4 ms·

Your very own tweet disproves what you're saying: "I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law." Even back in April he was not saying he was only goin

Your very own tweet disproves what you're saying: "I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law." Even back in April he was not saying he was only going to censor illegal speech. Anyways, since Elon acquired twitter he's made it a major talking point to say that twitter is still moderating by the same rules as before: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1588538640401018880 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1588538640401018880 "Twitter has had a massive drop in revenue, due to activist groups pressuring advertisers, even though nothing has changed with content moderation and we did everything we could to appease the activists." The ElonJet account was violating rules for leaking internal company communications. Is that type of censorship going "far beyond the law?" I don't think so. Internal leaks can damage a company and the company should therefore protect itself. If anything, Twitter could be legally liable to shareholders for failing to do so. On the other hand, blacklisting Dr. Jay Bhattacharya for saying things about Covid that turned out to be far more correct than what the CDC was saying at the same time is indeed going far beyond the law and also harming all of society: https://www.foxnews.com/media/twitter-files-confirm-stanford-professor-dr-jay-bhattacharya-blacklisted-covid-19-information https://www.foxnews.com/media/twitter-files-confirm-stanford...

BryantD 4y ago
The owner of the ElonJet account published those leaked communications, and that account hasn’t been suspended, so there’s some inconsistency there. Zoe Schiffer, who has published many Twitter leaks this month, has not been suspended. It would be useful if Musk adopted transparency and shared the rationale behind this banning, along with all internal communications regarding it.
- BryantD 4y ago
  This is no longer accurate: all of Jack Sweeney’s accounts have been banned, apparently permanently (despite Musk’s statement that permanent bans are wrong). https://mastodon.social/@JxckS/109513788818540405 https://mastodon.social/@JxckS/109513788818540405 There is an explanation: Violating our rules against platform manipulation and spam. You may not use Twitter's services in a manner intended to artificially amplify or suppress information or engage in behavior that manipulates or disrupts people's experience on Twitter. “Artificially amplify” probably covers it, since he wrote code to amplify information that was otherwise tricky to view. Interesting precedent, though.
  - BryantD 4y ago
    Here’s another update (yes, I know nobody’s reading this far nested): The rules and policies covering personal information have been changed to include “live location information, including information shared on Twitter directly or links to 3rd-party URL(s) of travel routes, actual physical location, or other identifying information that would reveal a person’s location, regardless if this information is publicly available.” https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/personal-information https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/personal-info... I have confirmed via the Wayback Machine that this change occurred within the last 48 hours. I am going to be non-neutral now: what a dumb policy. That means you could report someone for posting a photo of a sporting event, because it identifies the location of the players. I’m not even totally against the concept but that is a terrible, terrible implementation. Remember how the people deciding whether or not to ban Trump were relying on nuances and intent rather than trying to write iron-clad rules? This is why.
    - PathOfEclipse 4y ago
      I'm still reading! You're the only one in this thread saying anything valuable as far as I'm concerned.
      - PathOfEclipse 4y ago
        Another update: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1603190155107794944 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1603190155107794944 Musk claims an attempt was made to assault him: "Last night, car carrying lil X in LA was followed by crazy stalker (thinking it was me), who later blocked car from moving & climbed onto hood. Legal action is being taken against Sweeney & organizations who supported harm to my family."
glhaynes 4y ago
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1589414958508691456 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1589414958508691456 He specifically said he would not ban it as part of his commitment to free speech.
- PathOfEclipse 4y ago
  That was before the account owner violated other rules.
  - rnk 4y ago
    I thought he was all about the law? And what are these other rules? There's not really any defense of musk here. Leaving up the other "jet tweeters" makes it clear. He's just thin skinned. Everyone is energized by this situation because it's so obviously blatantly self serving.
  - nickthegreek 4y ago
    What rules did he violate?
    - PathOfEclipse 4y ago
      As BryantD posted further below, the most up-to-date info we have is this: https://mastodon.social/@JxckS/109513788818540405 https://mastodon.social/@JxckS/109513788818540405 "Violating [Twitter] rules against platform manipulation and spam."
      - nickthegreek 4y ago
        lol, I would love to see the offending tweets that led to that generic pile of BS. Appreciate the link.
three_seagrass 4y ago
>On the other hand, blacklisting Dr. Jay Bhattacharya for saying things about Covid that turned out to be far more correct than what the CDC was saying at the same time is indeed going far beyond the law and also harming all of society: https://www.foxnews.com/media/twitter-files-confirm-stanford https://www.foxnews.com/media/twitter-files-confirm-stanford... This is textbook whataboutism, using Fox News no less. It's irrelevant to the discussion about Musk's hypocrisy on free speech, which you also ignored in your previous comment: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1589414958508691456 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1589414958508691456
- taolegal 4y ago
  This isn't "textbook whataboutism" which to you seems to be just a thought-terminating cliche. They also never ignored "Musk's hypocrisy on free speech." Simply because he isn't being hypocritical here.
- PathOfEclipse 4y ago
  > This is textbook whataboutism False. > using Fox News no less. Speaking of irrelevant to the discussion, this sentence fragment wins first prize for most irrelevant. > It's irrelevant to the discussion about Musk's hypocrisy on free speech False. I am comparing the type of speech that is "far beyond the law" that Elon Musk is now allowing versus the type of speech that he is not.
d23 4y ago
> The ElonJet account was violating rules for leaking internal company communications First I've heard of this. The ElonJet person was a Twitter employee then? What communications did they leak?

BryantD 4y ago

The owner of the ElonJet account published those leaked communications, and that account hasn’t been suspended, so there’s some inconsistency there. Zoe Schiffer, who has published many Twitter leaks this month, has not been suspended. It would be useful if Musk adopted transparency and shared the rationale behind this banning, along with all internal communications regarding it.

BryantD 4y ago
This is no longer accurate: all of Jack Sweeney’s accounts have been banned, apparently permanently (despite Musk’s statement that permanent bans are wrong). https://mastodon.social/@JxckS/109513788818540405 https://mastodon.social/@JxckS/109513788818540405 There is an explanation: Violating our rules against platform manipulation and spam. You may not use Twitter's services in a manner intended to artificially amplify or suppress information or engage in behavior that manipulates or disrupts people's experience on Twitter. “Artificially amplify” probably covers it, since he wrote code to amplify information that was otherwise tricky to view. Interesting precedent, though.
- BryantD 4y ago
  Here’s another update (yes, I know nobody’s reading this far nested): The rules and policies covering personal information have been changed to include “live location information, including information shared on Twitter directly or links to 3rd-party URL(s) of travel routes, actual physical location, or other identifying information that would reveal a person’s location, regardless if this information is publicly available.” https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/personal-information https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/personal-info... I have confirmed via the Wayback Machine that this change occurred within the last 48 hours. I am going to be non-neutral now: what a dumb policy. That means you could report someone for posting a photo of a sporting event, because it identifies the location of the players. I’m not even totally against the concept but that is a terrible, terrible implementation. Remember how the people deciding whether or not to ban Trump were relying on nuances and intent rather than trying to write iron-clad rules? This is why.
  - PathOfEclipse 4y ago
    I'm still reading! You're the only one in this thread saying anything valuable as far as I'm concerned.
    - PathOfEclipse 4y ago
      Another update: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1603190155107794944 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1603190155107794944 Musk claims an attempt was made to assault him: "Last night, car carrying lil X in LA was followed by crazy stalker (thinking it was me), who later blocked car from moving & climbed onto hood. Legal action is being taken against Sweeney & organizations who supported harm to my family."

glhaynes 4y ago

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1589414958508691456 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1589414958508691456 He specifically said he would not ban it as part of his commitment to free speech.

PathOfEclipse 4y ago
That was before the account owner violated other rules.
- rnk 4y ago
  I thought he was all about the law? And what are these other rules? There's not really any defense of musk here. Leaving up the other "jet tweeters" makes it clear. He's just thin skinned. Everyone is energized by this situation because it's so obviously blatantly self serving.
- nickthegreek 4y ago
  What rules did he violate?
  - PathOfEclipse 4y ago
    As BryantD posted further below, the most up-to-date info we have is this: https://mastodon.social/@JxckS/109513788818540405 https://mastodon.social/@JxckS/109513788818540405 "Violating [Twitter] rules against platform manipulation and spam."
    - nickthegreek 4y ago
      lol, I would love to see the offending tweets that led to that generic pile of BS. Appreciate the link.

three_seagrass 4y ago

>On the other hand, blacklisting Dr. Jay Bhattacharya for saying things about Covid that turned out to be far more correct than what the CDC was saying at the same time is indeed going far beyond the law and also harming all of society: https://www.foxnews.com/media/twitter-files-confirm-stanford https://www.foxnews.com/media/twitter-files-confirm-stanford... This is textbook whataboutism, using Fox News no less. It's irrelevant to the discussion about Musk's hypocrisy on free speech, which you also ignored in your previous comment: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1589414958508691456 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1589414958508691456

taolegal 4y ago
This isn't "textbook whataboutism" which to you seems to be just a thought-terminating cliche. They also never ignored "Musk's hypocrisy on free speech." Simply because he isn't being hypocritical here.
PathOfEclipse 4y ago
> This is textbook whataboutism False. > using Fox News no less. Speaking of irrelevant to the discussion, this sentence fragment wins first prize for most irrelevant. > It's irrelevant to the discussion about Musk's hypocrisy on free speech False. I am comparing the type of speech that is "far beyond the law" that Elon Musk is now allowing versus the type of speech that he is not.

d23 4y ago

> The ElonJet account was violating rules for leaking internal company communications First I've heard of this. The ElonJet person was a Twitter employee then? What communications did they leak?