As Twitter’s policy has been, when they banned people for posting videos with visible house numbers because they doxxed the people in them.
Elon Musk @elonmusk "I simply mean that which matches the law.
I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law.
If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect.
Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people."
If Musk hadn't been making a big deal about supporting free speech for the last several months there wouldn't be a problem with him banning all these accounts. It's his platform he can do what he wants. dang can ban me at any time here, it's kind of his party in many ways. But dang isn't running around claiming to support all forms of legal speech, he's made a point he's trying to enforce his and the team's ideas of community guidelines.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1603235998263123969?s=20...
This is directly contrary to the reporting in Twitter Files by Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss, and Michael Shellenberger whose journalistic integrity and credentials exceed yours and mine combined by orders of magnitude:
"On Jan 7, senior Twitter execs:
- create justifications to ban Trump
- seek a change of policy for Trump alone, distinct from other political leaders
- express no concern for the free speech or democracy implications of a ban"
https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/16017204550055116...
And the only doxxing related to LibsOfTikTok was Taylor Lorenz doxxing LibsOfTikTok, to the point that Lorenz showed up at LibsOfTikTok's house in person herself. She didn't just doxx her, she went to her house in person. There are pictures.
And I’m saying this as someone who thinks the decision to publish LOTT’s real name was borderline, despite the fact that LOTT decided to use her real name for her domain registration.
(Besides the fact that Elon literally doxxed his former employee trying to insinuate he is a pedo)
You conveniently misinterpreted or even left our crucial pieces of the so called “twitter files” including that the policies of shadow banning and such were already mentioned and known.
Some of the employees were literally asking for reasons to KEEP certain right wing accounts on twitter.
They listened to violations of revenge porn AND TOS violations of Hunter Biden’s dick. The right wing really seems obsessed with seeing it because the links that were all mentioned in the docs were all of his dick LOL
LibsofTikTok causing harassment to children’s hospitals and they still weren’t even banned. No they weren’t promoted in the algorithm but there’s no right to be amplified.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/09/02/lgbtq-t...
They were "known" in the same sense that everybody already "knew" that the US government spies on us before Snowden leaked the details.
Twitter claimed that they didn't shadowban - in fact there's a tweet out there somewhere (I think I saw it shared in one of the Twitter Files threads itself) in which Jack Dorsey himself explicitly denies that Twitter shadowbans. To claim that the Files didn't reveal any new information is utterly disingenuous.
Interesting how you moved on from “government involvement” when everyone realizes Biden campaign wasn’t the government and it was dick picks they were trying to remove.
Shadowban was literally talked about earlier this year. https://www.theverge.com/2022/4/5/23012046/twitter-prisoner-...
Is the claim that Twitter changed their ToS in order to justify banning Trump? If so, can you share the before and after texts? I assume the Internet Archive would have snapshots.
Or is the point, literally, that people at Twitter discussed whether a change of policy was a good idea in the context of the Jan 6 insurrection? In which case, like...wouldn't you sort of expect them to have conversations about the fitness of the ToS to an unprecedented situation? That sounds like doing their jobs competently, no?
> - create justifications to ban Trump
> - seek a change of policy for Trump alone, distinct from other political leaders
> - express no concern for the free speech or democracy implications of a ban"
Funnily enough this is literally exactly what Musk has done in the last 24 hours with regard to the @ElonJet account and the people reporting on it.
If there was anything substantive about ElonJet, it would have been the statistics on jet fuel consumption, because that makes a statement about hypocrisy. They could have posted that without revealing locations, which crosses the line to singling out an individual for the purpose of harassment.
The degree to which Musk is upset by this makes me wonder if there isn't something more to it than just 'personal safety' concerns fed by paranoia. It may well be that the location of his plane tells a story that he does not want exposed. Because frankly the amount of goodwill that he's burning over this makes no sense at all.
Somebody described his Twitter purchase as "fragile narcissist buys criticism factory", so I think he has wedged himself into a situation that his ego makes both intolerable and inescapable. If he had somebody in his life to talk sense into him ("honey, put down your phone and come to bed"), I'd expect him to walk away and consider it rationally. But here I could imagine him continuing to spiral for quite a while.
To me, it's tragic in the way that Rudy Giuliani or Kanye West is: too much success can create the conditions for a long, lonely downward slide.