Unless your speech happens to make Elon angry or get in his way.

or unless your speech happens to make actual governments angry

https://www.forbes.com/sites/katherinehamilton/2023/04/27/tw...

> The majority of recent requests have come from foreign governments, such as India, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and Germany, all of which have increased internet regulations in the past year, according to the report—none came from the U.S.

Be careful, you might be undermining a narrative.

The US doesn't have to bother with formal requests of course.

Unfalsifiable assertions should probably be accompanied by evidence.

Genuinely amazes me that people still believe this after all we've seen since Elon's takeover.

Idk it amazes me a lot more that people online think that they're so privy to the internal workings of _twitter_ that they feel confident enough to proclaim that everything elon does is actually going to destroy the company. The vitriol in this thread is so absurd, you'd think elon killed puppies as a hobby or something.

I don't think you need to be privy to the internal workings of Twitter, Elon's public actions make it very clear he's been extremely erratic up until this point. I'm not saying it's going to destroy the company but at the current moment it's very difficult to see his involvement as an overall positive.

"you'd think elon killed puppies as a hobby or something."

Well, "Hack jobs" with living, sentient beings is close enough for me:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/dec/05/neuralink...

I don't personally have any special insight into the internal workings of twitter, but we don't need to rely on anecdotes to know that Elon is objectively not delivering on "Free, non-government controlled or censored speech":

> Twitter has fully complied with more than 80% of government and courts’ requests to remove or alter content since Elon Musk bought the company, up from around 50% before he took over, according to a report from the technology publication Rest of World, reflecting a discordance with the billionaire’s promises to limit political censorship.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/katherinehamilton/2023/04/27/tw...

They're also now responding to takedown requests from places like India globally, where previously it'd only be in the country.

He doesn’t have policies. He has whims. Doesn’t work for platforms.

> He doesn’t have policies. He has whims

Well, come on, that was true under Dorsey too, he was just criticized for it by the half of the people who are now praising Elon for it.

Jack just didn't do anything. He spent the whole time meditating under waterfalls, but that means he didn't mess with the platform and become the "main character".

And a prominent WEF board member will agree with this?

The one who follows Catturd, LibsofTikTok, Ron DeSantis, Tulsi Gabbard, and Bari Weiss? Yeah, I think she will.

I am not normally a fan of the term "virtue signaling" but I think her involvement with WEF might just fit.

She lists "Global Leader" in her LinkedIn biography and did a vaccine campaign for the Ad Council (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Council#Criticism).

It could be virtue signaling, but in theory following these people could be virtue signaling as well.

One way or the other, yep.

No, that's not correct.

Cool story, bro

Please don't do this here, regardless of how bad another comment is or you feel it is.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html