Power is power.. of course a bilionaire or even milionaire is gonna be "more powerful" than some nations.. there are some with < 50M gdp.
But at the end of the day its just about internet. X has every right to say fuck off to some countries its not based in, while countries has the "right" if they decide it to censor some parts of the internet.
Thats not really the point in the end. The point is really "is free speech, including hate speech and disinformation should be right or not in your country"
Its a very hard question that im not sure i have the answer. Someones's hate speech is always someone else's "speaking the truth" but ibknow some cases where censoring made sense.
I would care if he did the same to Turkey or India where similar demand were made (it wasn't legislative power there, but still). I really appreciate the fact that he called Brazil out, i would have really appreciated if he called India or Turkey out, i think this is going too far.
And as for "going to far with allowing free speech", why doesn't he do the same in China, where free speech issues seems to be far greater, and the great Firewall is blocking way more than just X?
No, he was just sightly hypocritical but seemed mostly principled before this choice, now he just seems too powerful, hypocritical and egotistic. You know what my theory is? Brazil just died as a Tesla importer because of BYD, so he chose to make a stand on it, while India and Turkey used to be potential countries he could invest in at the time so he shut up and let them walk over him.
It seems its just about money, so he grandstand on his principles when almost no money is being made, and shut up when he doesn't want to upset people with dollars he could get.
I take whatever victories I can. I don't care about his motives, I'm sure they are nefarious or money related. But that doesn't matter. I don't care about his motivation I care about the results.
I've thought about it more. I think the reason why he refused was because it was a public court order, so everyone could see him cooperate. If they did it like Erdoğan or Modi, i.e with private communication, Twitter would have done it.
If this is the reason, it's in fact Anti-free speech, as transparency is a pillar of that right, no?
[edit] Also, free personal attacks twice now, really nice of you.
Yeah its harder to censor people out in the open. FB and Zuck hid it - but i believe he recently said he regretted doing that.
I dont see how hiding your motivation and allowing free speech is in fact anti-free-speech.
Why do you see it as an attack? You are arguing that brazil has the right to limit free speech and that Elon should comply and censor his platform. That is what they've done in many countries, DDR for example. Do you not agree?
Only fighting against account deletion when the demand is above-board like in Brazil, and secretly comply when it's hide and you only see side-effect like in Turkey is indeed anti-transparency, as you are announcing to the world: 'Text me and I'll do it, but not in the open'.
Yeah, obviously it isn't a personal attack, I must have been wrong, it was a perfectly good faith argument, so I will respond:
I'm saying that Elon Musk see himself above Brazil court of justice, and act like a supranational power. If an individual thought himself above the law, or will of the people in DDR, I would have been on the wall. My father still has a part of it btw.
I will add that i apologize for the sarcasm but I will let it there, because that's what I would have responded in real life. If you _really_ didn't intend it as a personal attack, you should consider how you communicate with your peers. The first message wasn't any better and close enough to an ad hominem I considered not engaging, but I thought I wasn't clear enough and i needed clarification, so it was a good vehicle. Sorry again if it wasn't a personal attack.
The first comment you initially agreed with the move then later lamenting on how the rich/elites can ignore what other countries decide, them being "above the law".
Musk is in this case _not_ complying with censorship in Brazil - correct? Musk has most likely complied with censorship in other countries - correct?
You initially agreed with him? Then going on a triade that he is childish and that his move will block communication for 99% of the people of brazil (this part I didn't understand until you clarified in your last comment). This is what i commented on in my first reply - that the action you where OK with but then he is childish i.e. FORM and probably his personality. So unless I misinterpreted you - then yes, I think that is a worthless attitude to have which derails society.
"If an individual thought himself above the law, or will of the people in DDR, I would have been on the wall. My father still has a part of it btw." - Well right, so you agree with censorship as long as the majority supports it or something like that. I don't on a fundamental level and i absolutely do not agree with you at all. But if those are you opinions then i don't understand why you'd see it as an attack when someone points out what you seem to believe/argue?
Because i absolutely attack/challenge your opinions which i do not agree with. With the caveat that i've misinterpreted what you are actually saying.
His so-called free-speech absolutism is a sham and he does not deserve the benefit of doubt on this.
> All the accounts were restored in a few hours
If you're going to argue "a ban doesn't count if it's reversed after a couple of hours", what's the threshold? Could Elon ban people for a week without it counting as a ban? What if it happens repeatedly?
You're making broad statements and assumptions that don't align with reality. The accounts were banned. You don't know why they were banned or restored.