I mean, if you think that “everyone is happy with Elon’s content moderation strategies” was one of the possible outcomes, well then I disagree, I think Elon is going to take heat for content moderation across the political spectrum.

I was thinking of it just from a moderation perspective. Elon, who knows.

> I think Elon is going to take heat for content moderation across the political spectrum

The difference now is that Elon went from being one of the loudest members of the peanut gallery to the guy running the show.

Yep. Much harder to be the one bearing the responsibility of the calls being made than being an armchair commentator complaining about the decisions. I don't anticipate that he'll be any more successful at this than other leadership teams of social media companies. There's no way of "winning" at this game: damned if you do, damned if you don't.

If you moderated the 18-25, huge respect, I’m just adding background info: it’s a huge piece of French culture among geeks, like the 4chan, except most of the interesting website exists within the lapse between posting and being censored. It’s everything-ist and very bad taste. The rest is uninteresting, if it stays on, then it means it doesn’t say anything of any relevance. Moderators are kept to believe they’re administering a gaming forum with occasional slip-ups, whereas “being 410ed” became a colloquial word among teens (410 means your post returns HTTP-410, i.e. it was deleted). It’s like Snapchat, nothing lives for eternity (18-25 stands for the age, it’s not a 13-52 ratio, that would be banned). The 18-25 is a piece of ephemeral art.

Are you talking about this?

https://m.jeuxvideo.com/forums/0-51-0-1-0-1-0-blabla-18-25-a...

I don’t understand. Are you saying that they repost something that got someone banned, they don’t get banned, and then they complain that it’s inconsistent? Why not ban the reposters?

Kids upset about moderation are not logical.

Every scenario you can imagine happens.

> I would find the idea that a politician gets to say things, but I don't completely absurd.

That’s been Twitter’s official policy since they got criticized a lot for giving Trump passes on generally applicable rules in the runup to and just after thrbe 2016 election: they changed the rules so governments and sufficiently prominent public figures have wider latitude.

Musk selectively loosening restrictions on those who already have the loosest restrictions would be... well, not at all surprising.

Things start to get weird when you're talking about heads of state and/or official government policy.

If the contents of a law violates Twitter's TOS, can we not disseminate it on Twitter?

At some point big social media might have to be made a utility and or nationalized, assuming we want a de-jure government to be our real government, and not a constellation of corporations acting as a de-facto one.

I don't disagree, but the people most angry about being kicked off Twitter are also the people who insisted that net neutrality was "Obamacare for the Internet".