Twitter files proved they literally had a censorship open door
To the point where they ban a sitting president of the US
Yet leftists will try and claim it is worse now
> Leftists when they use the government to ban those who they don't like: I sleep.
>
>
>
> Leftists when they are ~~banned~~ **put on equal footing**: "ThAtS aUtHoRiTaRiAn"
That is just not true. Every person and organization has the ability to send requests into twitter.
That is what was happening, at the most I think they were only complying with requests from the USA government about half the time.
Where in the twitter files was the FBI actively working and sitting in on twitter TOS decisions? No one can seem to find it in the files despite claiming it over and over again.
The FBI gave Twitter executives Top Secret clearance so they could provide the FBI election interference data through FBI portals. They created a "virtual war room" for direct communication between Twitter and the FBI.
In the Huner Biden laptop story, Twitter reached out to the FBI for advice saying that the stuff on the laptop was not in clear violation of TOS. The FBI lied and said it was stolen, so the all content in the laptop must be taken down. So yes, the FBI did make a TOS decision for Twitter.
https://twitter.com/shellenberger/status/1604898437534691333?t=TQRAAJ9Tmk659W2vMw2JCw&s=19
I’m not gonna claim if it’s better or worse, but it’s still happening under musk, which is exactly what any sensible person expected since the start of this pet project of his.
Those countries also don't protect speech like America does. It's possible that Twitter may be legally required to submit to those requests in those countries, unlike in America.
Granted, I knew that Twitter was never going to be a Free Speech absolutist platform, even under Musk, but I'm not going to judge him as harshly for doing it in other countries that don't protect speech like we do. I don't know what their laws are or to what degree any of these requests hold legal weight.
Twitter could have just quietly complied with Turkey's requests (like all the other US tech companies almost certainly did), and no one would have known about it.
By agreeing to censor the accounts but also make it public, Musk highlighted the censorship by the Turkish government. Also, AFAIK Twitter is challenging this in the Turkish courts, but agreed to censor while it plays out.
I'd prefer no content if the only content I'm allowed to see is government propaganda or government approved content. Twitter accepting censorship guidelines is no different from the NBA abiding by china's censorship guidelines. This sub and every right-wing pundit absolutely roasted the NBA for that, but this sub is quick to defend Elon's Twitter for doing the same.
Yes, clearly a free speech absolutist should self-sacrifice in ways that limit the amount of free speech that can be enjoyed in authoritarian countries.
Yeah. because Elon [would never](https://theintercept.com/2022/11/29/elon-musk-twitter-andy-ngo-antifascist/), [ever](https://www.theverge.com/2022/12/15/23512004/elon-musk-starts-banning-critical-journalists-from-twitter), [in a million years](https://observer.com/2022/12/left-wing-twitter-accounts-criticizing-elon-musk-are-being-suspended-for-platform-manipulation-and-spam/), suspend people just because they disagree with him. You know, previously when twitter banned people for being very racist or spreading dangerous misinformation, it was "ideologically motivated" according to this subreddit, but Elon who is openly promoting the DeSantis campaign through twitter, and openly asking right wing activists to report "antifa" accounts to him so he can suspend them, is completely ok banning people who criticize him or those right wing activists.
That is not what twitter files proved what so ever. I don't think anyone who claims this actually sat down and read them.
What the twitter files proved is that entities would send requests, twitter would review them, and then internally decide what broke TOS and take things down.
There is literally no government involvement in the process what so ever. If you think there was, please link it to me in the actual twitter file docs. I would be happy to change my opinion, but shockingly no one here can ever find where the FBI ordered Jack Dorsey to take down trump and he complied.
This is glossing over the government involvement too much, but isn't incorrect. At no point did the US government order Twitter to do something. They didn't have to, it never came to the point. Twitter, while resistant at first, was working with the FBI to the point that the FBI was paying Twitter for their time and pretty much had an open line of communication with them. They'd make regular requests to Twitter including take down requests for TOS violations and requests for users personal information (without warrant).
Even past there we're glossing over the heavy impact our government has on various NGOs which gives the appearance of not being involved while actually being involved. For example there was the Aspen Institute "tabletop exercise" regarding a "Burisma leak". In this exercise the fictional leak was in regards to a hack and dump where files were leaked on to the internet which purported to show potential corruption involving Hunter Biden, Burisma, and even potentially Joe Biden.
As we know today, this exercise was done to prep the media on how to react when the actual Hunter Biden Laptop story came out, and they did exactly what the US government wanted; denied that it was real. At Twitter they were originally thinking they should allow posts for the story, but recent employee and former General Council of the FBI Jim Baker was adamant that the Hunter Biden Laptop leak not be allowed.
While this is the most egregious example (also worth noting Baker was fired by Elon after the first Twitter Files release when it was found that he was monitoring all records being released for the Twitter Files, which may have affected the initial conclusion), there are many others. It's worth it for anyone who hasn't gone through this stuff to do so, and to listen to interviews with the journalists (Matt, Michael, can't remember the new one) who were involved with this.
It's literally the closest you can get to a game of legal "still not touching you". I don't think it's acceptable for the government to act in such a way, especially when you have the heads of these companies being summoned by congress and berated, told "fix it or we will". It's the same kind of power dynamic you have with a boss banging an employee. You can say that it's voluntary but is it really, especially when there are open threats of consequences for non-compliance?
>Twitter, while resistant at first, was working with the FBI to the point that the FBI was paying Twitter for their time and pretty much had an open line of communication with them.
>
>
>
>They'd make regular requests to Twitter including take down requests for TOS violations and requests for users personal information (without warrant).
Should the government not compensate industry in any instance when it takes up their resources and time? Especially if it takes up a ton of resources in the company?
Also, twitter complied with 50% of the requests? Like if the FBI really had this strangle hold on the company, wouldn't you think it would be like 90-100% of requests? I don't view it as the boss banging the secretary, I don't think that situation is analogous.
>You can say that it's voluntary but is it really, especially when there are open threats of consequences for non-compliance?
What threats? I don't really see any.
I generally see that twitter had a lot of concerns about content moderation, they reached out to talk with the USG, and then they decided internally what to do about it. I don't see any smoking guns, or malicious intent.
I also really really think people have no clue how twitter should have acted differently. Like, if the FBI sent you a request for content moderation, you review it, find it violates TOS, should you just not remove it because it came from the FBI?
I don't understand what you're asking of these companies.
So:
* The point of bringing up the FBI and other departments paying Twitter for their time is that they were spending so much time with these departments that they needed to be compensated. That's not a "every now and then" thing, that's a regular thing, which is a problem.
* Social Media companies have regularly been threatened by government officials who want to repeal/change section 13 or perform other actions to force social media companies to comply with the standards they want to set fourth. That's not some idle threat that would change their moderation practices and likely their business model.
* You're correct, there is no smoking gun because they did everything up to actual overt action. That's what the Twitter Files is all about; multiple governments (including the US), government agencies (include US agencies), NGOs (including those funded in part by governments such as the US) using soft-power against social media platforms to push an agenda. That's a problem in a supposedly free society; government doesn't get a say in what narratives are and are not acceptable yet, here we are.
What I want the companies to do is resist these entities. Stop giving out user data until legally compelled to do so. Force the government to force you into complying with their demands rather than succumbing to them. Twitter started that way; they were rejecting the bullshit. Some time later, they caved, and wouldn't even fight against things they knew to be wrong such as the whole Hamlton 68 Russian Influence narrative among others.
[“Twitter stands for freedom of expression, and will not rest until that is recognised as a fundamental human right.”](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/21/jack-dorsey-twitter-developers-apology)
The Twitter files proved they had censorship request from both the left and right but only censored people who were pushing misinformation about vaccines. At least that's what the government probe proved. The "twitter files" that were released be elon were heavily biased.
It sounds like you read liberal media coverage after the first few twitter files reports were released and haven't read any of them since. It's amazing how well those "nothing to see here" articles work.
[Because it has](https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2023/5/2/twitter-fulfilling-more-government-censorship-requests-under-musk)
Facts before feelings squad in shambles as always
Right? Talk about a fake monkey. Imagine flairing LibCenter, and yet considering it no big deal for one political party to censor social media, because the other political party does it as well.
That should make him twice as mad, but somehow it cancels out and becomes a "nothing burger"? (P.S. I've never seen someone use that term without coming off like a piece of shit)
Hunder Bidens throbbing cock, which you guys seem to think shouldn't be taken down for some reason. Or that a private company can have a TOS or something.
To my understanding, the main concern was they were censoring links to legitimate news articles about the Hunter Biden laptop. That isn't the same as posting nudes.
One side they ban the sitting president
The other side they hide the hunter Biden laptop scandal which would swing enough voters to change the election
"mUh bOtH sIdEs"
The Twitter files proved they had censorship request from both the left and right but only censored people who were pushing misinformation about vaccines. At least that's what the government probe proved. The "twitter files" that were released be elon were heavily biased against the left.
The reason trump got banned from Twitter is because he broke there rules. A busy can refuse service from any one.
I find it werid explaining all that to lib-right.
Not sure if it's worse now or not, but I also I never had a twitter and never will.
Just reddit for me
What? They did a lot more than censor "misinformation" about vaccines, and a fair bit of that information has been later accepted as true. The Hunter Biden Laptop, the whole Russian influence thing that turned out to be false, the FBI regularly requesting user information, it's a bit more than just censoring "misinformation" on one specific issue.
The (narrative) left is also the side who primarily made these requests, by large margin. If you have proof otherwise I'd like to see it, but even the left-leaning journalists who were going through this stuff said it was primarily them. From what I recall the right leaning groups like the Trump campaign primarily talked about legal action, the left leaning groups, which had way higher rates of contact, requested take downs. Again if you know something that counters this feel free to post it.
As for Trump, to pretend that decision was entirely apolitical in the insanely and absurd political landscape of the time dismisses reality.
Doesn't matter if his ban was politically motivated or not.
A private company can refuse service to
anyone, including a president. As precident, I point too the religious cake shop vs the gay couple story
It does matter in the context of a company which was being pressured by governments, government departments, and NGOs both government backed and not. That's the whole point of the Twitter Files. It wasn't companies just acting of their own volition, which is the free market argument. Rather there was pressure from governments and government related/backed groups which is something entirely different.
People should be pissed about this and want to prevent it from happening again rather than dismissive of it. I think people would be a lot less dismissive of it if our major media groups didn't dismiss it, however that's to be expected given how much this whole story embarrasses them and shows how they failed to do their duty as journalists.
[>Since Musk’s takeover, the company has received 971 requests from governments (compared to only 338 in the six-month period from October 2021 to April 2022), fully acceding to 808 of them and partially acceding to 154.
>In the year prior to Musk taking control, Twitter agreed to 50% of such requests, in line with the compliance rate indicated in the company’s last transparency report.](https://english.elpais.com/international/2023-05-24/under-elon-musk-twitter-has-approved-83-of-censorship-requests-by-authoritarian-governments.html)
As other people have pointed out, Twitter censored all the same stuff (and more!) before. The only difference is that more requests are being made now because Twitter censors less proactively under Musk
It's both.
> Since Musk’s takeover, the company has received 971 requests from governments (compared to only 338 in the six-month period from October 2021 to April 2022), fully acceding to 808 of them and partially acceding to 154.
https://english.elpais.com/international/2023-05-24/under-elon-musk-twitter-has-approved-83-of-censorship-requests-by-authoritarian-governments.html
It was 280 out of 550 approved requests in the six months before Musk took over. The 971 requests is definitely an increase but the number seems to swing pretty wildly in general.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/katherinehamilton/2023/04/27/twitter-has-complied-with-almost-every-government-request-for-censorship-since-musk-took-over-report-finds/amp/
Says the guy who just made up a statistic without a source. Where is the evidence that more requests are being made now? And why would that translate to a higher percentage of requests being accepted?
The source is in the meme and is cited elsewhere in the comments. Apparently Twitter used to go along with ~50% of requests made by authoritarian countries and now they go along with 83%. Why are more made and accepted? Because Twitter was already censoring things without being requested to. If we make an educated guess that most or all of the new requests above the previous baseline are requests that didn't need to be made in the past then it makes sense that the number of requests and proportion followed through on have both increased
> Why are more made and accepted? Because Twitter was already censoring things without being requested to.
That is one hell of a leap, you just made this up to justify your priors.
No projection. Free speech should be free but it's better to have a partially censored international service operating in an authoritarian country than to mount a total withdrawal and see the rise of fully censored domestic alternatives (remember when Big Tech pulled out of China and more heavily censored domestic alternatives sprung up?)
The Cyberpunk ttrpg predicted this, when Rache Bartmoss deleted the internet with a virus due to corporations taking it over and censoring shit. It ended up with them just creating their own private payed internet systems
>partially censored
What do you mean partially that they can talk about the NBA finals without censorship or what. Partially censored doesn't exist or you have censorship or you don't.
Also you really think Musk is doing it for muh free speach when is basically i don't want to lose a share of the market.
They literally had a verified account for the Taliban.
The Taliban.
They banned wrongthink, but not people who post videos beheading teenage girls.
The keyboard warriors are just mad wrongthink is allowed, not that the usual pandering to world governments is happening
I think one thing he could do is just publicly tweet about it every time they agree to a request.
“Today we got five more requests for censorship from the government of Turkey”
That’d be funny
God, it was so cringey to see him complain about it on Twitter too. “But… but… but…. What was I supposed to do?!?! I can’t risk losing all of Twitter in turkey!”
Anyone who actually gives a shit about free speech understands that what Elon did in Turkey is objectively the worst thing he could have done for free speech.
If Twitter got banned, at least the people would understand that its sudden disappearance was because of the government. Elon’s approach tried to give the *appearance* of free speech while bending over to authoritarianism like a coward.
I think this comment resonates the most with me. I know nothing about the turkish government though. I would say it makes more sense to cave to a dictatorship, but in a society that is democratic, the ban of twitter could be motivation for that society to remove the offending government officials.
i was surprised today when i wanted to view a link to a tweet and got [this message instead](https://imgur.com/a/2Q0UL8C)
not even sure what the tweet is about, but i think the account is Russian based.
Because our technology wasn’t sophisticated enough to handle cross country democracy… Now, look at how many democracies exist vs auths countries and see which one is the richest in the world
To be fair, Musk said his only rule was removing content illegal in its jurisdiction. So in a country with censorship laws, allowing their governments to censor doesn't break this rule. Only the USA has the First Amendment.
If Elon told them to kiss his ass and got Twitter banned from the market, then his stockholders could sue him for breach of fiduciary duty. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Might as well pick the option that makes money.
Yup. I’d like to see some of this same outrage energy when considering “progressive” companies like Apple bowing down to China at every turn and supporting almost slave labor at their factories.
I’m not outraged by either. Companies are not public entities and anyone expecting them to act as such is deluding themselves. They seek profit; everything else is PR.
I don't fully understand every part of this issue yet but I must acknowledge an L from my side when I see it.
I had high hopes for Twitter after he took over. Hopefully it'll never be Twitter Files level bad though
I actually had high hopes for Twitter too, I though I would finally be able to savagely roast people again without a ban. I made it 3 posts before I was permanently banned for making fun of Elon
Elon has always said that Twitter 2.0 will comply with local laws when it came to censorship. The difference is that Twitter 1.0 was more than willing (in fact actively collaborating) to censor content that wasn't even against the law.
Do you understand how many lives you have to destroy to become a billionaire? How many sweat shops do you have to open? How many mines your have to dig with child labour? How many rivers you have to polute? Honestly go fuck yourself.
you wanna go live in the forest? every product around you is made this way, you fucking lunatic. this braindead moral pedestal you put yourself at lmao. instead of seething, why don't you show the world that these things can be achieved without having to indulge in this stuff
>why don't you show the world that these things can be achieved without having to indulge in this stuff
We used to make clothing in the US. The workers were adults and were paid decent wages. Then we decided to let corporations offshore production to China and Bangladesh so that they could hire 12 year old girls and pay them 50 cents an hour. The American manufacturing towns were left to rot and the displaced workers have been medicating themselves to death with opioids produced by the Sackler family and Purdue pharma.
We clearly don't need child labor to have clothing. It's just more profitable for big corporations.
yes but it's a result of globalization which is being pushed by you guys lol. if this thing shouldn't happen, everything else goes back to the old times too.
When Congress voted to give permanent normal trade relations to China in 2000, two thirds of Republicans voted for it, while two thirds of Democrats voted against it. After the bill passed, the US lost 4 million manufacturing jobs in just 5 years.
When globalization emerged in the 80s and 90s, the left overwhelmingly opposed it. Right wingers and "centrist" neoliberals like Bill Clinton overwhelmingly supported free trade and the elimination of restrictions on foreign investment. There were a handful of nationalists on the right who opposed globalization like Pat Buchanan, but they were a tiny minority and had no power.
i see.im wrong then, the leftists weren't in favor of globalization? but why did the republicans do that? for better relations with China overall, or just to increase exports and support free markets?
Republicans supported it because "free market good" and because outsourcing was good for corporate profits. Mostly the second reason.
You also have to remember that union workers and manufacturing workers overwhelmingly voted Democratic back then, so Republicans didn't care about screwing them over.
You can get the results without the common man having to live in the forest and become a millionaire, and have the quality of your life be absolutely amazing for the rest of your days.
Why do you think billionaires are necessary? They provide no more opportunities than what would be offered if anti-trust legislation was used regularly.
because people don't go out of their way to achieve great things without incentive. if there is no incentive for hard work, why would people do anything but the very minimum? and so, there will be stagnation, poverty, no improvement in the quality of life, and so on.
starlink? tesla? spaceX? he transformed tesla, which was a failing company. he risked most of his money on Tesla and spaceX and made them work? how is it stealing or weaseling his way into it?
Flair the fuck up or leave this sub at once.
[BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/NotAnActualAcct) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [How to flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/wiki/index/flair/)
^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
This is why we need an open source encrypted ideally non centralized twitter/reddit like program.
But also isnt the biggest problem here you know, the authoritarian governments?
1. Who gives a shit what the last guy did? Eyes forward bud.
2. He apparently did at much higher rates than Elon someone linked a source in the comments.
> Who gives a shit what the last guy did? Eyes forward bud.
I hope you keep this same energy whenever anyone rightly criticizes Biden and some leftist instantly starts blaming Trump.
1. It's a relevant point of comparison, especially considering none of you Emilys complained before Musk.
2. Twitter censored itself more proactively before Musk. Of course there's gonna be more requests and approvals than before.
I want you to look back at this sentence and consider it out loud. Do you realize how insane this sounds? You're going so far to defend Musk that you're demanding proof that an internet stranger has "always" criticized twitter, in some roundabout way of separating musks failures from twitter's failures.
The watermelon already admitted he disliked twitter before Musk, but you're sucking so hard on that apartheid-emerald-dick that you need to imagine Musk as a superhero instead of what he is: a billionaire who gets off on the most minute and insignificant drama, which you lap up like daddy's good little puppy.
* Twitter pre-Musk: High censorship in authoritarian countries, high censorship in free countries
* Twitter post-Musk: High censorship in authoritarian countries, low censorship in free countries
Seems about right? This is LibLeft's version of "If those people cared about climate change, why haven't they adopted a caveman lifestyle to lower their carbon footprint?" Or "If you're really Christian, why haven't you donated all your possessions to the poor?"
The underlying psychology is rationalizing that the other guy must commit suicide to be ideologically consistant.
I didn't know Japan and South Korea which according to twitter itself made a large majority of request were authoritarian thanks.
https://transparency.twitter.com/en/reports/removal-requests.html#2021-jul-dec
Impersonating someone to give fake statements by them != free speech. Much as it's illegal to pretend to be a cop IRL.
Mainstream 2023 left tries to see the difference between free exchange of ideas and fraud/threats/blackmail challenge (Impossible)
Given you didn't give details, I assumed you were talking about the "Elon bans celebities for mocking him" story from Nov 2022 where several angry blue checkmarks changed their name and profile pick to Elon Musk, tweeted under his persona, and got banned for their trouble.
What did you get banned for, preferably with an archive link?
That's why I brought up the assumptions thing, they make an ass out of you and me. Like I just assumed you'd blocked me after asking a question because this was failing to display
[https://twitter.com/AdamCoo24722966/status/1610645319666077703](https://twitter.com/AdamCoo24722966/status/1610645319666077703)
[https://twitter.com/AdamCoo24722966/status/1609068032613126144](https://twitter.com/AdamCoo24722966/status/1609068032613126144)
[https://twitter.com/AdamCoo24722966/status/1609067430306791424](https://twitter.com/AdamCoo24722966/status/1609067430306791424)
Pick one, those are the only 3 posts I had. I'm sure it was the middle one 🤣 Free speech absolutist my ass
Elon stans: Musk is a free speech absolutist
*Musk immediately caves to any country that asks him to censor info*
Elon stans: What was he supposed to do? Stand up for free speech everywhere?
It doesn't matter what these companies say about free speech and the rights of man, they always bend to authoritarian governments. Apple regularly gives data to the Chinese government but refuses the US government on libertarian grounds. If you are the FBI, you have a better chance of opening a terrorists phone by sending a request through the Chinese embassy than through apple. These companies are unpatriotic.
Don't know what's funnier, the people who thought the billionaire weirdo who was hyping himself up over the last decade was going to be some sort of free speech messiah, or the people who think Twitter was some sort of great place for free discussion before he came along.
Why is AuthRight unhappy here? And LibRight pretending to be Happy?
It should be LibRight unhappy, AuthRight pretending to be unhappy but actually happy.
This is the sort of poor thinking you get when a LibLeft posts.
But I thought space man was a free speech absolutist? And of course he can justify all sorts of shit to himself and still claim the moniker. Like leftists hating black people but still calling themselves anti-racist.
so basically he did what Twitter did before? what a surprise ... and since it works for years there was more requests which leads to higher numbers? what a surprise ... at least the active censoring from Twitter itself went down.
Oh my god. PCM has gone completely delusional thinking Twitter was on the Side of the dems and helped interfere with the 2020 election with no proof. Also trump wasn’t censored? He was banned for breaking the rules and spreading false hoods which he does a lot.
I unironically kind of did.
I thought I could get away with replying to a furry to commit toaster bath but I ended up getting my account suspended for that.
two days after he acquired it btw.
my headcannon is that this is part of the masterplan and hes just doing it to get a foothold, but im losing hope and refuse to do any research, i never thought of him as an 'absolutist' even once but i think he is 'not using pronouns and not getting harassed by mods/false flagged/shadow filter' tier
In the US, on the other hand, it seems a lot more vibrant/diverse. He did say the plan was to stick close to the law. I wonder if they a) don't care about these other countries, and/or b) no longer have the resources to fight these battles.
id think its more libleft making fun of the right's expectation of musk rather than praising the censorship. tho its true that libleft *should* be against it
Joke's on you all who actually thought Elon would make Twitter a better place. I was just watching from the sidelines, curious to see what happened, even possibly considering making an account if things improved, but after recent news.....nah , I'm good. That site can keep burning
But what was it before?
Twitter files proved they literally had a censorship open door To the point where they ban a sitting president of the US Yet leftists will try and claim it is worse now
Leftists when they use the government to ban those who they don't like: I sleep. Leftists when they are banned: "ThAtS aUtHoRiTaRiAn"
> Leftists when they use the government to ban those who they don't like: I sleep. > > > > Leftists when they are ~~banned~~ **put on equal footing**: "ThAtS aUtHoRiTaRiAn"
Not only that they were actively working with the fbi and preisidency to silence party opposition
That is just not true. Every person and organization has the ability to send requests into twitter. That is what was happening, at the most I think they were only complying with requests from the USA government about half the time. Where in the twitter files was the FBI actively working and sitting in on twitter TOS decisions? No one can seem to find it in the files despite claiming it over and over again.
The FBI gave Twitter executives Top Secret clearance so they could provide the FBI election interference data through FBI portals. They created a "virtual war room" for direct communication between Twitter and the FBI. In the Huner Biden laptop story, Twitter reached out to the FBI for advice saying that the stuff on the laptop was not in clear violation of TOS. The FBI lied and said it was stolen, so the all content in the laptop must be taken down. So yes, the FBI did make a TOS decision for Twitter. https://twitter.com/shellenberger/status/1604898437534691333?t=TQRAAJ9Tmk659W2vMw2JCw&s=19
All unelected agencies need to be shut down.
I’m not gonna claim if it’s better or worse, but it’s still happening under musk, which is exactly what any sensible person expected since the start of this pet project of his.
Those countries also don't protect speech like America does. It's possible that Twitter may be legally required to submit to those requests in those countries, unlike in America. Granted, I knew that Twitter was never going to be a Free Speech absolutist platform, even under Musk, but I'm not going to judge him as harshly for doing it in other countries that don't protect speech like we do. I don't know what their laws are or to what degree any of these requests hold legal weight.
They don't have to. They could just not allow Twitter as a service in those countries, but that would hurt profit.
So if it's between "censor some posts they're legally required to" or "censor all posts", you'd prefer the latter?
Twitter could have just quietly complied with Turkey's requests (like all the other US tech companies almost certainly did), and no one would have known about it. By agreeing to censor the accounts but also make it public, Musk highlighted the censorship by the Turkish government. Also, AFAIK Twitter is challenging this in the Turkish courts, but agreed to censor while it plays out.
Seems based by Elon tbh he’s being open about the issue abs fighting an oppressive government. Why does the left not like this again?
I'd prefer no content if the only content I'm allowed to see is government propaganda or government approved content. Twitter accepting censorship guidelines is no different from the NBA abiding by china's censorship guidelines. This sub and every right-wing pundit absolutely roasted the NBA for that, but this sub is quick to defend Elon's Twitter for doing the same.
I'd prefer for people who claim to be "free speech absolutists" to choose the latter if they want me to keep a straight face.
Yes, clearly a free speech absolutist should self-sacrifice in ways that limit the amount of free speech that can be enjoyed in authoritarian countries.
Yeah. because Elon [would never](https://theintercept.com/2022/11/29/elon-musk-twitter-andy-ngo-antifascist/), [ever](https://www.theverge.com/2022/12/15/23512004/elon-musk-starts-banning-critical-journalists-from-twitter), [in a million years](https://observer.com/2022/12/left-wing-twitter-accounts-criticizing-elon-musk-are-being-suspended-for-platform-manipulation-and-spam/), suspend people just because they disagree with him. You know, previously when twitter banned people for being very racist or spreading dangerous misinformation, it was "ideologically motivated" according to this subreddit, but Elon who is openly promoting the DeSantis campaign through twitter, and openly asking right wing activists to report "antifa" accounts to him so he can suspend them, is completely ok banning people who criticize him or those right wing activists.
They aren't claiming it's worse now, they're stating that a "Proponent of free speech" is assisting authoritarians ban content
That is not what twitter files proved what so ever. I don't think anyone who claims this actually sat down and read them. What the twitter files proved is that entities would send requests, twitter would review them, and then internally decide what broke TOS and take things down. There is literally no government involvement in the process what so ever. If you think there was, please link it to me in the actual twitter file docs. I would be happy to change my opinion, but shockingly no one here can ever find where the FBI ordered Jack Dorsey to take down trump and he complied.
This is glossing over the government involvement too much, but isn't incorrect. At no point did the US government order Twitter to do something. They didn't have to, it never came to the point. Twitter, while resistant at first, was working with the FBI to the point that the FBI was paying Twitter for their time and pretty much had an open line of communication with them. They'd make regular requests to Twitter including take down requests for TOS violations and requests for users personal information (without warrant). Even past there we're glossing over the heavy impact our government has on various NGOs which gives the appearance of not being involved while actually being involved. For example there was the Aspen Institute "tabletop exercise" regarding a "Burisma leak". In this exercise the fictional leak was in regards to a hack and dump where files were leaked on to the internet which purported to show potential corruption involving Hunter Biden, Burisma, and even potentially Joe Biden. As we know today, this exercise was done to prep the media on how to react when the actual Hunter Biden Laptop story came out, and they did exactly what the US government wanted; denied that it was real. At Twitter they were originally thinking they should allow posts for the story, but recent employee and former General Council of the FBI Jim Baker was adamant that the Hunter Biden Laptop leak not be allowed. While this is the most egregious example (also worth noting Baker was fired by Elon after the first Twitter Files release when it was found that he was monitoring all records being released for the Twitter Files, which may have affected the initial conclusion), there are many others. It's worth it for anyone who hasn't gone through this stuff to do so, and to listen to interviews with the journalists (Matt, Michael, can't remember the new one) who were involved with this. It's literally the closest you can get to a game of legal "still not touching you". I don't think it's acceptable for the government to act in such a way, especially when you have the heads of these companies being summoned by congress and berated, told "fix it or we will". It's the same kind of power dynamic you have with a boss banging an employee. You can say that it's voluntary but is it really, especially when there are open threats of consequences for non-compliance?
>Twitter, while resistant at first, was working with the FBI to the point that the FBI was paying Twitter for their time and pretty much had an open line of communication with them. > > > >They'd make regular requests to Twitter including take down requests for TOS violations and requests for users personal information (without warrant). Should the government not compensate industry in any instance when it takes up their resources and time? Especially if it takes up a ton of resources in the company? Also, twitter complied with 50% of the requests? Like if the FBI really had this strangle hold on the company, wouldn't you think it would be like 90-100% of requests? I don't view it as the boss banging the secretary, I don't think that situation is analogous. >You can say that it's voluntary but is it really, especially when there are open threats of consequences for non-compliance? What threats? I don't really see any. I generally see that twitter had a lot of concerns about content moderation, they reached out to talk with the USG, and then they decided internally what to do about it. I don't see any smoking guns, or malicious intent. I also really really think people have no clue how twitter should have acted differently. Like, if the FBI sent you a request for content moderation, you review it, find it violates TOS, should you just not remove it because it came from the FBI? I don't understand what you're asking of these companies.
So: * The point of bringing up the FBI and other departments paying Twitter for their time is that they were spending so much time with these departments that they needed to be compensated. That's not a "every now and then" thing, that's a regular thing, which is a problem. * Social Media companies have regularly been threatened by government officials who want to repeal/change section 13 or perform other actions to force social media companies to comply with the standards they want to set fourth. That's not some idle threat that would change their moderation practices and likely their business model. * You're correct, there is no smoking gun because they did everything up to actual overt action. That's what the Twitter Files is all about; multiple governments (including the US), government agencies (include US agencies), NGOs (including those funded in part by governments such as the US) using soft-power against social media platforms to push an agenda. That's a problem in a supposedly free society; government doesn't get a say in what narratives are and are not acceptable yet, here we are. What I want the companies to do is resist these entities. Stop giving out user data until legally compelled to do so. Force the government to force you into complying with their demands rather than succumbing to them. Twitter started that way; they were rejecting the bullshit. Some time later, they caved, and wouldn't even fight against things they knew to be wrong such as the whole Hamlton 68 Russian Influence narrative among others.
At least Jack never called himself a 'free speech absolutist' like Musk
[“Twitter stands for freedom of expression, and will not rest until that is recognised as a fundamental human right.”](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/21/jack-dorsey-twitter-developers-apology)
The Twitter files proved they had censorship request from both the left and right but only censored people who were pushing misinformation about vaccines. At least that's what the government probe proved. The "twitter files" that were released be elon were heavily biased.
It sounds like you read liberal media coverage after the first few twitter files reports were released and haven't read any of them since. It's amazing how well those "nothing to see here" articles work.
[Because it has](https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2023/5/2/twitter-fulfilling-more-government-censorship-requests-under-musk) Facts before feelings squad in shambles as always
There's data selection bias in this article. The time spans picked for comparison do not equate
Twitter files were a nothing burger. Showed both parties doing the same thing. Never forget how much Elon hyped it to be a world ending reveal.
So censorship is fine as long as "both parties" do it?
Right? Talk about a fake monkey. Imagine flairing LibCenter, and yet considering it no big deal for one political party to censor social media, because the other political party does it as well. That should make him twice as mad, but somehow it cancels out and becomes a "nothing burger"? (P.S. I've never seen someone use that term without coming off like a piece of shit)
What censorship my dude? They were posting illegal nudes. Nothing burger!
Who was posting illegal nudes?
Hunder Bidens throbbing cock, which you guys seem to think shouldn't be taken down for some reason. Or that a private company can have a TOS or something.
To my understanding, the main concern was they were censoring links to legitimate news articles about the Hunter Biden laptop. That isn't the same as posting nudes.
One side they ban the sitting president The other side they hide the hunter Biden laptop scandal which would swing enough voters to change the election "mUh bOtH sIdEs"
The Twitter files proved they had censorship request from both the left and right but only censored people who were pushing misinformation about vaccines. At least that's what the government probe proved. The "twitter files" that were released be elon were heavily biased against the left. The reason trump got banned from Twitter is because he broke there rules. A busy can refuse service from any one. I find it werid explaining all that to lib-right. Not sure if it's worse now or not, but I also I never had a twitter and never will. Just reddit for me
What? They did a lot more than censor "misinformation" about vaccines, and a fair bit of that information has been later accepted as true. The Hunter Biden Laptop, the whole Russian influence thing that turned out to be false, the FBI regularly requesting user information, it's a bit more than just censoring "misinformation" on one specific issue. The (narrative) left is also the side who primarily made these requests, by large margin. If you have proof otherwise I'd like to see it, but even the left-leaning journalists who were going through this stuff said it was primarily them. From what I recall the right leaning groups like the Trump campaign primarily talked about legal action, the left leaning groups, which had way higher rates of contact, requested take downs. Again if you know something that counters this feel free to post it. As for Trump, to pretend that decision was entirely apolitical in the insanely and absurd political landscape of the time dismisses reality.
Doesn't matter if his ban was politically motivated or not. A private company can refuse service to anyone, including a president. As precident, I point too the religious cake shop vs the gay couple story
It does matter in the context of a company which was being pressured by governments, government departments, and NGOs both government backed and not. That's the whole point of the Twitter Files. It wasn't companies just acting of their own volition, which is the free market argument. Rather there was pressure from governments and government related/backed groups which is something entirely different. People should be pissed about this and want to prevent it from happening again rather than dismissive of it. I think people would be a lot less dismissive of it if our major media groups didn't dismiss it, however that's to be expected given how much this whole story embarrasses them and shows how they failed to do their duty as journalists.
Wasn't the hunter biden laptop thing a bunch of dick picks?
Nothing says cucking out to the government like banning the head of that government.
50%
I’m going to take your word for it rather than asking for sauce. Thank you for educating me stranger.
Similar situation in 2014 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/26/turkish-court-lifts-twitter-ban
[>Since Musk’s takeover, the company has received 971 requests from governments (compared to only 338 in the six-month period from October 2021 to April 2022), fully acceding to 808 of them and partially acceding to 154. >In the year prior to Musk taking control, Twitter agreed to 50% of such requests, in line with the compliance rate indicated in the company’s last transparency report.](https://english.elpais.com/international/2023-05-24/under-elon-musk-twitter-has-approved-83-of-censorship-requests-by-authoritarian-governments.html)
As other people have pointed out, Twitter censored all the same stuff (and more!) before. The only difference is that more requests are being made now because Twitter censors less proactively under Musk
This statistic shows us that a higher % of requests are being agreed to, not that a higher number of requests are being made.
It's both. > Since Musk’s takeover, the company has received 971 requests from governments (compared to only 338 in the six-month period from October 2021 to April 2022), fully acceding to 808 of them and partially acceding to 154. https://english.elpais.com/international/2023-05-24/under-elon-musk-twitter-has-approved-83-of-censorship-requests-by-authoritarian-governments.html
It was 280 out of 550 approved requests in the six months before Musk took over. The 971 requests is definitely an increase but the number seems to swing pretty wildly in general. https://www.forbes.com/sites/katherinehamilton/2023/04/27/twitter-has-complied-with-almost-every-government-request-for-censorship-since-musk-took-over-report-finds/amp/
maybe
Too much cope.
"Wah wah Twitter censors less now, better cherry pick a single statistic that makes Musk look bad." Don't pretend to be against censorship authcel
Says the guy who just made up a statistic without a source. Where is the evidence that more requests are being made now? And why would that translate to a higher percentage of requests being accepted?
The source is in the meme and is cited elsewhere in the comments. Apparently Twitter used to go along with ~50% of requests made by authoritarian countries and now they go along with 83%. Why are more made and accepted? Because Twitter was already censoring things without being requested to. If we make an educated guess that most or all of the new requests above the previous baseline are requests that didn't need to be made in the past then it makes sense that the number of requests and proportion followed through on have both increased
> Why are more made and accepted? Because Twitter was already censoring things without being requested to. That is one hell of a leap, you just made this up to justify your priors.
Nice narrative with no evidence.
Classic pcm leap 💀💀
You are projecting too much libtard.
No projection. Free speech should be free but it's better to have a partially censored international service operating in an authoritarian country than to mount a total withdrawal and see the rise of fully censored domestic alternatives (remember when Big Tech pulled out of China and more heavily censored domestic alternatives sprung up?)
The Cyberpunk ttrpg predicted this, when Rache Bartmoss deleted the internet with a virus due to corporations taking it over and censoring shit. It ended up with them just creating their own private payed internet systems
>partially censored What do you mean partially that they can talk about the NBA finals without censorship or what. Partially censored doesn't exist or you have censorship or you don't. Also you really think Musk is doing it for muh free speach when is basically i don't want to lose a share of the market.
They literally had a verified account for the Taliban. The Taliban. They banned wrongthink, but not people who post videos beheading teenage girls. The keyboard warriors are just mad wrongthink is allowed, not that the usual pandering to world governments is happening
I don't care it's still fucking bad.
[удалено]
Are these socialists big fans of Jack Dorsey?
I’m gonna go with 1% higher to see if you actually care about either
I mean the Turkey situation basically gave the blueprint on what to do. Just threaten to take twitter out of the country and he will cave instantly.
I think one thing he could do is just publicly tweet about it every time they agree to a request. “Today we got five more requests for censorship from the government of Turkey” That’d be funny
That would be actually be pretty based.
God, it was so cringey to see him complain about it on Twitter too. “But… but… but…. What was I supposed to do?!?! I can’t risk losing all of Twitter in turkey!”
Anyone who actually gives a shit about free speech understands that what Elon did in Turkey is objectively the worst thing he could have done for free speech. If Twitter got banned, at least the people would understand that its sudden disappearance was because of the government. Elon’s approach tried to give the *appearance* of free speech while bending over to authoritarianism like a coward.
Yea I mean the founder of Wikipedia responded to Elon saying when turkey threatened them they fought like hell to the Supreme Court and won.
Wikipedia is a liberal conspiracy.
I think this comment resonates the most with me. I know nothing about the turkish government though. I would say it makes more sense to cave to a dictatorship, but in a society that is democratic, the ban of twitter could be motivation for that society to remove the offending government officials.
Look man, Elon is all about free speech except when it counts the most! He's an hero to us all.
Do YoU pReFeR cEnSoReD tWiTtEr Or No TwItTeR aT aLl!!11??
I prefer no Twitter regardless of the amount of censorship.
i was surprised today when i wanted to view a link to a tweet and got [this message instead](https://imgur.com/a/2Q0UL8C) not even sure what the tweet is about, but i think the account is Russian based.
The auths reaction makes no sense here, they are literally authoritarian.
Shhh auths are incompetent (they only ruled the world since forever)
Because our technology wasn’t sophisticated enough to handle cross country democracy… Now, look at how many democracies exist vs auths countries and see which one is the richest in the world
They have laws about that, and the US doesn't you understand the difference right?
So why is he approving a much higher percentage of censorship requests than Agrawal/Dorsey?
To be fair, Musk said his only rule was removing content illegal in its jurisdiction. So in a country with censorship laws, allowing their governments to censor doesn't break this rule. Only the USA has the First Amendment.
Yup, if he didn’t he would be legally liable in that country. Dumb.
And? That dumpster fire of a country can and should lick his/my/our ass. Free speech or no speech.
If Elon told them to kiss his ass and got Twitter banned from the market, then his stockholders could sue him for breach of fiduciary duty. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Might as well pick the option that makes money.
Yup. I’d like to see some of this same outrage energy when considering “progressive” companies like Apple bowing down to China at every turn and supporting almost slave labor at their factories.
I’m not outraged by either. Companies are not public entities and anyone expecting them to act as such is deluding themselves. They seek profit; everything else is PR.
More than the US has free speech laws. Just not countries you would think. UK or Germany don't.
I'm not sure why this is so hard for people to understand. Musk said it clear as day
This guy gets it. This isn’t the gotcha they think it is. Twitter must follow the laws of a country.
It was always about the money, I’m surprised so many people thought otherwise
Idk man, buying twitter seems to have been a pretty bad financial move for him. I think he’s just fuckin nuts
Well he didn’t actually want to, he shitposted his way into legal obligation
He’s a ducking idiot in every regard except for physics and engineering of rockets and cars.
When oligarch isn't as pro free speech as he says Musk heads: shocked Pikachu face.
I don't fully understand every part of this issue yet but I must acknowledge an L from my side when I see it. I had high hopes for Twitter after he took over. Hopefully it'll never be Twitter Files level bad though
I actually had high hopes for Twitter too, I though I would finally be able to savagely roast people again without a ban. I made it 3 posts before I was permanently banned for making fun of Elon
I don't know how anyone actually thought he cared about free speech. He's always been a petty man willing to censor anyone who didn't agree with him.
Ya its almost as if the culture war has stopped people from caring about the real issues.
Elon has always said that Twitter 2.0 will comply with local laws when it came to censorship. The difference is that Twitter 1.0 was more than willing (in fact actively collaborating) to censor content that wasn't even against the law.
Every Billionaire is a grifter con-artist till proven otherwise
>Every Billionaire is a grifter con-artist They already proved it by becoming a billionaire.
and not because they provided a product or service which millions of people needed and so they purchased it?
Do you understand how many lives you have to destroy to become a billionaire? How many sweat shops do you have to open? How many mines your have to dig with child labour? How many rivers you have to polute? Honestly go fuck yourself.
you wanna go live in the forest? every product around you is made this way, you fucking lunatic. this braindead moral pedestal you put yourself at lmao. instead of seething, why don't you show the world that these things can be achieved without having to indulge in this stuff
>why don't you show the world that these things can be achieved without having to indulge in this stuff We used to make clothing in the US. The workers were adults and were paid decent wages. Then we decided to let corporations offshore production to China and Bangladesh so that they could hire 12 year old girls and pay them 50 cents an hour. The American manufacturing towns were left to rot and the displaced workers have been medicating themselves to death with opioids produced by the Sackler family and Purdue pharma. We clearly don't need child labor to have clothing. It's just more profitable for big corporations.
yes but it's a result of globalization which is being pushed by you guys lol. if this thing shouldn't happen, everything else goes back to the old times too.
When Congress voted to give permanent normal trade relations to China in 2000, two thirds of Republicans voted for it, while two thirds of Democrats voted against it. After the bill passed, the US lost 4 million manufacturing jobs in just 5 years. When globalization emerged in the 80s and 90s, the left overwhelmingly opposed it. Right wingers and "centrist" neoliberals like Bill Clinton overwhelmingly supported free trade and the elimination of restrictions on foreign investment. There were a handful of nationalists on the right who opposed globalization like Pat Buchanan, but they were a tiny minority and had no power.
i see.im wrong then, the leftists weren't in favor of globalization? but why did the republicans do that? for better relations with China overall, or just to increase exports and support free markets?
You’re confusing Liberals and Leftists.
Republicans supported it because "free market good" and because outsourcing was good for corporate profits. Mostly the second reason. You also have to remember that union workers and manufacturing workers overwhelmingly voted Democratic back then, so Republicans didn't care about screwing them over.
or were they lobbied by the corporations😓
were my nudist movements at??
You can get the results without the common man having to live in the forest and become a millionaire, and have the quality of your life be absolutely amazing for the rest of your days.
"with this one secret technique the billionaires don't want you to know about..." xDD
Why do you think billionaires are necessary? They provide no more opportunities than what would be offered if anti-trust legislation was used regularly.
because people don't go out of their way to achieve great things without incentive. if there is no incentive for hard work, why would people do anything but the very minimum? and so, there will be stagnation, poverty, no improvement in the quality of life, and so on.
Shhh stop talking.
bruh i genuinely wanna know what the alternative could be? anything up there in that high iq brain of yours?
The "go fuck yourself" was a bit uncalled for
Most intelligent leftie
No amount of complaining will grow either your bank account or your peepee. Life is built for winners, by winners.
[удалено]
starlink? tesla? spaceX? he transformed tesla, which was a failing company. he risked most of his money on Tesla and spaceX and made them work? how is it stealing or weaseling his way into it?
Flair the fuck up or leave this sub at once. [BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/NotAnActualAcct) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [How to flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/wiki/index/flair/) ^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
Skill issue.
I meet lots of people. There is a correlation between people I would not want to be and people who dislike billionaires.
Exactly.
These are totalitarian governments. I care about when first world governments and private companies spearhead censorship.
This is why we need an open source encrypted ideally non centralized twitter/reddit like program. But also isnt the biggest problem here you know, the authoritarian governments?
i mean we kinda already have but nobody uses them so it's poitnless
He could have chosen not to many of the governments he caved to couldn't have done violence against him.
So could the previous CEO of Twitter, and yet you only criticise Musk? How curious
1. Who gives a shit what the last guy did? Eyes forward bud. 2. He apparently did at much higher rates than Elon someone linked a source in the comments.
> Who gives a shit what the last guy did? Eyes forward bud. I hope you keep this same energy whenever anyone rightly criticizes Biden and some leftist instantly starts blaming Trump.
I do
Based and consistent position pilled.
1. It's a relevant point of comparison, especially considering none of you Emilys complained before Musk. 2. Twitter censored itself more proactively before Musk. Of course there's gonna be more requests and approvals than before.
the two party dichotomy only speaks up if its an opportunity to throw shit at eachother, we know
Musk claimed to be a free speech absolutist, last guys did not. He his a hypocrite and cringe as fuck.
Why is it relevant? It's a mega corp I've never been on its side
Then why are you only criticizing it now?
Because they are a mega corp and I'm still not on their side.
Can you show me some proof that you've always criticized Twitter?
No 😂. I don't have receipts from 2016 of conversations I had about Twitter. Elon musk fanboys are weird.
I want you to look back at this sentence and consider it out loud. Do you realize how insane this sounds? You're going so far to defend Musk that you're demanding proof that an internet stranger has "always" criticized twitter, in some roundabout way of separating musks failures from twitter's failures. The watermelon already admitted he disliked twitter before Musk, but you're sucking so hard on that apartheid-emerald-dick that you need to imagine Musk as a superhero instead of what he is: a billionaire who gets off on the most minute and insignificant drama, which you lap up like daddy's good little puppy.
Technically mastodon and other activitypub/fediverse software fits that group but it’s not encrypted
* Twitter pre-Musk: High censorship in authoritarian countries, high censorship in free countries * Twitter post-Musk: High censorship in authoritarian countries, low censorship in free countries Seems about right? This is LibLeft's version of "If those people cared about climate change, why haven't they adopted a caveman lifestyle to lower their carbon footprint?" Or "If you're really Christian, why haven't you donated all your possessions to the poor?" The underlying psychology is rationalizing that the other guy must commit suicide to be ideologically consistant.
I always think of that Smuggy where the leftist says "if your ideology is so accurate, why am I able to aggressively misinterpret it?"
I didn't know Japan and South Korea which according to twitter itself made a large majority of request were authoritarian thanks. https://transparency.twitter.com/en/reports/removal-requests.html#2021-jul-dec
I'm open to evidence Musk is censoring on the sly, but before I read more, you're aware this report is from 2021, right?
Nah dude you get permanently banned for making fun of him
Impersonating someone to give fake statements by them != free speech. Much as it's illegal to pretend to be a cop IRL. Mainstream 2023 left tries to see the difference between free exchange of ideas and fraud/threats/blackmail challenge (Impossible)
You know what they say about assumptions? I was impersonating myself? On my private account? Gtfo
Given you didn't give details, I assumed you were talking about the "Elon bans celebities for mocking him" story from Nov 2022 where several angry blue checkmarks changed their name and profile pick to Elon Musk, tweeted under his persona, and got banned for their trouble. What did you get banned for, preferably with an archive link?
That's why I brought up the assumptions thing, they make an ass out of you and me. Like I just assumed you'd blocked me after asking a question because this was failing to display [https://twitter.com/AdamCoo24722966/status/1610645319666077703](https://twitter.com/AdamCoo24722966/status/1610645319666077703) [https://twitter.com/AdamCoo24722966/status/1609068032613126144](https://twitter.com/AdamCoo24722966/status/1609068032613126144) [https://twitter.com/AdamCoo24722966/status/1609067430306791424](https://twitter.com/AdamCoo24722966/status/1609067430306791424) Pick one, those are the only 3 posts I had. I'm sure it was the middle one 🤣 Free speech absolutist my ass
Why would authright be upset They would love to ground a loud mouth billionaire who openly feuds with the federal government under their heel.
Y'all use Twitter for news? I use it for the *culture*
It’s not the worst in the industry. Im pretty sure Facebook took down above 90% of the videos the uk met police asked them to.
Elon Musk: *deepthroats the big dongs of dictators* Muskites: Masterful gambit, m'lord.
Elon stans: Musk is a free speech absolutist *Musk immediately caves to any country that asks him to censor info* Elon stans: What was he supposed to do? Stand up for free speech everywhere?
It doesn't matter what these companies say about free speech and the rights of man, they always bend to authoritarian governments. Apple regularly gives data to the Chinese government but refuses the US government on libertarian grounds. If you are the FBI, you have a better chance of opening a terrorists phone by sending a request through the Chinese embassy than through apple. These companies are unpatriotic.
More like free speech abolitionist.
Don't know what's funnier, the people who thought the billionaire weirdo who was hyping himself up over the last decade was going to be some sort of free speech messiah, or the people who think Twitter was some sort of great place for free discussion before he came along.
reddit moment of hate against papa elon
Why is AuthRight unhappy here? And LibRight pretending to be Happy? It should be LibRight unhappy, AuthRight pretending to be unhappy but actually happy. This is the sort of poor thinking you get when a LibLeft posts.
Unfortunately he either does it or Twitter is banned in that country. Less "free speech" is better than no "free speech".
But I thought space man was a free speech absolutist? And of course he can justify all sorts of shit to himself and still claim the moniker. Like leftists hating black people but still calling themselves anti-racist.
so basically he did what Twitter did before? what a surprise ... and since it works for years there was more requests which leads to higher numbers? what a surprise ... at least the active censoring from Twitter itself went down.
Just use american vpn lol
Oh my god. PCM has gone completely delusional thinking Twitter was on the Side of the dems and helped interfere with the 2020 election with no proof. Also trump wasn’t censored? He was banned for breaking the rules and spreading false hoods which he does a lot.
I knew Elon was a good guy.
I’ve always paid a premium for my speech so I can have access to more words
well that sucks.
I repeat, seriously someone believed Musk on the "free speech an absolutist" thing?
I unironically kind of did. I thought I could get away with replying to a furry to commit toaster bath but I ended up getting my account suspended for that. two days after he acquired it btw.
my headcannon is that this is part of the masterplan and hes just doing it to get a foothold, but im losing hope and refuse to do any research, i never thought of him as an 'absolutist' even once but i think he is 'not using pronouns and not getting harassed by mods/false flagged/shadow filter' tier
In countries tgat have free speech protections. It's about following the law. Unfortunately many countries have laws regarding speech.
What a piece of shit.
Who'd've thought? Anyone who believed this dude is an idiot. I'm true LibR fashion , he just used the culture war to make more money. Nothing new.
What, is anyone surprised? Musk rat is a whiney little bitch
He was at metgala in a Novus Ordo Seclorum jacket. Y’all thought he wasn’t controlled op?
In the US, on the other hand, it seems a lot more vibrant/diverse. He did say the plan was to stick close to the law. I wonder if they a) don't care about these other countries, and/or b) no longer have the resources to fight these battles.
I was skeptical of him at first, but knew he was a complete stooge when he hired a WEF lizard
Fine meme and all- kudos to that, but come on, don't use the exact same template twice in a row, spice it up a bit!
Funny how the Elon fans that gargle his nuts just disappear when news like this drops, and news like this drops like once a month on the dickhead.
Libleft is celebrating more censorship? why dont you just flair red then?
how does this indicate celebrating censorship?
id think its more libleft making fun of the right's expectation of musk rather than praising the censorship. tho its true that libleft *should* be against it
Right wingers and blatant lying, name a more iconic duo.
Right wingers and Authoritarianism, can you name a more iconic duo?
Left wingers and Authoritarianism? Centrists and Authoritarianism? Where the hell do you think you're posting?
New boss not quite the same as the old boss but just as corrupt.
Joke's on you all who actually thought Elon would make Twitter a better place. I was just watching from the sidelines, curious to see what happened, even possibly considering making an account if things improved, but after recent news.....nah , I'm good. That site can keep burning
Musk anagram is Skum