Confused on Steam Play and Proton? Be sure to check out our guide.
We do often include affiliate links to earn us some pennies. See more here.

Twitter agrees to Elon Musk buyout, a reminder we're on Mastodon

By - | Views: 33,603

Today, one of the biggest things on the social internet happened, with Elon Musk buying Twitter. So here's a little reminder of Mastodon. Not our usual news, but it's too big to be ignored. Twitter is a massive and important platform and now it's going to be wholly owned by Elon Musk. Regardless of your thoughts on Musk, it's still a little alarming.

Good news for those who do dislike Musk, as there is a great alternative available with Mastodon. Not perfect, nothing is, but it is a good option to try. It's very much like Twitter except it's free, open source, has no adverts and anyone can host their own instance. Thanks to how it's designed, people can follow and talk to each other across these instances too.

GamingOnLinux is on Mastodon, so feel free to give us a follow. If you don't care about this whole thing, you can also follow us on Twitter.

From the Press Release:

Bret Taylor, Twitter's Independent Board Chair, said, "The Twitter Board conducted a thoughtful and comprehensive process to assess Elon's proposal with a deliberate focus on value, certainty, and financing. The proposed transaction will deliver a substantial cash premium, and we believe it is the best path forward for Twitter's stockholders."

Parag Agrawal, Twitter's CEO, said, "Twitter has a purpose and relevance that impacts the entire world. Deeply proud of our teams and inspired by the work that has never been more important."

"Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated," said Mr. Musk. "I also want to make Twitter better than ever by enhancing the product with new features, making the algorithms open source to increase trust, defeating the spam bots, and authenticating all humans. Twitter has tremendous potential – I look forward to working with the company and the community of users to unlock it."

It will be interesting to see if Musk does open up more of Twitter.

Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Tags: Misc
26 Likes
About the author -
author picture
I am the owner of GamingOnLinux. After discovering Linux back in the days of Mandrake in 2003, I constantly came back to check on the progress of Linux until Ubuntu appeared on the scene and it helped me to really love it. You can reach me easily by emailing GamingOnLinux directly. Find me on Mastodon.
See more from me
The comments on this article are closed.
85 comments
Page: «8/9»
  Go to:

namiko Aug 2, 2022
Quoting: EikeAs purple, I don't agree with you (there's other important harm), but it's at least a consistent standpoint.
Just the other day I saw someone thinking they would be defending freedom by forbidding gender aware speech by law.
Are they in a position to make their wishes happen on a governmental level or not? A lot of inflammatory words from people in general can be safely ignored unless this person has the power to implement change you're against.

That's why I was suggesting actively trying to make changes to laws in the first place. If it's disturbing you, DO something about it instead of worrying that people say or believe things antithetical to your beliefs, since those people will always exist. It's turning something you can't do anything about into something you could possibly change for the better.
namiko Aug 2, 2022
Quoting: Mountain ManIn other words, you are opposed to freedom of speech because you wish to place arbitrary limits on what others are allowed to say.
Think the hypocrisy is a good point, though. There are people saying that you enable freedom through limitations on many different sides, but that's not really the case, it's all authoritarian in nature and overreaching.
Eike Aug 2, 2022
View PC info
  • Supporter Plus
Quoting: namiko
Quoting: EikeAs purple, I don't agree with you (there's other important harm), but it's at least a consistent standpoint.
Just the other day I saw someone thinking they would be defending freedom by forbidding gender aware speech by law.
Are they in a position to make their wishes happen on a governmental level or not? A lot of inflammatory words from people in general can be safely ignored unless this person has the power to implement change you're against.

Ah, it wasn't meant as an example for harmful, it was meant as an example for an inconsistent "conservative" standpoint.

Quoting: namikoThat's why I was suggesting actively trying to make changes to laws in the first place. If it's disturbing you, DO something about it instead of worrying that people say or believe things antithetical to your beliefs, since those people will always exist. It's turning something you can't do anything about into something you could possibly change for the better.

I'm fine with the laws we've got in Germany, disallowing e.g. insults. (It's just hard to actually enforce it in antisocial media.)
Eike Aug 2, 2022
View PC info
  • Supporter Plus
Quoting: namiko
Quoting: Mountain ManIn other words, you are opposed to freedom of speech because you wish to place arbitrary limits on what others are allowed to say.
Think the hypocrisy is a good point, though. There are people saying that you enable freedom through limitations on many different sides, but that's not really the case, it's all authoritarian in nature and overreaching.

Well, obviously, disallowing murder protects my freedom to live (and all other ones, as I couldn't use any when being dead). Enabling freedom through limitations is very, very broadly agreed upon. So the question usually is not if we want to limit peoples' freedom to protect other peoples' freedom, but just to what extend.
namiko Aug 2, 2022
Quoting: EikeWell, obviously, disallowing murder protects my freedom to live (and all other ones, as I couldn't use any when being dead). Enabling freedom through limitations is very, very broadly agreed upon. So the question usually is not if we want to limit peoples' freedom to protect other peoples' freedom, but just to what extend.
That's where most people differ, true. I'd prefer to maximize freedom and limit restrictions and government to a smaller, less bureaucratic state, but also acknowledge that every noble idea is capable of becoming corrupted over time, so there wouldn't ever be any perfect solutions. That said, if we were all cooperating more and seeing our similarities instead of differences, the sky's the limit for what we could accomplish.
Purple Library Guy Aug 2, 2022
Quoting: Mountain Man
Quoting: Purple Library Guy
Quoting: Mountain Man
Quoting: Purple Library Guy...it's generally obvious the modern conservative conception of free speech involves nobody else being able to have it.
The irony here is that this comment comes after two lengthy rants about what you think conservatives shouldn't be allowed to say.
It's not ironic at all. Conservatives make a huge kafuffle about free speech being their total main thing and how absolute it should be. I believe in balancing speech rights with other rights in a sane way, with those other rights including positive economic and social rights like say to adequate shelter or education. When someone who professes to believe in balancing different rights tries to balance different rights, that's just consistent.

When someone who professes to believe in absolute free speech in practice routinely muzzles it, that's ironic. And the thing is, conservatives don't even pretend to support many other rights--private property for rich people, maybe, or the right to shoot people--so if they don't even genuinely support the one right they pretend to be massively passionate about, do they actually stand for anything positive at all?

In other words, you are opposed to freedom of speech because you wish to place arbitrary limits on what others are allowed to say.
You can claim that believing other rights exist and/or should exist is arbitrary, but I don't see what makes other rights arbitrary but speech rights not arbitrary.
Anyway, everyone is opposed to unlimited freedom of speech. Including you. Do you push for the repeal of libel laws? Do you back permitting death threats and open calls for assassinations? I'm thinking no. So, we both back limits on freedom of speech. You just apparently find constraints on racism and gay-bashing, by private rather than governmental entities, to be where you draw a line, where that's not particularly something I have a problem with.
Purple Library Guy Aug 2, 2022
Quoting: namiko
Quoting: Purple Library Guy... it's generally obvious the modern conservative conception of free speech involves nobody else being able to have it.
I don't care what you choose to say or where you choose to do so, you should be allowed to say it without any arbitrary limitations. So long as that speech doesn't cause physical harm to someone else, it should be permitted.
There are two possibilities here: Either you are decidedly out of the mainstream of modern (and, really, historical) conservatism, or I don't believe you.
Who burns books? Why, that would be conservatives. Who gets people sacked from universities for saying positive things about Palestinian rights? Why, that would be conservatives. Who is obsessed with purging curricula of anything that happened in history that might make white people uncomfortable? Why, that would be conservatives.

Conservatism is all about social control and enforced homogeneity. Historically, free speech was never a major concern of conservatives; to the contrary, they prefer to regulate speech strongly when they are in charge, to purge expression which deviates from the accepted norm. Threatened by new norms which explicitly accept diversity and aim at reduced social control, in part by rejecting bullying as a way of enforcing social norms, conservatives have discovered freedom of speech as a weapon to re-enable bullying so they can try to re-establish control. But they don't mean it. It's just a weapon that is useful because it's an idea broadly accepted by liberals, so it's harder for them to argue against it.

If you do believe it that's fine, but you're naive about your own side.
Mountain Man Aug 2, 2022
Quoting: Eike
Quoting: namiko
Quoting: Mountain ManIn other words, you are opposed to freedom of speech because you wish to place arbitrary limits on what others are allowed to say.
Think the hypocrisy is a good point, though. There are people saying that you enable freedom through limitations on many different sides, but that's not really the case, it's all authoritarian in nature and overreaching.

Well, obviously, disallowing murder protects my freedom to live (and all other ones, as I couldn't use any when being dead). Enabling freedom through limitations is very, very broadly agreed upon. So the question usually is not if we want to limit peoples' freedom to protect other peoples' freedom, but just to what extend.

The crime of murder exists because killing someone without just cause deprives them of their fundamental right to life. I really don't see how this is analogous to speech.

Suppose you joined a religion that required you to wear pink pajamas with purple polka dots in public, and suppose I made a disparaging remark about your attire that you found offensive. What fundamental right have I violated? The right not to be offended? Please, if that was a fundamental right then humanity may as well cease to exist because no matter what the circumstance, you are guaranteed to find someone in the world who is offended by it.

Offensive speech is protected speech by definition, because inoffensive speech doesn't need protection.
Purple Library Guy Aug 2, 2022
Quoting: namikoThat's where most people differ, true. I'd prefer to maximize freedom and limit restrictions and government to a smaller, less bureaucratic state,
Mind you, none of this is actually about government. What's under discussion here is, again, the actions of a private corporation--as it has been in most similar controversies. I've never heard of a situation where it was a government social media portal which was regulating speech. Nor are the actions of these corporations generally triggered by the existence of laws--if anything, they usually respond to upset customers, actual people.

I'm perfectly willing to agree that corporations have too much power, and in specific too much power over our discourse and over what we see, read and so on. But conservatives seem to insist, whenever they have problems with the actions of a corporation, on pretending that the problem somehow is the heavy hand of government.

There is no government in this story. And the only way to get the kind of unfettered speech conservatives say they desire in this situation, would be precisely by bringing the government in, having government pass laws and regulations enforcing lack of speech limits on corporate speech platforms. And again, I have no problem with the basic idea of government regulating the actions of corporations, although I might not favour the same kinds of interventions conservatives do. But we should be clear here that the problem is not the actions of a large, bureaucratic state. Rather it is the absence of a large, bureaucratic, democratic state, one which could actively defend our freedoms against the encroachment of unaccountable private power.
Purple Library Guy Aug 2, 2022
Quoting: Mountain Man
Quoting: Eike
Quoting: namiko
Quoting: Mountain ManIn other words, you are opposed to freedom of speech because you wish to place arbitrary limits on what others are allowed to say.
Think the hypocrisy is a good point, though. There are people saying that you enable freedom through limitations on many different sides, but that's not really the case, it's all authoritarian in nature and overreaching.

Well, obviously, disallowing murder protects my freedom to live (and all other ones, as I couldn't use any when being dead). Enabling freedom through limitations is very, very broadly agreed upon. So the question usually is not if we want to limit peoples' freedom to protect other peoples' freedom, but just to what extend.

The crime of murder exists because killing someone without just cause deprives them of their fundamental right to life. I really don't see how this is analogous to speech.

Suppose you joined a religion that required you to wear pink pajamas with purple polka dots in public, and suppose I made a disparaging remark about your attire that you found offensive. What fundamental right have I violated? The right not to be offended? Please, if that was a fundamental right then humanity may as well cease to exist because no matter what the circumstance, you are guaranteed to find someone in the world who is offended by it.

Offensive speech is protected speech by definition, because inoffensive speech doesn't need protection.
See, this is the kind of reason laws are complicated--because they always have a bunch of careful wording so as to avoid exactly the kind of trivial problem you're referring to. So you can pretend that hate speech laws lead to this kind of problem, just as you can pretend they are arbitrary, but they don't and they aren't, because they're carefully worded and generally err on the side of caution. So for instance, Canada has hate speech laws, but the only people who have ever been prosecuted under them are far-out neo-Nazis with extensive public records of holocaust denial and Jew-bashing. Libel remains way more common and a lower bar when it comes to going after people for unacceptable speech.
While you're here, please consider supporting GamingOnLinux on:

Reward Tiers: Patreon. Plain Donations: PayPal.

This ensures all of our main content remains totally free for everyone! Patreon supporters can also remove all adverts and sponsors! Supporting us helps bring good, fresh content. Without your continued support, we simply could not continue!

You can find even more ways to support us on this dedicated page any time. If you already are, thank you!
The comments on this article are closed.