5 ms·

Elon Musk and X to fight Australian order to remove Sydney stabbing content

25 points by KnuthIsGod 2y ago

delichon 2y ago
Does the old Twitter just meekly comply with the court order and not make a fuss? “gratuitous or offensive violence with a high degree of impact or detail” Gratuitous ... does not sound correct. Indications are that this attack was not randomly targeted or without a purpose. Offensive ... makes it more worthy of attention, not less. Should genocide also be hidden because it is so offensive? High degree of impact ... because it contains important information about the social climate that can help people protect themselves and each other. How is that a reason to suppress? Or detail ... that is important for judging authenticity, to be harder to fool. Australia's rationale amounts to "we need to control your reality so that you don't get out of control". Wherever this leads, thanks for pushing back, X.
- cbsks 2y ago
  Or maybe Twitter would have also pushed back, but it wouldn’t have been news because Elon wouldn’t have been involved.
  - bequanna 2y ago
    I don’t think that’s the case at all. Previous Twitter was receiving a direct flow of censorship requests from Government officials asking them to shadowban or remove users. This was pure political speech censorship.
- bandyaboot 2y ago
  > Australia's rationale amounts to "we need to control your reality so that you don't get out of control". Why have you concluded that this is their rationale?
  - exodust 2y ago
    Australian authorities claim the church stabbing video may incite reprisal attacks. Censoring is their attempt at behaviour modification of the few, at the expense of the right to raw information for the many. They want a blindfold mechanism on a per-content basis for the entire internet, at the request of eKaren - the American ex-Twitter staffer whose highly paid job is to threaten Big Tech with takedown orders. The footage belongs to the church, it's not "extremist content". It's similar to security footage of any crime. Mainstream news in Australia routinely shows home invasion footage, road-rage, all kinds of incidents in prime time news. The priest who was stabbed made a clear statement forgiving his attacker and wants peace, no reprisals. It worked. That is what a healthy Australian community does. De-escalation with honest expression, not censoring or strong-arm threats to social media with pretentious power-play politics and "keeping people safe" rhetoric.
    - defrost 2y ago
      Australian authorities assert, with receipts mind you, that the church stabbing video and the unchecked troll accounts on X-Twatter did incite a sustained reprisal riot. > The priest who was stabbed made a clear statement forgiving his attacker and wants peace, no reprisals. It worked. By the time the statement from the priest had made it was many hours after actual reprisal attacks that were stoked by false account on social media. The power of the lord did not apply retrochronologically in this instance. If you're going to comment then at least do so within the realm of actual events that took place in the real world.
      - exodust 2y ago
        There were no reprisal attacks on places of worship connected to the attacker's faith. This is what the priest and everyone meant by reprisal. We're talking about the video, nothing more. Your argument is poor if you're bundling trolls and disinformation issues in order to strengthen your argument for censorship of a video. The video is factual. It happened. Regardless if the video existed or not, the hypothetical message: "our priest was stabbed by a terrorist, come to the church now"... would have had same outcome. You don't have receipts. All you have is authorities asserting that a 5 sec clip of crime in the community should be scrubbed from the internet because they say so. Because their idea of a "safe community" is a docile, uninformed and unaware community. The police literally said, "we are the source of truth" in their press conference. > "If you're going to comment..." Should I reach out to you before I comment in future with a summary of what I intend to post?
- JPKab 2y ago
  The "old Twitter" pretty much did whatever various governments told them to do. The FBI literally had a jira board for suspending accounts with stories worked by Twitter. You can see how this started with the noble purpose of shutting down state sponsored trolls, but it eventually morphed into "that RFK jr guy is a loon and is threatening people's lives by spreading anti-vax sentiment, delete that tweet".
  - matthewdgreen 2y ago
    The old Twitter had a vigorous legal team that fought a number of government requests, particularly the ones that involved secret court orders. Most of those people were wiped out in the first round of layoffs. The new Twitter selectively fights requests on high-profile issues that align with the owner’s politics.
    - valianteffort 2y ago
      So the new twitter using less resources available to it is fighting less requests that are still blatant attempts by governments to exercise control over media narrative. Got it. There is no mental gymnastics or wordplay you can perform to justify quasi-fascist bureaucrats from hiding the truth.
    - ehvatum 2y ago
      The old twitter had a vigorous compliance team that slavishly obeyed government requests, particularly the ones that involved secret court orders. Most of those people were wiped out in the first round of layoffs. The new Twitter has no such team nor impulse and ignores censorship requests, fighting them only when the courts get involved.
      - tumsfestival 2y ago
        Yeah, which is why they're complying with India's request for censorship and not fighting back... It's almost as if they're okay with working with authoritarian governments but don't give a shit if the nation in question is left leaning or not run by a fascist demagogue.

25 points by KnuthIsGod 2y ago

Does the old Twitter just meekly comply with the court order and not make a fuss? “gratuitous or offensive violence with a high degree of impact or detail” Gratuitous ... does not sound correct. Indications are that this attack was not randomly targeted or without a purpose. Offensive ... makes it more worthy of attention, not less. Should genocide also be hidden because it is so offensive? High degree of impact ... because it contains important information about the social climate that can help people protect themselves and each other. How is that a reason to suppress? Or detail ... that is important for judging authenticity, to be harder to fool. Australia's rationale amounts to "we need to control your reality so that you don't get out of control". Wherever this leads, thanks for pushing back, X.

cbsks 2y ago
Or maybe Twitter would have also pushed back, but it wouldn’t have been news because Elon wouldn’t have been involved.
- bequanna 2y ago
  I don’t think that’s the case at all. Previous Twitter was receiving a direct flow of censorship requests from Government officials asking them to shadowban or remove users. This was pure political speech censorship.
bandyaboot 2y ago
> Australia's rationale amounts to "we need to control your reality so that you don't get out of control". Why have you concluded that this is their rationale?
- exodust 2y ago
  Australian authorities claim the church stabbing video may incite reprisal attacks. Censoring is their attempt at behaviour modification of the few, at the expense of the right to raw information for the many. They want a blindfold mechanism on a per-content basis for the entire internet, at the request of eKaren - the American ex-Twitter staffer whose highly paid job is to threaten Big Tech with takedown orders. The footage belongs to the church, it's not "extremist content". It's similar to security footage of any crime. Mainstream news in Australia routinely shows home invasion footage, road-rage, all kinds of incidents in prime time news. The priest who was stabbed made a clear statement forgiving his attacker and wants peace, no reprisals. It worked. That is what a healthy Australian community does. De-escalation with honest expression, not censoring or strong-arm threats to social media with pretentious power-play politics and "keeping people safe" rhetoric.
  - defrost 2y ago
    Australian authorities assert, with receipts mind you, that the church stabbing video and the unchecked troll accounts on X-Twatter did incite a sustained reprisal riot. > The priest who was stabbed made a clear statement forgiving his attacker and wants peace, no reprisals. It worked. By the time the statement from the priest had made it was many hours after actual reprisal attacks that were stoked by false account on social media. The power of the lord did not apply retrochronologically in this instance. If you're going to comment then at least do so within the realm of actual events that took place in the real world.
    - exodust 2y ago
      There were no reprisal attacks on places of worship connected to the attacker's faith. This is what the priest and everyone meant by reprisal. We're talking about the video, nothing more. Your argument is poor if you're bundling trolls and disinformation issues in order to strengthen your argument for censorship of a video. The video is factual. It happened. Regardless if the video existed or not, the hypothetical message: "our priest was stabbed by a terrorist, come to the church now"... would have had same outcome. You don't have receipts. All you have is authorities asserting that a 5 sec clip of crime in the community should be scrubbed from the internet because they say so. Because their idea of a "safe community" is a docile, uninformed and unaware community. The police literally said, "we are the source of truth" in their press conference. > "If you're going to comment..." Should I reach out to you before I comment in future with a summary of what I intend to post?
JPKab 2y ago
The "old Twitter" pretty much did whatever various governments told them to do. The FBI literally had a jira board for suspending accounts with stories worked by Twitter. You can see how this started with the noble purpose of shutting down state sponsored trolls, but it eventually morphed into "that RFK jr guy is a loon and is threatening people's lives by spreading anti-vax sentiment, delete that tweet".
- matthewdgreen 2y ago
  The old Twitter had a vigorous legal team that fought a number of government requests, particularly the ones that involved secret court orders. Most of those people were wiped out in the first round of layoffs. The new Twitter selectively fights requests on high-profile issues that align with the owner’s politics.
  - valianteffort 2y ago
    So the new twitter using less resources available to it is fighting less requests that are still blatant attempts by governments to exercise control over media narrative. Got it. There is no mental gymnastics or wordplay you can perform to justify quasi-fascist bureaucrats from hiding the truth.
  - ehvatum 2y ago
    The old twitter had a vigorous compliance team that slavishly obeyed government requests, particularly the ones that involved secret court orders. Most of those people were wiped out in the first round of layoffs. The new Twitter has no such team nor impulse and ignores censorship requests, fighting them only when the courts get involved.
    - tumsfestival 2y ago
      Yeah, which is why they're complying with India's request for censorship and not fighting back... It's almost as if they're okay with working with authoritarian governments but don't give a shit if the nation in question is left leaning or not run by a fascist demagogue.