Maybe Bluesky has "won"

I don't think the answer to the potential right-wing censorship, is left-wing censorship. Right now, X is actually closer to the ideal than any time in its history.

But yeah, if there is a truly distributed system, that had facilities and incentives which support and even promote diverse interactions, that'd be even better.

X is owned by an opinionated rich guy, completely entangled in government (even before the Trump win.) There's nothing ideal about a situation where he could be flipping the switch right now to turn it back like it once was, or even worse. He doesn't even have to care, all he has to do is lie back and let it happen. It's the path of least resistance.

I firmly believe his posture with twitter has been because 1) it's a fun place for him and it was obviously a money losing purchase* so he might as well have that fun, and 2) his level of censorship is something that he can use to negotiate with government over contracts or regulation.

He might even really believe in free speech, but a conceptual belief in free speech doesn't mean he'll feel obligated to personally provide it if he can make a dollar denying it. His speech will remain free no matter what happens, he's a rich guy.

-----

* (not unlike say the Guardian, the New Republic, Mother Jones, the Intercept, or the Atlantic, or the WaPo, aparently, and probably CNN and MSNBC at this point. They're not for making money.)

Again, I totally understand your objection, and you're right about the potential abuses that exist. The reason I said it is better now than before, is that the abuses under the previous ownership were not potential, they were real and being perpetrated every day. So I see X as _currently_ a much better place than it has ever been in its history.

But I'm with you on the potential problems and would rather have a system that was immune to such issues. What i'm really arguing against is people who saw the previous regime as correct and just, and are looking to recreate their echo-chamber somewhere else.

Part of what it will take to create a healthy town-center, that is much better than X, is for more people to speak up for ideals of diversity and tolerance. And to fight against the very loud and angry segment of people who see censorship and authoritarian control as good things, as long as they're working in their own favor.

Nah, X is worse for free speech than it ever has been. Musk shut down Crimethinc just because one of his bootlickers went "ooh ooh they did a crime". Crimethinc actually produce a lot of great journalism, some of which would actually support right wing views... if the right wingers who complain about safe spaces and bubbles and "diverse interactions" actually read anything. For instance, they had a pretty detailed conversation with one of the rioters at the George Floyd protests, when all the """left""" wing media claimed that it was a minority of bad infiltrating people doing the rioting, these guys straight up published a source that said that no, it was tactical to lure the cops away from the police station. That they incentivised and encouraged the rioting internally. They outlined the processes they used to split off the mostly white liberal element so they could achieve these ends. It was extraordinary. And obviously, they should meet the definition of free speech.

The problem is that Musk came in and lifted the bans on a lot of people who were removed for roughly the correct thing, community standards. And then he let those very people help him find the voices you do want in the community and shut them down. Its gone beyond just echo chamber, and now the management has a clique. That clique doesnt just hate free speech, they loathe the people that largely use such rights like journalists.

Then of course theres all the shit about compliance with foreign governments etc. Twitters going to be an amazing case study one day in the future that will likely conclude against "free speech" as Musk poorly interprets it.

My impression is that the goal isn't to uphold free speech, its never done that, its to create a safe space to be an asshole. And that if you can hold your own against the assholes, then they will find a way to abuse their position in the clique to get you banned.

Back in the day you had these coffee shops, that may or may not be partially responsible for the success of so called western civilization. People would travel across europe to visit and exchange ideas with likeminded people. Thats not what social media is. People arent having robust, intentional, intellectual discussions, they are forming tribes and attacking each other with whatever weapons are available. People wake up in the morning and check their notifications like people in the blitz looking out the window to see if their neighbors survived the night. Aiding one side or the other of the conflict should never be conflated with "promoting diverse interactions".

There are bad actors everywhere. But, as far as I can tell, there are very few bans of anyone on X, and no censorship or shadow-banning of any account. The community-notes section is available to everyone, so that misinformation can be challenged (but of course relies on people of opposing views participating). These are marked improvements over the previous regime.

All the abuses you're describing, were going on previously, it was just accepted by the majority as a good-thing, because it was only hurting "Nazi's". I'm not supporting anything the current ownership does on that basis, i'm saying we should all be fighting for a new paradigm, not just recreating the old one on a new platform.

And currently, there are very few voices standing up for a healthier interaction between people with opposing views. This will take a lot more than any technological fix, it will require an attitude shift. That isn't possible if we take our respective corners, and only come out when the fight-bell rings.