It’d be one thing if X didn’t actively promote disinformation but they are doing that. They’re picking what and who to promote via their algorithm.
If they had a hands-off approach to free speech (like any given Mastodon instance) I’d agree with you. Since that’s not the case I can’t see how it’s a, “slippery slope”. They’re actively promoting disinformation in order to push a political agenda that actively hurts the Australian people.
It’s basic liability, not really related to freedom of speech. You can say whatever you want but there can also be legal consequences for what you say. It’s always been like that. Even in the US.
It’d be one thing if X didn’t actively promote disinformation but they are doing that. They’re picking what and who to promote via their algorithm.
That’s the argument being revisited in US courts right now. If you choose to promote something, you are doing the editorializing and shouldn’t be protected under Section 230. And with how much a certain party hates the whole section, it’s likely to get struck or limited if it ever reaches the Supreme Court. That irony would be lovely.
If they had a hands-off approach to free speech (like any given Mastodon instance) I’d agree with you.
Just to be clear, Mastodon doesn’t have “hands-off approach to free speech”. Each instance has clear rules around what they allow and don’t allow. Just the federated nature of it prevents censorship, so all opinions can be heard.
The content on there platform is totally up to there discretion. At the end of the day users and advertisers will decide if they want to stay or leave. (Many have left)
It’d be one thing if X didn’t actively promote disinformation but they are doing that. They’re picking what and who to promote via their algorithm.
If they had a hands-off approach to free speech (like any given Mastodon instance) I’d agree with you. Since that’s not the case I can’t see how it’s a, “slippery slope”. They’re actively promoting disinformation in order to push a political agenda that actively hurts the Australian people.
It’s basic liability, not really related to freedom of speech. You can say whatever you want but there can also be legal consequences for what you say. It’s always been like that. Even in the US.
That’s the argument being revisited in US courts right now. If you choose to promote something, you are doing the editorializing and shouldn’t be protected under Section 230. And with how much a certain party hates the whole section, it’s likely to get struck or limited if it ever reaches the Supreme Court. That irony would be lovely.
Just to be clear, Mastodon doesn’t have “hands-off approach to free speech”. Each instance has clear rules around what they allow and don’t allow. Just the federated nature of it prevents censorship, so all opinions can be heard.
The content on there platform is totally up to there discretion. At the end of the day users and advertisers will decide if they want to stay or leave. (Many have left)