'ex-4chan users' isn't really an important criteria, especially if you're including the people posting there before 2016. In fact, some hobby boards like /co/, /mu/ and /lit/ were notoriously left-wing. "Ex-" usually means the ones who were smart enough to leave.

But furthermore, calling Mastodon a white supremacist site is just funny. Might as well be saying that about Lemmy.

I don't know what instances you roam, but I don't see any kind of nazi/fascist shit on mine and I really love that. But then again, my instance is about metal music and people usually don't discuss politics. Also, I've blocked and muted everything that relates to trump and us politics. Not that it helps anyone but me.

CTT claims that Bluesky is great, but I'm just not into that type of social media so while I'm on Mastodon, I don't actually use it.

Freedom of speech may be great in the abstract, as an ideal, but unfortunately it isn't very useful when speech platforms are controlled by the owning class. Our speech means little compared to the speech of national TV channels, news outlets and restricted social platforms. The utopian marketplace of ideas becomes a rigged supermarket.

I highly recommend the book Manufacturing Consent, which explains some core systematic factors which shape the US mass media (also applicable to other countries) into essentially a largely-homogeneous echo chamber without the need for legally censoring opposing speech.

Frankly, doing this openly on X/Twitter versus some obscure unknown forum or encrypted platforn is a positive.

Hardly - they're doing this to spread their message, not to have a good faith discussion and expose themselves to other viewpoints. It's purely predatory, and removing their platform reduces their impact. Yes, they will always find ways to communicate but they struggle more to find ways to advertise and recruit without public platforms amplifying them.

Rights are not handed to us by God or by Nature, they are legal constructs, created by people. They are not immaculate or immune to criticism or alteration on the basis of what we think would be better for human society. White supremacy must be smashed to its very core, and part of accomplishing that task is making sure it's as difficult for white supremacists to recruit and congregate as we can possibly make it.

It's bizarre idealism to think that opposition to white supremacy will be overcome with no loss of enthusiasm or membership, that any interference actually has zero effect and we're just better off letting them do what they want.

Tolerance of intolerance. Look where that got us.

You are so fucking wrong. I have never understood this logic that because people are doing things out in the open that it's a good thing. They are popularizing their ideas. More people are exposed to them when they're out in the open. Had they been operating in some obscure forum, they would lack the advertising of their ideas to others.

For what possible reason could this be "positive"? So that the rest of us are aware of their first amendment protected hateful ideas? What good does that do anyone? We just elected one of them to be president of the United States. Allowing hate speech to bloom out in the open tempers our reactions and slowly seeps into our minds as propaganda.

Freedom of speech is, in the US, something that the US Constitution promises will not be restricted by Congress. It is not something any private company is required to protect. I would argue that private companies have a responsibility to its users to ban all hate speech and report substantiated threats to law enforcement.

Twitter is not a free platform. It actively suppresses the voices of the left and protects the far right.

I do sincerely support free speech. I think it looks a lot more like the Fediverse than Twitter.

Musk does not endorse free speech at all as he has shown