"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a widespread fallacy. Attitudes like that gave us alliance with Stalin once, and subsequent 40 years of a Cold War.
Not all moderation is bad, and different places have different tolerances for it. I keep seeing people say "silencing the opposition" but not actually providing what that means in practice.
Could be authoritarian, could be not.
Given musk's history as a right wing agitator, I want to see data before coming to any conclusions here.
Why should the government be the one to make that decision? If anyone has a conflict of interest, it's them, no?
Government moderates speech all the time, and yes, there's obviously grey areas and opportunities for abuse with those systems. I want to see the examples. Not someone grinding an axe with "the opposition"... show me what was not allowed.
Absolutely not. That might be the absolute world's last content that should be touched.
What about opposition candidates spreading truthful information. You'd really moderate the truth away before you'd moderate blatant misinformation?
