention banning anything, just not making it findable. There's a difference.
- That's like, every kind of ban on the internet. If a mod deletes a post on Reddit it just becomes "not findable" for people outside of its OP.
- The article isn't suggesting this is a free speech violation.
- A private citizen owning a social media company cannot "violate free speech". That is like saying a newspaper is violating my freedom of speech by not publishing my article about flowers

142 comments