Elon decided to take the company in this direction where everything is fair game. Things just got worse.
If Xitter isn't going to up their game the legal system has to jump in and do it for them. It's not going to be pretty.
Now Elon is taking their ball home. Closing the offices, firing hundreds, burning bridges.
It's a power move where everyone loses but his ego.
I hated twitter 5 years ago, and I hate twitter today. People act as if Elon's presence changed anything. From an outside point of view, it changed nothing, the site never had any value to begin with.
It's original existential proposition was: "Artists can now talk to fans directly instead of going through third party media companies."
It really has done a _fantastic_ job with that. It was never possible that it could effectively do more. Unsurprisingly, the people who need this media exposure, are the most devoted to pretending that it could be, as it would mean their time spent there is not just naval gazing but somehow "social activism."
It's typical lazy American politick.
I quite like twitter now. I wasn't enough of a user five years ago to judge if it's better or worse.
Even the 'free speech' stuff is not so bad. The mainstream media can be a bit prone to blocking things at times.
Google did the same thing for China in the 2000s. Should they be castigated for the same reason? How are the circumstances different aside from "google is good and musk/x is bad?"
What I'm saying is that everyone loses when that happens.
As for Chinese customers, I believe their tech giants are competitive regarding Google search. But if the Chinsese tech giants werent competitive at least the Chinese consumers would be shielded from Google's monopolistic abuse ;)
You forgot to mention the Chinese government literally hacked google. https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-chin...
I personnaly see the attacks against the judiciary of Brazil more troublesome that this move.
Community Notes seems to be highly effective at combatting misinformation, at least of the most popular tweets.
It doesn't, millions of people see it before community notes show up. Musk is sharing fake news himself[1]. This is dangerous, this impacts people emotions and their actions.
1. https://www.politico.eu/article/elon-musk-share-fake-news-uk...
It’s 2024 and we’re all quite “online” people who are aware how Elon is operating Twitter. Let’s not feign ignorance here.
Good stuff.
Is Musk such a proponent? His professed absolutist views have been shown to be a lie and farce many times over
What on earth... "Cisgender" is as much of a slur as "cislunar" or "cisalpine". And who are "its opponents"? The opponents of being cisgender? Are you trying to suggest that trans people are against the existence of cis people? Have you considered spending less time on Twitter?
No, it's not used only in negative contexts.
I don't support the artificial broadcast/amplification of content that is hateful, bigoted, misinformation, etc to thousands or millions of people that otherwise wouldn't see it, were it not for an algorithm that picks it up due to it generating more eyeballs to sell advertisements to.
If we, as a society, can manage to muster the courage to regulate social media algorithms, then we can start talking broadly about free speech rights. Until then, people who want to post vile garbage should be banned permanently and forever from participating in social media sites that use unregulated and opaque algorithms. They are, of course, still free to post whatever they want on their own sites, blogs, or on social media that doesn't make use of opaque algorithms (e.g. some Fediverse sites).
Hate speech is a slippery slope that I'm not knowledgeable enough in to speak to more in depth.
Also, once again, even if you’re banned from saying something on social media, no free speech rights (in any sense of the term) are lost. You are free to say it elsewhere via a mechanism that does not give you automatic free reach.
> Brazil’s Supreme Court has drastically expanded its power to counter the antidemocratic stances of Mr. Bolsonaro and his supporters.
Being allowed to criticize our government (and any government) is precisely the "free speech" Americans hold dear. Brazil doesn't seem to find that to be of value, hence the comment I made in response to someone saying X should comply with the government of Brazil: "I'm guessing you're not a huge proponent of free speech".
Regardless, I don’t believe the removal of content from one washed-up spammy social media site constitutes an infringement of free speech, in any sense of the term.
The commenter I originally replied to was suggesting that the Brazilian government's self appointed power to silence it's oppressors is acceptable.
The context of the original article is that X is leaving Brazil because the people there that work for X are at risk of being arrested and jailed for what people are saying about the Brazilian government and officials.
If you stand up for a government that silences it's opposition I'm going to believe you don't support even the most basic core tenets of free speech (as set forth in the first amendment of the US Constitution).
EDIT: Yes, I saw your misuse of /sarcasm, which only reinforced your disdain for TikTok, China, Kamala Harris and free speech.
Edited to add: For the record, I support Twitter’s move to leave Brazil. Also, you’re welcome to believe whatever incorrect things you want about me.
I didn't reply to this:
> I don’t believe the removal of content from one washed-up spammy social media site constitutes an infringement of free speech, in any sense of the term.
because you're making a generalization on the broader topic. But in this case the government of Brazil believes that what is said on a washed up spammy social media site is problematic to the continuation of their power, and it's willing to jail those who not only say these things, but also those who allow it to be said.
I think it seems like the government here disagrees with you. Do you not agree, or am I still missing your point?