He previously said the safety risk was ok as banning it would violate free speech.
And Musk has been fine with accounts that use their freedom of speech even if they resulted is safety risks. For example @libsoftiktok is an account Musk unbanned, and has likes their tweets, who post misleading information resulting in direct threats against people and organisations (e.g. children's hospitals).
For example they just recently tweeted a video* that was purposefully edited in a way to make it seem someone was pro-pedophilia, when they weren't.
> Hey Elon… What was that about freedom of speech … I can’t quite hear you over the hypocrisy alert airhorn.
Here's what Musk said about ElonJet six weeks ago (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1589414958508691456): "My commitment to free speech extends even to not banning the account following my plane, even though that is a direct personal safety risk"
Well, when previous Twitter management did things like this, Musk said that they were restricting free speech. So this is at least anti "Musk's definition of free speech".
The point is, I think, how you interpret "free speech". In his own tweet [0], he says:
"By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law."
The information @ElonJet is publishing is publicly available. One interpretation says: if it's publicly available information, then preventing it being republished is censorship. Therefore Musk is breaking his own rule.
Another interpretation says: whilst it's freely-available information, publishing risks increased harm to Musk himself. I'm no expert on US law, but I'd imagine there's some sort of provision that protects against deliberately risking harm to someone. Assuming that's the case, Musk is being consistent with his own rule.
Given his public profile - and his desire/willingness/record of being provocative - I'd imagine most will adopt the former interpretation.
> We wouldn't have any words left to use if it was up to you I guess.
Good point, that's a bit of an extreme though and context/intent does matter.
> And what "hate-laws" are you referring to, in regards to speech, that people are "getting around"? You do know Twitter TOS is not the actual law right?
True, I meant the Twitter TOS I guess. But Musk wants to model the TOS as anything within the confines of the law right?
"My commitment to free speech extends even to not banning the account following my plane, even though that is a direct personal safety risk" - Elon Musk, Nov 6, 2022
Pre-Musk Twitter didn't specifically try to present itself as a bastion of free speech.
On top of that, in case of this particular account, Musk specifically said that it would be allowed on the platform per his understanding of free speech.
Musk is not anything like a free speech absolutist. He makes extensive use of NDAs and other speech restriction agreements for non-security non-trade secret reasons, and one time it seems he swatted a whistle-blower.
Posting a swastika alone is not necessarilly a call to violence like posting a confederate flag or ACAB isn't always a call to violence.
It's been more than evident that the drivers Musk's policies on moderation are commercial and personal which is well within his right.
Others are pointing out the hypocrisy of him claiming that his motivations for setting policy have been a dedication to 'free speech absolutism' which is clearly not the case.
If yourself and others the moderation policy on Twitter was too oppressive to right wing views and are happy with this new direction all I can say is good for you. But you and those same other people should come out and expressly say that instead of getting on a high horse over "free speech absolutism" when thats clearly not what you're interested in.
Can I find this in the Twitter TOS?
reply