What speech that makes him uncomfortable has he banned exactly ? Asking out of curiosity because I see posts on twitter all the time calling him Nazi, blah-blah.
There are tens of thousands of posts with the word "cisgender" at the moment on X. So, I think this "ban" is currently only in one's febrile imagination. Putin does not allow tens of thousands of opposition politicians, so the analogy also does not hold.
Its an extremely big difference from the Biden era where any post critical of the vaccine and backed up with papers was taken down pronto. This was even confirmed in several senate hearings.
As a non-American, I was very happy when Musk bought out twitter - it was ridiculous being unable to criticize vaccines - you couldn't even articulate the Indian government's stance on Pfizer and how Pfizer refused to provde test data. "Freedom of speech" was utterly non-existent in that era.
> “The words ‘cis’ or ‘cisgender’ are considered slurs on this platform,” Mr Musk wrote in June.
> “Repeated, targeted harassment against any account will cause the harassing accounts to receive, at minimum, temporary suspensions.”
> The newly enforced policy, first reported by TechCrunch on Tuesday, saw some users greeted with a full-screen warning when trying to publish a post using the terms on the X mobile app.
The fact that this is arbitrarily enforced isn't exactly painting it as a haven for free speech. The only thing worse than absolute censorship (which is obvious and can be routed around) is stochastic, inconsistent censorship - which gives him and his defenders a fig leaf[1] to hide behind.
Look, maybe you prefer the new brand of censorship X has adopted. It sounds like you do. Great. But what you can't do is call it a free speech platform, while keeping a straight face.
[1] I would like to point out, as an example: that China doesn't censor the internet - you just mysteriously have your connection go to shit and drop out if you try to search for 4/15.
So, posts are NOT being banned, but only visibility tagged as that article mentions and as many users also explicitly tested. No one reported a ban - only a warning with a visibility setting. Seems perfectly fine. Your speech is NOT banned as you incorrectly claim. And your account is still valid.
Did you ever try writing a mRNA-vaccine critical post during the Biden administration on twitter, quoting factual sources and linking to scientific papers ? Your account got banned pronto.
And as we all know now - it was done at the behest of the US white house.
Firstly, it's absolutely bonkers that any alleged 'free speech absolutist' could consider 'cisgender' to be a slur. It's like saying that 'man' is a slur.
And that's not an argument that you're going to do well with. Because the claim is utterly pants-on-head, irredeemably farcical, as is anyone who would stand behind it.
---
But, secondly, if you read the screenshots in the link, you'll see that the posts are being suppressed.
---
And thirdly, you don't see me claiming that pre-Musk Twitter was any kind of bastion of 'free speech absolutism'. I'm not making that argument.
The argument I'm making is that post-Musk Twitter definitely isn't one.
That's always been a feature of the 2-party system. I mean, the Democrats were once the party of southern white supremacists. We don't really get new parties, but the parties we have change over time as the coalitions within them rearrange.
I think a multi-party parliamentary system would be better at finding middle ground, but it's silly to say that the two-party system keeps politics "fixed".
True, the make-up and priorities of both Republicans and Democrats have changed a few times over the years.
I would say that in this case, it's a party aligning to an individual far more than it has ever been in the past. Racist Southern Democrats didn't become Republicans because they were enamored with a Republican leader, they changed parties because they found themselves misaligned with the Democratic Party's pivot to civil rights.
I wholeheartedly agree that a parliamentary system would serve the US better.
In terms of tariffs you're normally either a "protectionist" or for "free trade". That's sort of the two sides of that argument. There is some middle ground, but those are the extremes. It is not really related to regulations, that's more if you believe that the market is able to regulate itself, in terms of environmental impact, fair wages, safety and those sorts of things. The latter is the things which are impacted by firing regulatory enforces, or removing regulation altogether.
The Trump administration seems to run a protectionist policy, with a deregulated home market. This will hurt exports as it makes products more expensive, but also less likely to be able to comply with the regulations of other markets, e.g. in the EU, which is heavily regulated. US companies have a reduced incentive to comply with EU rules, if they know they have a protected market at home they can milk instead.
