Post by account_disabled on Nov 25, 2023 5:45:49 GMT
Free speech is an important pillar and the basis of democracy. But the problem with Mr. Musk is that he has a controversial version of it. He defends that everybody can post everything they want regardless of the C Level Executive Email Lists problems it brings to society, such as violence to minorities and even death to those who believe in anti-vaccine posts, for example.
made anti-vaccine posts and “jokes” with Hitler and was not bothered by Twitter’s policies before buying it — which shows that the platform doesn’t have the best moderation tools (or the intention to moderate all the harmful posts).
Even with that, he compared the CEO of Twitter, Parag Agrawal, to Joseph Stalin for having some moderation policies.
What’s going to happen to Twitter now that Musk promises “free speech” (according to his misrepresented vision) to one of the most famous social media platforms?
A similar controversial view of “free speech” was seen in LinkedIn’s attitude.
The case occurred in Brazil. The platform was blocking affirmative job posts for black and indigenous people. When asked, the company said that “people with the same talents should have access to the same opportunities,” indicating that promoting inclusion of people with no opportunities is some sort of “discrimination” against the ones who don’t suffer preconceptions.
This led to a huge discussion in Brazil, including global companies positioning themselves and the government starting investigations against LinkedIn. In the end, the company stepped back and changed its policies for Latin America.
Is social media a safe place for minorities?
Social media platforms are businesses. That’s not a problem. The issue is when services like Facebook, Twitter, and others try to gain more profits by engaging the users as much as possible, without regard for mental issues that could arise from the content, and providing access to content that could generate more violence in the real world.
made anti-vaccine posts and “jokes” with Hitler and was not bothered by Twitter’s policies before buying it — which shows that the platform doesn’t have the best moderation tools (or the intention to moderate all the harmful posts).
Even with that, he compared the CEO of Twitter, Parag Agrawal, to Joseph Stalin for having some moderation policies.
What’s going to happen to Twitter now that Musk promises “free speech” (according to his misrepresented vision) to one of the most famous social media platforms?
A similar controversial view of “free speech” was seen in LinkedIn’s attitude.
The case occurred in Brazil. The platform was blocking affirmative job posts for black and indigenous people. When asked, the company said that “people with the same talents should have access to the same opportunities,” indicating that promoting inclusion of people with no opportunities is some sort of “discrimination” against the ones who don’t suffer preconceptions.
This led to a huge discussion in Brazil, including global companies positioning themselves and the government starting investigations against LinkedIn. In the end, the company stepped back and changed its policies for Latin America.
Is social media a safe place for minorities?
Social media platforms are businesses. That’s not a problem. The issue is when services like Facebook, Twitter, and others try to gain more profits by engaging the users as much as possible, without regard for mental issues that could arise from the content, and providing access to content that could generate more violence in the real world.