He allowed child porn to proliferate for days on the platform

1. X is not, and has never been, "the press". 2. If you were to have categorized them this way previously, botting and pay-for-reach have made it definitely not that way now. 3. It is bad when any individual can shift the politics of the entire globe simply because they have enough money. Feel free to insert your most hated left-wing billionaire instead of Elon, I still believe the same thing.

Yes, it absolutely is the press. Any publication of any information is the press. I don't have any hated left wing billionaires, just ones I disagree with. But let's take the bogeyman himself, (((George Soros)))!!!!. I think he should have every right to continue to use his personal wealth to advance his political agenda, including every piece of it that I despise. I believe this because it is his fundamental right as a citizen of the republic. I think every left wing organization that I find odious should be able to raise money and show ads on TV and on the internet to publicize their political opinions. I think that if there were a communist billionaire he should be able to start newspapers, TV and radio stations, social media companies, or any other form of communication and use them to spread his message that the US should be a communist state and support communist candidates for office.

> I believe this because it is his fundamental right as a citizen of the republic.

This is kind of exactly my point though. Citizen of what republic? Soros and Elon are both wealthier than most states and affect politics globally. They literally cannot be prosecuted, they are barely accountable to any legal bodies.

Citizens of this one. And they can be prosecuted. You just are not comfortable with the fact that they haven't really committed any crimes. Epstein was a billionaire too.

It's far easier for a billionaire to get away with a crime than to prosecute it. You would think that would be common sense, but I guess not.

How many crimes do you think Putin has done? I mean Trump has 33 or 34 felonies on record, does it matter? What about Saudi princes?

Tech bros just love to play devils advocate because they get paid off with 3 to 10x median wage by them to enable the Billionaires crimes

By who? Another Billionaires personal attorney and acting attorney general Pam bondi?

As a non-communist non-billionaire, I couldn't disagree more! :)

The abuse of absurd levels of wealth to advance one's own agenda is little more than bribery. When targeted towards those poor enough to worry about basic needs, it is effectively coercion, equally unethical as violence. (Not to mention such wealth is inevitably built on top of a a violent, exploitative system.)

What's wrong with a sovereign nation taking steps to reduce or eliminate the influence of a non-citizen who they feel is acting against the best interests of that nation?

If a nuclear capable country like France decides that someone like Elon Musk is acting against the best interests of their country they can ask him nicely to stop and if he continues they can use force to reduce the perceived threat.

This all seems completely in line with the day-to-day norms of contemporary society as well as historical norms.

He is a citizen of the US and has full political rights. There is only one legal distinction between a foreign born citizen and a natural born citizen and that is that he can't serve as president. France is absolutely capable of using force against Elon Musk up to and including their nuclear arsenal. However, they would need to decide whether it is worse for their interests to tolerate Elon or to detonate a nuke on US soil, and that's a pretty easy choice.

States can extradite and extract anyone they want to now (if they can get away it) if they break their laws. Look no further than Maduro and the usa

Before Elon Musk bought Twitter the previous owners engaged in different kinds of editorial control. The people who argued that editorial control of Twitter was something the owners had the right to do on their private platform and the people who argued that the government should find some legal mechanism to characterize this editorial control as some kind of crime so they could force Twitter not to do it, were flipped from what they are now.

> Before Elon Musk bought Twitter the previous owners engaged in different kinds of editorial control. The people who argued that editorial control of Twitter was something the owners had the right to do on their private platform and the people who argued that the government should find some legal mechanism to characterize this editorial control as some kind of crime so they could force Twitter not to do it, were flipped from what they are now.

Well I've been against this regardless of owners. Honestly, this stuff is really concerning. I spent a bunch of years working in social media, and back then I was sceptical that algorithmic content selection should be regarded as publication, but given how easy it is to shift the Overton window with changes here, I think that it probably needs to happen.

I do think that this will cause lots of downstream impacts that I like, but this much power is bad in anyone's hands, regardless of how much I agree with them.