> It's better to stick to local rules than getting a clique in silicon valley to decide what they think should be acceptable to say.

In SV you don’t get locked up or suicided if you say the wrong thing.

Following the law in some of the places listed above would have Musk help identify those breaking local laws.

Agreed. I'm not saying they should, just that they have to follow the laws. But they don't have to police their platform according to what an extremely sheltered SV-adjacent elite thinks should be okay. It's not an either/or question, they can not bend down to police states and also not let that minority have the last say over what is okay or not across the entire globe.

What is your solution then? If twitter weren’t available, do you think you’d see more or less people speaking against their gov? You’ll also see some people in this thread asking for identity verification. Which shows the value of anonymous posting. Perhaps we should make twitter much like HN and not require identifiable information that links to a real person?

> It's better to stick to local rules than getting a clique in silicon valley to decide

My point was that I'd prefer companies to stick to their principles, and if that means they can't do business in certain countries, so be it. Saying that you'll follow local rules if that means abuse of human rights is not something I agree with. In this context 'human rights' is used as a personal definition rather than some sort of legal one, as local rules allow abuse in some places.

Again, what is your solution then? They stick to their principles this means one less method of dissent is available in that country.

I’m not sure what you want me to say, my position seems pretty clear.

Do you believe it’s a win for human rights to allow dissent whilst also helping governments identify dissenters?

No, but you seem too

I don’t. I’m completely baffled by this thread and suspect we agree with each other but can’t see where the misunderstanding has occurred.