Re:Brazil's X ban is sending lots of people to Bluesky
by pfraze on Sunday September 01, 2024 @12:35AM
(#41414324)
As a libertarian, how am I supposed to believe in the authenticity and neutrality of the network that Musk is operating when he openly supports a specific political ideology with his public actions? He shows no dedication to neutrality in his statements, so why should I believe he shows it with his decisions?
If the measure of a high standard is the number of people impacted, how many people would you say are affected by Musk, or the other private owners of social networks?
Re:Brazil's X ban is sending lots of people to Bluesky
by chjj on Sunday September 01, 2024 @01:42AM
(#41414612)
You're a libertarian, but you have issues with someone holding their own political opinions. Interesting combination.
Re:Brazil's X ban is sending lots of people to Bluesky
by pfraze on Sunday September 01, 2024 @03:27AM
(#41414993)
I have a problem with someone imposing their political opinions on others by buying the means of publishing and communication. You don’t?
Re:Brazil's X ban is sending lots of people to Bluesky
by bilvar on Sunday September 01, 2024 @04:09AM
(#41415147)
He is not imposing anything on anyone. He has the same right to express his opinions as anybody else has, and his platform clearly allows everyone else to do the same - in contrast with what the previous executives of Twitter did.
That sounds a lot like copium to justify an authoritarian action by the state because it benefits you personally.
Seems like even Masnick agrees, albeit begrudgingly, that this judge is an authoritarian. Where I cannot agree with Masnick is the implication that Musk and this man are somehow both equally wrong.
A government official, no less a judge, should be held to a far higher standard as his actions impact hundreds of millions of people. And as we can see by his unprecedented order banning VPNs, he clearly lacks the circumspection and self-reflection necessary to hold such an important office.