This is your daily reminder that advocating for the government to censor/ban #Twitter now that #ElonMusk is in charge of it will do nothing but set a precedent that will be used against you when your opponents get elected
I will repeat this as often as I have to: When you create a seat of power, anyone can sit in it. Even the people who want to oppress you. The granting of unaccountable power is an evil no matter who you give those positions to or what they claim they will use it for
@swashberry Honestly people advocating for freeze peach on any platform is silly to me. No where else in society are you expected to tolerate what someone says regardless.
The real issue is with the centralization of internet discussion, which the fediverse can solve.
I don't believe social media is an essential service the same way housing/food/car repairs are.
Don't rely on ONE centralized service to provide you with public discussion.
(For reference, im moderately liberal, so I'm probably the audience Twitter promotes).
I suspect you don't understand how a public square operates. There used to be a place in London where anyone could set up his soap box and advocate anything under the sun. Given that Twitter has so many users, it basically means they don't listen to their customers. And their services for many years _were_ providing them with the ability to speak. And now its staff is advocating for the heinous ability to remove speech they don't agree with.
The public square was probably publicly owned and thusly, free speech from government interference should be instated. Twitter may of "claimed" to be a public square, but that obviously can't be true since they aren't owned by the public.
Forcing Twitter to allow all speech would just create more issues than promoting the fediverse.
I object to the conception of Twitter as the new town square. It's propaganda used by people who want the government to uphold special status for the platform that will create a monopoly. @wholemilk is in the right here - although I would prefer that a platform employ a policy of minimal moderation and acceptance of free expression, ultimately private companies can not be obliged to give a platform to people they don't want to, because that would also create an authoritarian precedent.
Refusing to give Twitter or any other platform the monopoly is a better solution than expecting a single company to give you what you want. Competition breeds better service, so encouraging competition will accomplish a lot to improve the situation with online communication. I think it's already played a role in the downfall of Twitter's old regime, though it remains to be seen whether Elon's reign will fare better.
Then we restrict it on logical grounds. Fun hobby activities is about fun hobby related stuff, not gay sex or mountain climbing (though I see little reason to completely exclude either completely. In fact the nature of discourse means off-topic topics are rife.)
And while I don't hold with churches, the history of the Protestant church shows the danger of prohibiting an interpretation. Wars have been fought over that subject.
Meanwhile, if you restrict topics in the main club, you make it one I wouldn't want to visit. The Fun Hobby Activities Club sounds fun, if too saccharine. The Fun Hobby Activities for Christians is not a club I would like to be a member of. And it being changed right underneath my feet would be very objectionable.
A instance dedicated - but not limited - to people with an interest in the GNU+Linux ecosystem and/or general tech. Sysadmins to enthusiasts, creators to movielovers - Welcome!