If he did that, it could recover its former might perhaps, and the censorship he disliked may return.
Thus he likely wants it dead, rather than in other hands.
Closed platforms are not and can never be "free speech zones." They answer to their owners, period.
Also, crimethInc ban will soon have its birthday (https://fr.crimethinc.com/2022/11/25/elon-musk-bans-crimethi...)
[1] https://newrepublic.com/article/169112/elon-musk-anti-trans-...
Twitter used to fight _actual_ censorship. From governments demanding things be taken down. Musk rolls over like a puppy for China, India, Turkiye, etc...
Before Musk, Twitter's full compliance rate hovered around 50%; since the takeover, it is over 80%.
These countries include China [2] and India [3].
[1] https://restofworld.org/2023/elon-musk-twitter-government-or...
[2] https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/twitte...
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/05/twitter-accuse...
That was rapidly shown not to be the case when @ElonJet got snuffed out.
https://www.theverge.com/2022/12/18/23515221/twitter-bans-li...
He claims all sorts of things, the majority of which turn out to be utter nonsense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Sweeney#Creation_of_fligh...
you probably aren't famous so maybe you don't understand, but that sounds potentially harmful for someone who is.
I’m not so convinced. What harm does this account cause?
The most harmful thing that comes to mind is that someone could use the information to plan a murder. The account doesn’t provide this information; it is actually relevant that the information is otherwise available. A person so dedicated to hating this person that they decide to show up with violent intent at a public airport where his jet just landed or is about to take off is pretty damn likely to also be dedicated enough to find this information from other public sources. The account only makes it easier -- it doesn’t enable given that they’re already able -- for someone else to be actually harmful.
This talk of some billionaire gets to fly around in his private jet and the worst thing about it is that everyone else in the world gets to know when and where the jet arrives and departs... it’s just not something I have any sympathy for.
When then Ashley Madison scandal hit, people used that to find out if anyone of their neighbors was having an affair.
Still we didn’t close off public access since it’s useful for more than shaming others.
Elon is free to not own private jets
What’s with coddling a minority that does not care we exist?
Security through obscurity, it ain't.
Banning Nazis is not censorship, it's basic hygiene.
All of that has gotten much better, and appeals are approved much faster, much more often. It used to be if you replied to a tweet disagreeing with someone, and their fans/followers report bombed you, you'd get banned with no recourse. That's fixed now.
Also, my impression of recent twitter is that it's very heavy on user silo's now, sure if you search for objectionable content you'll find it, that's not unique to twitter, but you don't really happen upon it unless you're following people who post things you find objectionable.
I don't really see anything wrong with that model, and if you're truly worried about nazi's, wouldn't you rather it's on a public cleartext platform instead of on something like session where it's mathematically unable to be seen/policed by -anyone- not directly involved?
And like, I'm no fan of Ol'Musky, I think his accomplishments are mostly him attracting talented people and then taking credit for it, but to say that twitter isn't safer/better now... idk, seems like it is by any measure, which might be because it was horrible before, and it's simply less horrible now, but, still, less horrible all the same.
But you sound so sure that I assume you have data, would you share it?
Instead, we have racists who went antiquing for Nazi propaganda and dusted off the old classic "elite pedophiles who run international politics are trafficking children and drinking their blood." Something actual elected officials have been able to engage with and not lose significant support.
They really didn't. "Non official narratives" were usually conspiracy theories or hate speech. If anything, these accounts were given multiple opportunities before being banned. Only the worst of the worst were banned.
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a56987/godwin-law...
> Godwin wrote on Facebook that someone had asked him to post a statement about Charlottesville, because people bring up his law to shut down arguments all the time. Turns outhe was happy to oblige. "By all means, compare these shitheads to the Nazis," he wrote. "Again and again. I'm with you."
> In general, Godwin has always said you can bring up the Nazis in an online conversation, as long as you're doing some research first. "If you're thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler or Nazis when you talk about Trump. Or any other politician," he wrote in The Washington Post backin 2015. But in the case of the white supremacists in Virginia, there's no research necessary to make that comparison. The facts speak for themselves.
Incredible that needs to be said, but here we are.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Nazi_bar
> From an anecdote shared by Michael B. Tager (@IamRageSparkle) on Twitter in July 2020. In the multi-tweet thread, Tager recounted visiting a "shitty crustpunk bar", where he saw a patron abruptly expelled. The bartender explained that the man was wearing "iron crosses and stuff", and that he feared such patrons would become regulars and start bringing friends if not promptly kicked out, which would lead him to realize "oh shit, this is a Nazi bar now" only after the unwanted patrons became too "entrenched" to kick out without trouble
He didn't buy twitter for profit. He doesn't mind that it's losing money.
You fell for his narrative, which is false.
https://english.elpais.com/international/2023-05-24/under-el...