don't know if anyone has been paying attention, but the collusion between government and big tech that Musk has exposed via his takeover of Twitter is hard proof of the complete failure of the entire western governmental structure (which is by and large based on and led by the United States's governmental structure). — Tzeentch

From what I've heard, although the proof is hardly fully assessed, is it is alleged the Democratic National Committee and the Biden campaign were able to have tweets removed critical of Biden. Both these organizations are non-governmental and neither were in power at the time of events.

It seems, if true, the best you can say is that Twitter aligned itself with the Democrats, acted as an anti-government (i.e. anti-Trump) agent, and suppressed negative Biden comments and tried to get Biden elected.

So, if true, we now know that Twitter was not a reliable news source. Shocking. Do you now suggest we mandate journalistic ethical standards upon all media outlets to be sure all reporting be fair and balanced? Do we shut down media outlets that fail to meet our prescribed journalistic standards?

If a "free" press means an unregulated one, then we can't cry foul when it freely chooses to publish nonsense, incorrect information, hate, propganda, or only articles the owner happens to agree with.

That is freedom. You can't complain about a corrupt Twitter if that was what the Twitter owners freely chose.

The problem is that any regime that takes upon itself the task of determining truth has failed. We’d probably all still believe in the Vegetable Lamb of Tartary or that the sun revolves around the earth if Truth™️ was never undermined by other voices.

The freedom to say anything, like the freedom to pass gas or salivate, is a condition of life, something that we do by virtue of being a human. This includes telling lies, uttering falsities, and so on. In limiting that right to a governing body, we bestow the right to lie on that governing body, while attempting to deny it to everyone else. This is far more conducive to lies than it is to truth, in my opinion.

I note on Twitter the term "Jewlon Musk" now being applied because Elon banned Ye. Most likely from the same crowd that cheered Trump's return. Maybe at some point he'll realize these sorts are not worth pandering to.

suppose I disagree on the interpretation here by taking the free market speaking freely to be a form of free speech. — the Baden

My suggestion wasn't so much about non-person speech (like in corporate giving being a form of speech), but in stating that the speech limitations existing in the US are those dictated by economics. That is, we can openly be racist and scream it from the rooftop, but only if we own that rooftop. The regulations against hate speech result from media outlets refusing to publish it because publication will damage the publisher's profitability.

Speech is not absolutely free as long as there is a punitive response to certain speech, and it's false to claim that who imposes the punishment is what determines if the punishment is meaningfully restrictive to that freedom.

That is, if my racist rants result in Musk taking down my posts, how is that a more free system than the government taking down my posts?

The key here of course is not Twitter's behavior - it's the government's / the political elite's behavior.

Not surprising, no. Just more proof that governments shouldn't be trusted, especially not with the power to limit free speech.

Maybe at some point he'll realize these sorts are not worth pandering to. — The Baden

He won't act from conscience. He'll count beans. If removal of the post will increase profits, that's what he'll do. It has nothing to do with consistent application of standards, good citizenship, or anything beyond gaining the best return on investment.

Not surprising, no. Just more proof that governments shouldn't be trusted, especially not with the power to limit free speech. — Tzeentch

It wasn't the government. It was the opposition party.
There's no evidence Twitter was coerced. If they did delete tweets, it's because they were aligned.

Doesn't Twitter have the right to its own opinion?

True.

The regulations against hate speech result from media outlets refusing to publish it because publication will damage the publisher's profitability. — Hanover

I think you're taking the present social climate for granted. We just happen to live at a time when it's not ok to talk crap about Jews. This in turn produces the regulation you're talking about.

If, for instance, it came to light that the social sphere was being manipulated to the detriment of the health of the country, it would be reasonable for the government to intervene. Mistakes could be made there, but it would still make sense to try.

It wasn't the government. It was the opposition party. — Hanover

In a system where there are only two parties that swap seats every few years that's a meaningless distinction. The same people who bought Twitter to censor and withhold information from the public and spread misinformation are the people in power now. Ironically some of them are the loudest complainers about "misinformation".

Like I said, the US system, and by extension the entire western system is irreparably broken.

That is, if my racist rants result in Musk taking down my posts, how is that a more free system than the government taking down my posts?

It’s Musk’s property, thus he has the freedom to determine what can and can’t be said in his platform. If the government steps in and tells him he can never censor a post, for example, they will be denying his freedoms. The fact that freedoms overlap in such a way is a core problem for rights advocates. Corporate censorship, however, is just as wrong as government censorship, and for the same reasons.

Lets put it differently.

There are few practices as closely linked to totalitarianism as propaganda.

When political entities spread lies, censor and withhold information they're mimicing totalitarian regimes. The fact that they don't show it proudly on their banners makes them closet totalitarians.

We wouldn't want nazis controlling our government under the excuse they're only nazis when they're not in office.

When political entities spread lies, censor and withhold information they're mimicing totalitarian regimes — Tzeentch

Not really. There's no regime that ever existed that hasn't censored something or withheld some information or lied sometimes or produced some sort of propaganda. What defines a totalitarian regime is not that these things are done but the extent they are done.

I'd say when it's instrumentalized for political gain we are well within the realm of totalitarianism.

We wouldn't want nazis controlling our government under the excuse they're only nazis when they're not in office. — Tzeentch

If Musk uses Twitter to spread Aryan supremecy, is that speech prohibited propoganda only if he associates with an established political movement, but not if he's just speaking his individual mind?

Seems all sorts of arbitrary distinctions being drawn here?

If Musk uses Twitter to spread Aryan supremecy, is that speech prohibited propoganda only if he associates with an established political movement, but not if he's just speaking his individual mind? — Hanover

I haven't said anything about prohibiting speech.

I'd say when it's instrumentalized for political gain we are well within the realm of totalitarianism. — Tzeentch

When a food contains vitamin C, we are well within the realm of an orange. But the food might also be a kiwi or even a potato. Yes, there are some negatives that almost all forms of governments share but they can for all that be very different, even categorically so, because their categorisation is not as simple a process as identifying a common instance of a negative behavior.

When a food contains vitamin C, we are well within the realm of an orange. But the food might also be a kiwi or even a potato. — The Baden

When I'm eating a pie and find bits of shit in it, I'm going to stop eating the pie, regardless of whether it's a cherry pie or an apple pie.

And you'll understand that when the chef comes around and protests, saying there were only a few bits of shit in my pie, that's not going to motivate me to continue eating.

Ah, I see, so you've left your lying/censoring state behind and are now living... where?

Because otherwise you are eating that fruit pie with little bits of shit in it and presumably being thankful it's not 100% shit.

I'm living in a lying, censoring state, obviously. I don't see how that helps your argument.

As I said, according to your own analogy you are eating little bits of shit then. 'Cos that's all there is to eat and it beats total shit. Else, move to N. Korea, right?

Clearly, and thankfully, I have more to eat than the government's shit pie.

As far as I'm concerned the people who are eating the government's shit pie, and trying to convince themselves they're enjoying it, are those defending the actions of Goebbels's slightly more sleazy bastard children.

Also, why would I move anywhere?

You can stop avoiding the point now, namely that a little bit of shit in your pie ruins your pie, and a little bit of totalitarianism in your state ruins your state.

You can stop avoiding the point now, namely that a little bit of shit in your pie ruins your pie, and a little bit of totalitarianism in your state ruins your state. — Tzeentch

Censorship etc is not uniquely totalitarian. Therefore, e.g., having a little bit of censorship in a state does not equate to having a little bit of totalitarianism in a state. And even if you get over that, you'd have much work to do demonstrating your thesis. A shit pie analogy won't do it. You're skipping a bunch of steps and elevating rhetoric over analysis. Keep in mind that the operative part of the term totalitarianism is "total" not "little bit". Littlebitarianism is not the bogey man here. Start from that realisation and work your way up.

Keep in mind that the operative part of the term totalitarianism is "total" not "little bit". — The Baden

Totalitarianism refers to the belief that one ideology possesses the complete truth - this being by definition wrong makes every totalitarian system revolve around lies to keep the ideology intact. Propaganda, censorship, withholding of information, etc. are all instrumental to protecting the government ideology - we call them 'narratives' these days. And that's exactly what we're seeing today.

Another way to put this is you are not arguing against totalitarianism at all, you are arguing against other stuff and using the concept of totalitarianism as a rhetorical device to try to get people more interested/excited.

E.g. again:

Totalitarianism refers to the belief that one ideology possesses the complete truth - this being by definition wrong makes every totalitarian system revolve around lies to keep the ideology intact. Propaganda, censorship, withholding of information, etc. are all instrumental to protecting the government ideology - we call them 'narratives' these days. And that's exactly what we're seeing today. — Tzeentch

You make some comparisons and suddenly magic happens and you've transformed regular government malpractice and corruption into totalitarianism:

"a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state."

https://www.google.com/search?q=totalitarianism&oq=totalitarianism&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l2.3808j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

But the magic doesn't work because no matter how many times you repeat the word, the U.S. (for example) is still not N. Korea, Nazi Germany, or Stalinist Russia.

We're probably drifting off topic, so I won't say much more on this except to advise if you set your sights a little lower, you might hit something. The overwrought rhetoric shouldn't be necessary.

"a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state." — The Baden

Overly simplistic, and I don't need to tell you that.

Ideology plays a key role in totalitarian regimes.

These regimes operate through terror, however that terror is exercised in large parts by the ideologically possessed masses, without which the state would have but a fraction of its power and would look more like a classical dictatorship (authoritarian, but with very limited influence over citizens' private lives).

How does this relate to Twitter; anyone who expressed "dangerous" opinions (read: dangerous to the preferred narrative) gets cancelled, and possibly ruined.

There's your ideologically possessed 'cancel crowd' operating through plain terror. We call it 'political correctness' for crying out loud.

And now we're given hard proof that the political elite are purposefully instrumentalizing it.

Kind of, but I think ideological control is more complicated and deeper than you paint it, which seems to be progressive/PC = bad vs libertarian (or who?) = good. It encompasses this dichotomy and more. It's structured in the very way we express ourselves regardless of our surface ideologies and forms the basis on which we can coherently fight battles we think are important but hardly ever get us anywhere. Maybe for another thread...

haven't said anything about prohibiting speech. — Tzeentch

So then government sponsored propoganda is acceptable free speech, even though it is a characteristic of totalitarian regimes?