2 ms·
These links don’t make a good case Twitter/X has a publicly stated policy of following the laws in local jurisdictions. They refuse orders that violate the loca
by blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
These links don’t make a good case Twitter/X has a publicly stated policy of following the laws in local jurisdictions. They refuse orders that violate the local laws. Turkey has authoritarian censorship so following their local law isn’t controversial. The commonly cited case of India is bizarre since Twitter under Musk literally fought the Indian government in courts over censorship. Unfortunately India legalized certain forms of censorship with new laws that led to them losing the case. That’s why they ended up following the local laws.
Calling Musk hypocritical on free speech is nonsensical. Twitter is far less censored and much more permissive since the acquisition, and that’s a good thing for speech and democracy. The guardian opinion article is just unhinged.
- Timon3 2y ago> These links don’t make a good case Twitter/X has a publicly stated policy of following the laws in local jurisdictions. They refuse orders that violate the local laws. Yet the old Twitter fought and won against far more of these orders in these places, whereas Musks Twitter follows them more readily. Why do you think that is? I see two possibilities: 1) the governments have suddenly improved their approach for these orders, making them harder to win against in court 2) Twitter isn't fighting against these orders as much anymore I certainly know which option seems more likely...