4 ms·

> Is the contention here that there is more censorship on X compared to Twitter pre acquisition? That's easy to sustain. Pre-acquisition: https://x.com/elonmu

> Is the contention here that there is more censorship on X compared to Twitter pre acquisition? That's easy to sustain. Pre-acquisition: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1589414958508691456 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1589414958508691456 Post-acquisition: https://x.com/elonjet https://x.com/elonjet

rockemsockem 7mo ago
[flagged]
- ceejayoz 7mo ago
  There are lots of similar examples. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2022_Twitter_suspensions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2022_Twitter_suspensi... https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1993828797066748081 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1993828797066748081
  - rockemsockem 7mo ago
    I was not dismissing the comment's claim, simply the poor evidence. Your evidence is far better.
- notahacker 7mo ago
  Twitter's own first published transparency report under Musk acknowledged they suspended 3x as many accounts (for policy reasons other than spamming) in six months as they had done over an equivalent period just before he acquired it.
  - rockemsockem 7mo ago
    I was not dismissing the comment's claim, simply the poor evidence. This is better evidence, albeit uncited.
bko 7mo ago
[flagged]
- ceejayoz 7mo ago
  > That's where you draw the line? Yes, a "free-speech absolutist" who explicitly promised to preserve a very specific example of free speech on explicit free speech grounds immediately banned the account when he was able to. And then he banned reporters for reporting on it. It's the easiest possible example to demonstrate his principles were never genuine here. See also: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1993828797066748081 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1993828797066748081 > Falsely labeling non-violent people as “fascist” or “Nazi” should be treated as incitement to murder That's not very free speech, right?
  - bko 7mo ago
    [flagged]
- subjectsigma 7mo ago
  There was never any security risk, the flight data was and is public information. You should be able to say “men are not women” and also repost public data. Stop pretending Elon cares about free speech.
stale2002 7mo ago
[flagged]

rockemsockem 7mo ago

[flagged]

ceejayoz 7mo ago
There are lots of similar examples. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2022_Twitter_suspensions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2022_Twitter_suspensi... https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1993828797066748081 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1993828797066748081
- rockemsockem 7mo ago
  I was not dismissing the comment's claim, simply the poor evidence. Your evidence is far better.
notahacker 7mo ago
Twitter's own first published transparency report under Musk acknowledged they suspended 3x as many accounts (for policy reasons other than spamming) in six months as they had done over an equivalent period just before he acquired it.
- rockemsockem 7mo ago
  I was not dismissing the comment's claim, simply the poor evidence. This is better evidence, albeit uncited.

bko 7mo ago

[flagged]

ceejayoz 7mo ago
> That's where you draw the line? Yes, a "free-speech absolutist" who explicitly promised to preserve a very specific example of free speech on explicit free speech grounds immediately banned the account when he was able to. And then he banned reporters for reporting on it. It's the easiest possible example to demonstrate his principles were never genuine here. See also: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1993828797066748081 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1993828797066748081 > Falsely labeling non-violent people as “fascist” or “Nazi” should be treated as incitement to murder That's not very free speech, right?
- bko 7mo ago
  [flagged]
subjectsigma 7mo ago
There was never any security risk, the flight data was and is public information. You should be able to say “men are not women” and also repost public data. Stop pretending Elon cares about free speech.

stale2002 7mo ago

[flagged]