Mostly unrelated to my other comment, X/Twitter have repeatedly displayed editorial decision in what is left, what is removed. Arguing that its a defender of public rights to free expression in the wide, is a bit of a stretch given they actively (even if badly) "police" the content and make decisions on what to leave and what to remove.
If this is aspirational, its also demonstrably not currently or historically correct or complete. (and I don't just mean that illegal expressions are removed: unpopular views are removed, including critiques of the owner)
X is a free public service funded largely by advertisers.
Be careful what you wish for. It is arguably disputable if it really is a "public service" and the use of that term promiscuously, will possibly incur consequences. It's freely available, with conditions, it's publicly visible, again with conditions, it's nothing like unfettered.
I'd be very surprised if the T&C describe it that simply: it will be qualified, somehow.
Normally I wouldn't quibble, but in context this is a statement which I find extraordinary. I would have to believe the legal department knew what they were doing.
Maybe I over-react to what "public service" means distinct from "public" and "service" alone.
Translation: it’s vitally important that you be able to say the N-word or post depictions of child/adult maximally intense love (let’s not use terms like CSAM; that’s mean) on X.
Also, pay fealty to Musk with a tithe every afternoon at 4:20 PM; that Neuralink Zyklon-B supply ain’t gonna pay for itself.
"it’s vitally important that you be able to say the N-word"
From my personal experience the amount of hateful content has subsided greatly after Musk came on board, except for a short lived boom of racism often perpetrated by left leaning individuals that did so to "prove a point" or whatever. X/Twitter has largely become a friendly place and the only hate I see these days are lefty bigots
"or post depictions of **/** maximally intense love (let’s not use terms like **; that’s mean)" (to see the censored words look at the original comment)
This is an ongoing problem that has been vastly improved upon after Musk's takeover, if the statements are to be believed anyways. But it remains a fact that a number of people were ignored by old Twitter when they wanted their children's likeness taken off of the platform. But after Musk's takeover there have been no more reports of take-down requests being ignored when it comes to this type of material, in other words, I'd say twitter is a better and safer place now.
> I'd say twitter is a better and safer place now.
You're entitled to your personal opinion based on the window you have on twitter traffic.
At a broader bulk level, however:
Australia's eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant said about one-third of the complaints her agency received about online hate involved content on Twitter, noting a surge in harmful posts since the Tesla chief bought the platform last year.
Australia issues Elon Musk's Twitter with a 'please explain' notice over surge in online hate
If this is aspirational, its also demonstrably not currently or historically correct or complete. (and I don't just mean that illegal expressions are removed: unpopular views are removed, including critiques of the owner)