X makes the claim. Bluesky makes similar sounds. Mastodon mutters quietly to itself about the same values. Minds shouts it from the rooftops through the megaphone of its eclectic crowd. They all claim to protect speech, but what is it they are really “protecting”? Speech, in all its forms and opinions is not something any of these platforms really protects, with perhaps the exception of Minds. But then, they have flat earthers, chem-trail believers and more in their midst. And that is not necessarily a bad thing.
There has been a lot of talk about X’s status as a place for free speech absolutism. This has come under question in recent years, since Elon Musk bought the platform for a ridiculous $44 billion. The cost has nothing to do with the point being made, but rather the idea that some idiotic moron would spend that kind of money on a social media platform when they could have used it to decorate the sky with more of their large-scale firecrackers is amusing. It has been reported that more than a few journalists and critics of Musk have been shadow banned. Although the evidence seems circumstantial, there is a lot of weight to the idea because of the timing of the bans. It would appear Elon Musk, the “free-speech absolutist,” is quite fine with free speech, unless it is targeting him and his ego.
Mastodon, one of the primary rivals of X, is a place that should not be mistaken for a free-speech haven. A quick view of Mastodon’s flagship instance and the rules they have in place, adopted by many instances, will immediately reveal that free speech is very limited. That said, there are some servers with very limited rules beyond “don’t be a douche bag,” but many have these rules or something similar. Some of the server rules are quite fine and understandable, considering the level of fake news and utter drivel being pushed online. However, it is clear from this that people like J.K. Rowling would get banned in a flash. Speech is protected, as long as it adheres to certain ideological orthodoxies.
Bluesky is no different. Personally, I really like Bluesky and have a couple of accounts there for different purposes. However, there are again certain rules, viciously enforced by the virulent mob. It is common for members to mass report an account if it offends their sacred values. There is a definite tendency towards the liberal, progressive, and anti-God there. A conservative Christian (and I am not talking about MAGA, Christian nationalist heretics here) would need a thick skin.
I have addressed left leaning people so far. The more centrist and right leaning are also in need of a spine. They have largely retreated to places like Gettr, Parlour, and Truth Social (falsely so-called in the most egregious redefinition of language since trans activists tried to hijack the word “genocide”). It is claimed X was taken over by the right, but it seems even right wing accounts are not immune to being muzzled. One of the other reasons X has slumped into a feral ferret pit of insanity has been the spinelessness of the left and the posturing virtue signalling of many companies. They all left, leaving X an echo chamber for those too lazy to manage their own feeds by those equally lazy. Gettr, Parlour and the other one are just as monotone.
All of this because no one wants to be challenged on their beliefs or ideologies. I am not sure how it came to be, but there is a real sense that people honestly believe they have the right to go through life and not be challenged or offended. So called ‘hate speech’ is a part of that. In embracing this concept, no one seems to have considered who gets to define what hate speech is or is not. Should calling people horrible names be socially rejected like smoking is in many countries now? Of course. If I walked up to someone in Harlem and called them a slur, I would thoroughly deserve the utter beating I would no doubt receive. But ideologies, religious or otherwise, are open to criticism and question. If you have a hard time defining what a woman is, your thoughts should be challenged. If you support wars in the name of any state, you probably should be ready to be called out on that. If you are a follower of a religion, you need to be prepared also. The Bible even tells Christians to be ready to give reasons of their faith. You are going to get offended. Deal with it.
When Germany made Holocaust denial illegal, this threw up some red flags for me. First, denying the freedom to express certain opinions and beliefs sets a dangerous precedent. First, Holocaust Denial. Next, such-and-such is sin. Finally, God is God. There are thousands of possibilities, but you get the idea. Second, why make it illegal? It is perhaps the most useless thing a government can do to curtail an idea or belief. The communists tried for decades to ban religion, but failed miserably, and continue to do so. China has failed to destroy the Christian church, just as Russia failed. Such bans are not going to stop an undesirable idea from spreading. You can kill the person, but you cannot kill an idea. Debate is how we combat the dross and move forward as a society fitting for all. Yes, Holocaust Denial is offensive to many. To many more, it is an idiotic idea believed only by the simplest imbeciles with the intellectual capacity of a brain-damaged maggot.
They all claim to protect speech, but this is bollocks. Gettr does not. Mastodon, perhaps most honestly does not. X does not. Bluesky does not. For most of them, protection of speech is merely a marketing buzzword.
You might enjoy my cyberpunk novella, which is available on Amazon!
