“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”.

  • JasSmith@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Most of human history would say freedom of speech (and most of the concept of natural rights) is a rather newish ideology.

    It’s “newish” for Homo sapiens, but it originated during the Enlightenment in the 17th century. I struggle to call that “new.” However I don’t subscribe to the concept of natural rights. Rights are what people afford each other in a society. In a democracy, we vote on rights. In anarchy, rights are given and taken at the end of a gun.

    • Lazylazycat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s definitely new in the context of their comment, which says it’s been around since we had the power of speech.

      My last house was older than free speech as a concept.