> By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law.
Was the account violating any law?
Even back in April he was not saying he was only going to censor illegal speech. Anyways, since Elon acquired twitter he's made it a major talking point to say that twitter is still moderating by the same rules as before: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1588538640401018880
"Twitter has had a massive drop in revenue, due to activist groups pressuring advertisers, even though nothing has changed with content moderation and we did everything we could to appease the activists."
The ElonJet account was violating rules for leaking internal company communications. Is that type of censorship going "far beyond the law?" I don't think so. Internal leaks can damage a company and the company should therefore protect itself. If anything, Twitter could be legally liable to shareholders for failing to do so.
On the other hand, blacklisting Dr. Jay Bhattacharya for saying things about Covid that turned out to be far more correct than what the CDC was saying at the same time is indeed going far beyond the law and also harming all of society: https://www.foxnews.com/media/twitter-files-confirm-stanford...
It would be useful if Musk adopted transparency and shared the rationale behind this banning, along with all internal communications regarding it.
https://mastodon.social/@JxckS/109513788818540405
There is an explanation:
Violating our rules against platform manipulation and spam.
You may not use Twitter's services in a manner intended to artificially amplify or suppress information or engage in behavior that manipulates or disrupts people's experience on Twitter.
“Artificially amplify” probably covers it, since he wrote code to amplify information that was otherwise tricky to view. Interesting precedent, though.
The rules and policies covering personal information have been changed to include “live location information, including information shared on Twitter directly or links to 3rd-party URL(s) of travel routes, actual physical location, or other identifying information that would reveal a person’s location, regardless if this information is publicly available.”
https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/personal-info...
I have confirmed via the Wayback Machine that this change occurred within the last 48 hours.
I am going to be non-neutral now: what a dumb policy. That means you could report someone for posting a photo of a sporting event, because it identifies the location of the players. I’m not even totally against the concept but that is a terrible, terrible implementation.
Remember how the people deciding whether or not to ban Trump were relying on nuances and intent rather than trying to write iron-clad rules? This is why.
Musk claims an attempt was made to assault him: "Last night, car carrying lil X in LA was followed by crazy stalker (thinking it was me), who later blocked car from moving & climbed onto hood.
Legal action is being taken against Sweeney & organizations who supported harm to my family."
He specifically said he would not ban it as part of his commitment to free speech.
Everyone is energized by this situation because it's so obviously blatantly self serving.
"Violating [Twitter] rules against platform manipulation and spam."
This is textbook whataboutism, using Fox News no less. It's irrelevant to the discussion about Musk's hypocrisy on free speech, which you also ignored in your previous comment:
They also never ignored "Musk's hypocrisy on free speech." Simply because he isn't being hypocritical here.
False
> using Fox News no less.
Speaking of irrelevant to the discussion, this little sentence fragment fits the bill.
> It's irrelevant to the discussion about Musk's hypocrisy on free speech,
False. I am comparing the type of speech that is "far beyond the law" that Elon Musk is now allowing versus the type of speech that he is not.
First I've heard of this. The ElonJet person was a Twitter employee then? What communications did they leak?
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1589414958508691456
> "My commitment to free speech extends even to not banning the account following my plane, even though that is a direct personal safety risk"
So yes, that is pretty inconsistent with banning an account which did nothing illegal. Assuming it was Musk who issued it.
>from a non-leftwing source
Can you people stop going "left wing right wing" for one day and see things for what they are instead of this infantile black-white spiel?
Where's the hypocrisy? Musk said he wanted to broaden the speech allowed on the platform, not allow speech of all kinds.
> "let's selectively release internal comms in a misleading way to make normal company operation in good faith seem like a liberal conspiracy."
Maybe try getting your info from a non-leftwing source. There has been plenty of damning info coming from these internal comms.