Exactly! And in Turkey people get charged with supporting terrorism by tweeting negative stuff about Erdogan. On the surface of it, Musk should be against that, free speech and all that. Supporting local law would mean supporting authorities in finding those users. One way out would be to just retreat from, in this example, Turkey.
But since this whole affaire started with "ElonsJet" refusing to shut down, and Musks reaction was a teenagers "Then I'll buy this company and fire you", I'm inclined to believe free speech is going to be ok as long Musk is criticized.
It's better to stick to local rules than getting a clique in silicon valley to decide what they think should be acceptable to say. He said he wants more free speech, not to break the laws of foreign countries. If twitter was already doing just the minimum required by law, and Elon said he still wanted more free speech you'd have a point. But they go far beyond that!
This has nothing to do with elonjets btw and if that's the worst example you can come up with... you'd be just convincing those who think that Twitter's moderation policy is horrible. Because for them, a dude censoring people who track him (which won't happen anyways imo) is still insanely better than the current policy that they deem is used to supress entire ideas/events.
Agreed. I'm not saying they should, just that they have to follow the laws. But they don't have to police their platform according to what an extremely sheltered SV-adjacent elite thinks should be okay. It's not an either/or question, they can not bend down to police states and also not let that minority have the last say over what is okay or not across the entire globe.
What is your solution then? If twitter weren’t available, do you think you’d see more or less people speaking against their gov? You’ll also see some people in this thread asking for identity verification. Which shows the value of anonymous posting. Perhaps we should make twitter much like HN and not require identifiable information that links to a real person?
> It's better to stick to local rules than getting a clique in silicon valley to decide
My point was that I'd prefer companies to stick to their principles, and if that means they can't do business in certain countries, so be it.
Saying that you'll follow local rules if that means abuse of human rights is not something I agree with.
In this context 'human rights' is used as a personal definition rather than some sort of legal one, as local rules allow abuse in some places.
Certainly he could retreat from places like Turkey and China. Alas, increasingly there is nowhere left to run. You can be inclined to believe what you want, we can just wait and see what happens no?
In England recently there was a teenager that quoted a snoop song on her instagram got threatened with an ankle bracelet and a $1000 fine for using a slur - post was not even directed at anyone in particular but rather in memory of her friend that died in a car crash.
"Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!"
Chambers was arrested by anti-terror police at his office, his house was searched and his mobile phone, laptop and desktop hard drive were confiscated. ..was found guilty at Doncaster Magistrates' Court, fined £385 and ordered to pay £600 costs. As a consequence he lost his job as an administrative and financial supervisor at a car parts company.
UK had draconian libel laws used to silence inconvenient messages since for all intents and purposes forever, though.
English defamation law puts the burden of proof on the defendant, and does not require the plaintiff to prove falsehood. For that reason, it has been considered an impediment to free speech in much of the developed world.
Libel laws are at least about false statements. The difference is now you can still get in legal trouble for speaking the truth or making jokes, just as long as somebody was "offended".
if they quoted Erdogan, I might give it to you, but 2Pac is too far removed. not everyone has to know all the lyrics to every rap song to distinguish between participating in pop culture and bomb threats by the way
Two separate cases. The "bomb threat" I quoted here in full, it is right in front of your eyes. Make of it what you will of course.
You're welcome to explain to me how a teenager quoting snoop on her instagram is deserving of a court case whether somebody is familiar with the quote or not as opposed to Ahmadinejad quoting 2pac.
> 'It had to do with an American and a Russian arguing about their two countries,' Reagan said Monday, relating the story he told Gorbachev. 'And the American in the story said, 'I can walk into the Oval Office, I can pound the president's desk, and I can say, Mr. President, I don't like the way you're running our country.'
> 'And the Soviet citizen said, 'I can do that.' The American said, 'You can?' He says, 'Yes. I can go into the Kremlin to the general secretary's office, I can pound his desk and say, Mr. General Secretary, I don't like the way President Reagan's running his country.''
> The Böhmermann affair (also known as Erdogate[1]) was a political affair following an experimental poem on German satirist Jan Böhmermann's satire show Neo Magazin Royale in late March 2016 that deliberately insulted Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan using profane language.
...
After the show was aired on German public television channel ZDFneo, the Turkish government released a verbal note demanding that the German government begin criminal prosecution of Böhmermann. German Chancellor Angela Merkel further escalated the situation by apologizing for Böhmermann's "intentionally hurtful" poem – later she called this "a mistake".[2] On 15 April Merkel announced in a press conference that the German government had approved Böhmermann's criminal prosecution, but would abolish the respective paragraph 103 of the German penal code before 2018. Intense criticism followed the Chancellor's decision, with speculation that she decided to allow the prosecution in order to protect Germany's refugee deal with Turkey.[3] The case was dropped in October 2016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Böhmermann_affair
> These laws have been abolished as of January 1, 2020. Insulting the King, the Royal Consort, the heir apparent or their consort, or the Regent, is now punishable on the same level as public officials in their official capacity, which adds one third to the maximum severity of the punishment for regular criminalisation of insulting of three months in prison (maximum) and/or a fine.
that's your army and police forces failing to protect your citizens from a turkish bodyguard on your own soil. nothing to do with persecuting Erdogan's critics
You can get locked up for very mild 'hate speech' in the UK. And I don't even mean hate speech, but posting "I hate these people and this is why", not "violent acts towards so and so!"
In Canada, protestors had their bank accounts frozen for saying mean things about Trudeau. It's not exactly the same as your example but it does rhyme.
No-one got their bank accounts frozen for "saying mean things".
People did get their bank accounts frozen for playing key roles in protests that shut down critical infrastructure for a prolonged period. Protests that were at least partially funded by foreign interests. Protests that cost Canadians millions of dollars and posed a safety risk for many people.
Whether you like JT or not, at least on the surface the government had justification to do <<something>> to stop the protests after so many weeks. Some governments would have gone in with clubs, rubber bullets and teargas. Ours elected to shut off the funding tap. And it worked.
Whether the emergencies act should have been used here is definitely up for debate. For what it's worth, an independent inquiry has been established to look into this. I for one hope they recognize the slippery slope that such a blunt tool represents and put in better controls and oversight.
> Some governments would have gone in with clubs, rubber bullets and teargas. Ours elected to shut off the funding tap. And it worked.
Sure, one can’t survive without money. And they shut that dissent down real quick. Like they controlled speech quite well. Now that they’ve found the button, I wonder how many times in the future they’ll push it. You’re basically bragging about your loss of dissent.
It's not even REMOTELY close. They didn't have their bank accounts frozen for saying mean things, they were frozen because they were blocking roadways, damaging property, and making life in general more difficult for innocent citizens. You may not agree that they should have been frozen but it's absolutely not about saying mean things.
That is incorrect. ~200 bank accounts were frozen for refusing to follow police orders to clear illegal blockades. Accounts were not frozen for speech, but for unlawful actions.
I am not Canadian and you're going to have to do your own fact checking but here is a post from an MP (whom I know nothing about but can assume you absolutely hate, try to put that aside):
https://twitter.com/markstrahl/status/1495472037438967808
Briane is a single mom from Chilliwack working a minimum wage job. She gave $50 to the convoy when it was 100% legal. She hasn’t participated in any other way. Her bank account has now been frozen.
I think regardless of your political affiliation freezing bank accounts and invoking emergency powers is controversial for obvious reasons. It is not a good precedent. Try to think ahead to a time when your political opponents are in power.
The entire point is that the _platform_ should not be doing the censoring. The local government can legally, according to their bogus laws, jail and censor their own population, but the platform should allow those posts to appear in the first place. So stuff like "hate speech" (what exactly does Twitter define as hate speech?) should not be censored.
But since this whole affaire started with "ElonsJet" refusing to shut down, and Musks reaction was a teenagers "Then I'll buy this company and fire you", I'm inclined to believe free speech is going to be ok as long Musk is criticized.