“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”.

  • Ekybio@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    86
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Raise your hand if you are convinced this will not impact the people who pay for the blue checkmark. Meaning that a lot of Elon Fanbois / Bots / Fascists will be seen with theit shitty takes (since the checkmark pushes your comments up), while voices of reason will be dragged down further.

    Twitter is rapidly becomming the new Truth Social and it’s sad to watch.

    • TWeaK@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well that was the whole point. His old friend Peter Thiel and others failed to set up a competing service against Twitter, so now they’re undermining Twitter. Either Twitter steps into line and becomes what they want it to be, or it dies due to the $13bn debt/tax avoidance scam that Musk performed.

      • GigglyBobble@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        $13bn debt/tax avoidance scam that Musk performed

        Since I don’t follow Musk, please elaborate. I hope, you don’t mean his buying an unprofitable company for $40B was to avoid taxes…

        • flipht@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Overpaying and then destroying the value means that eventually, he will be able to claim losses on his taxes. This will allow him to reduce his tax liability for his profitable businesses.

        • TWeaK@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          No. I’m referring to the $13bn out of the $44bn purchase price that Twitter paid itself. As Twitter is now deep in debt, it won’t be making a profit any time soon, so there will be no tax paid on that $13bn purchase.

          The $44bn purchase is broken down more or less as:

          • $26bn by Musk ($20bn of which was from Tesla shares),
          • $5bn from other investors, including that Saudi prince,
          • $13bn in a loan that Twitter took out to buy itself on behalf of its new owners.

          The process is known as a leveraged buyout, and it’s what’s killed many staple businesses that were otherwise perfectly viable, eg Toys R Us.

          • MyFairJulia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Dear Elon,

            You say you hate socialism yet you socialized around 40% of the acquisition money.

            Curious.

      • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        It ruined so much of the appeal. Previously when someone was being a fucking idiot you could see them getting absolutely dragged in the comments, and it was cathartic. Now it’s just blue check sycophants going “omg based”.