<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Comic Sans MS";
panose-1:3 15 7 2 3 3 2 2 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b>…</b>> <b>On Behalf Of </b>William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [ExI] bee having fun<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";color:black'><br></span><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"'>>>…<span style='color:#222222'>Billw, we have a constitutional right to free speech. So we don’t need to move. They do. spike</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"'>>…<span style='color:#222222'>AGreed, - do you or anyone think that an abridgement of free speech will happen here</span>?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"'>Depends on how you look at it. The right to free speech means the federal government cannot prosecute citizens for their speech. There is an interesting extension being made that speech in our world today isn’t done primarily by the voice but the words we post on the internet. We paid for that, so we have a right to it.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"'>>…<span style='color:#222222'> Does the government have a right to examine the algorithms? Should they? bill </span>w<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"'>If it doesn’t say so in the constitution, the government does not have the right. So no to both questions.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"'>The more interesting part to me is that Musk is buying Twitter at enormous cost saying nothing about modifying or changing the filtering algorithms. He is only saying he will make them public domain. It has become the biggest debate topic in some time, which is remarkable in itself.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"'>Is there a legitimate reason, or even a logical illegitimate reason for stopping a guy from buying social media in order to make its filtering algorithm public? <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"'>Plenty of the public seem to think it is a bad thing. Is it a bad thing for a social medium to tell them something? How can it be argued that it is a bad thing for a company deciding to now offer you something which it didn’t give you before? The company is not forcing you to look at the filtering algorithms, ja? So… making those algorithms public cannot possibly harm anyone, ja? But it can certainly satisfy some long-standing curiosity so some can benefit. So… why is there any debate?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"'>spike<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></div></div></body></html>