[blackeyeblitzar]

Twitter’s argument, which they’re trying to make in Brazil through the justice system, is that the orders to censor (by one Supreme Court justice) aren’t constitutional under Brazilian law. In those other cases, Twitter abided by local law as they claimed they would.

[defrost]

Sure, an argument that may or may not have merit.

The greater point to my comment is that they have a track record of siding with the Mohdi's, Bolsonaro's, Erdoğan's et al when it comes to blocking accounts and otherwise standing on principal as "free speech absolutists" when they like the disinfomation being spread.

That's just the new face of X-Twitter.

[Nathanba]

So be specific: Which disinformation in your opinion should have been censored at which government's request and wasn't?

[defrost]

As much as possible keep opinion seperate from observation.

Do you have any factual observations to add about censorship by Twitter 2.0?

[Nathanba]

So your response to me is a question for the very thing that I asked you for, this is very bad discussion form when you throw such serious accusations around. Merely giving examples of Erdogan or Modi is obviously not good enough because Musk says that he follows local national laws. So according to that personal rule, all his behavior is consistent. You said that he breaks his own rules, so where does it happen? Are you assuming that disobeying the Brazil order is such a case? Then you have to say so and show why Elon's reason for doing so is wrong because yes, he has given reasons for that. I personally don't know them, I don't care about every single case that affects Twitter. I do care about the social media circus arriving at HN where people think that they can just throw these easy accusations and then not even bother actually touching on the core issue.