4 ms·

There are plenty of examples of Elon Musk's hypocrisy, but this is not one of them. He has always said that intended to comply with the laws of any country.

by Aunche 4y ago

projectramo 4y ago
Yeah but it seems strange: make a law that you cannot speak against the government and of course we politely obey and keep quiet. Ask us to remove something and we will debate it, fight it and expose it. I think the second approach is right even if the request were “innocuous”.
cmeacham98 4y ago
It is perhaps not hypocrisy, but it is still an egg on his face. He's the one that made the incompatible promises that Twitter will be "free speech absolutist" but at the same time will follow the laws from your average corrupt and fascist government.
- yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
  > He's the one that made the incompatible claims that Twitter will be "free speech absolutist" but at the same time will follow the laws from your average corrupt dictator. Er, is that what he claimed? All I've seen is: > By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law. > I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law. - https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519036983137509376 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519036983137509376 Which this is - for better or worse - in line with.
  - twisteriffic 4y ago
    https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1499976967105433600 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1499976967105433600 > ... Sorry to be a free speech absolutist
    - latchkey 4y ago
      The full quote is even more impressive. > Starlink has been told by some governments (not Ukraine) to block Russian news sources. We will not do so unless at gunpoint.
  - nafey 4y ago
    Free speech in the first amendment sense means that Government will not regulate speech. Any speech is not free speech merely by matching law of the land. This is an unserious standard. It means every brutal authoritarian regime including North Korea has free speech. By this definition we end up conflating censorship with free speech. Ultimately, the conception of free speech is rooted outside of legal standards and closely related to universal human rights.
    - dmix 4y ago
      It's not censored in America though. They are following Indian censorship laws for Indian IP addresses. Not sure if that's the hill they went to die on, but sure there's an argument they should try anyway. Google tried to resist the Chinese gov early on then shut down the entire service there when that became infeasible (which went well beyond taking down a couple links). Twitter probably has a long existing framework in place with each region legal system and the degrees to which they will listen to it. And India isn't exactly a North Korean type dictatorship where companies would normally disregard their demands out-right. Maybe this will bring attention to that issue. I'm happy people are holding Elon Musk to account on free speech, even when most people are just doing just to spite him.
  - hobs 4y ago
    No, its moving the goalposts so far as to redefine the words, and should not be given any credence as a serious argument.
dirtyid 4y ago
Befuddling why platforms don't just adopt the narrative of "as much free speech as local laws allow". Which is ostensibly how it works already, but I suppose they don't want it in writing since it might encourage actual govs specifically legislate local or even subnational content laws.
- krapp 4y ago
  Because most people don't want to participate in communities where hate speech, harassment and misinformation are allowed to run rampant simply because it's technically legal, and most advertisers don't want their ads associated with it either.
tasuki 4y ago
> He has always said that intended to comply with the laws of any country. Any country? Such as the Principality of Sealand? Or Liberland?

There are plenty of examples of Elon Musk's hypocrisy, but this is not one of them. He has always said that intended to comply with the laws of any country.

by Aunche 4y ago

There are plenty of examples of Elon Musk's hypocrisy, but this is not one of them. He has always said that intended to comply with the laws of any country.

projectramo 4y ago

Yeah but it seems strange: make a law that you cannot speak against the government and of course we politely obey and keep quiet. Ask us to remove something and we will debate it, fight it and expose it. I think the second approach is right even if the request were “innocuous”.

cmeacham98 4y ago

It is perhaps not hypocrisy, but it is still an egg on his face. He's the one that made the incompatible promises that Twitter will be "free speech absolutist" but at the same time will follow the laws from your average corrupt and fascist government.

yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
> He's the one that made the incompatible claims that Twitter will be "free speech absolutist" but at the same time will follow the laws from your average corrupt dictator. Er, is that what he claimed? All I've seen is: > By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law. > I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law. - https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519036983137509376 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519036983137509376 Which this is - for better or worse - in line with.
- twisteriffic 4y ago
  https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1499976967105433600 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1499976967105433600 > ... Sorry to be a free speech absolutist
  - latchkey 4y ago
    The full quote is even more impressive. > Starlink has been told by some governments (not Ukraine) to block Russian news sources. We will not do so unless at gunpoint.
- nafey 4y ago
  Free speech in the first amendment sense means that Government will not regulate speech. Any speech is not free speech merely by matching law of the land. This is an unserious standard. It means every brutal authoritarian regime including North Korea has free speech. By this definition we end up conflating censorship with free speech. Ultimately, the conception of free speech is rooted outside of legal standards and closely related to universal human rights.
  - dmix 4y ago
    It's not censored in America though. They are following Indian censorship laws for Indian IP addresses. Not sure if that's the hill they went to die on, but sure there's an argument they should try anyway. Google tried to resist the Chinese gov early on then shut down the entire service there when that became infeasible (which went well beyond taking down a couple links). Twitter probably has a long existing framework in place with each region legal system and the degrees to which they will listen to it. And India isn't exactly a North Korean type dictatorship where companies would normally disregard their demands out-right. Maybe this will bring attention to that issue. I'm happy people are holding Elon Musk to account on free speech, even when most people are just doing just to spite him.
- hobs 4y ago
  No, its moving the goalposts so far as to redefine the words, and should not be given any credence as a serious argument.

dirtyid 4y ago

Befuddling why platforms don't just adopt the narrative of "as much free speech as local laws allow". Which is ostensibly how it works already, but I suppose they don't want it in writing since it might encourage actual govs specifically legislate local or even subnational content laws.

krapp 4y ago
Because most people don't want to participate in communities where hate speech, harassment and misinformation are allowed to run rampant simply because it's technically legal, and most advertisers don't want their ads associated with it either.

tasuki 4y ago

> He has always said that intended to comply with the laws of any country. Any country? Such as the Principality of Sealand? Or Liberland?