[fjkdlsjflkds]

> If he did that, it would be just as deplorable [...]

No need for hypotheticals. He did do that (this is an easily-verifiable fact [1][2][3]).

> [...] the censorship they were claiming to oppose.

The thing is that this is clearly an empty claim, when Musk has no problems either complying with similar censoring orders from right-wing governments (Modi, Erdogan) or with arbitrarily censoring people for using medically-approved terms (like "cis" or "cisgender") that he simply does not like [4][5].

All of this censorship by Twitter is (legally) 100% within their right to do, as a private entity, but then whatever claims he (or Twitter) has of being a "defender of free speech" ring a bit hollow.

Given these things, the more plausible explanation for Musk's actions is not that he wants to defend free speech (or that he is fundamentally against censorship), but simply that the request comes from a (left-wing) government that is not ideologically aligned with his views.

It's a choice. But choices have consequences.

[1] https://slate.com/technology/2023/05/elon-musk-turkey-twitte...

[2] https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/internacional/en/world/2024/04...

[3] https://theintercept.com/2023/03/28/twitter-modi-india-punja...

[4] https://www.advocate.com/news/cisgender-restriction-x-twitte...

[5] https://nitter.poast.org/elonmusk/status/1719077000483066319...

[fluoridation]

Regardless of Musk's motivations, would you rather he had complied with this latest request? In other words, would you rather there's more censorship in the world?

[fjkdlsjflkds]

The world is not black and white... there are shades of grey. Sometimes censorship is lawful and/or justified, sometimes it is not.

I don't know if, in this case, it is justified or not, but it seems to be lawful (the same way that the censorship requests in India and Turkey were), as far as I can tell (I assume a judge of the Supreme Court knows a bit more about Brazilian law than you and me).

Given that Musk/Twitter seemingly has no problem complying with lawful censorship demands (or engaging in arbitrary censorship even without lawful censorship demands), it seems clear to me that Musk has no problem with "more censorship in the world". That was my only point.

My personal opinion on whether there is higher or lower need for censorship in the world is rather irrelevant (since I have no power or platforms to censor), but I certainly see no problem in actively censoring terrorists, bots, spammers and scammers (for example).

[fluoridation]

It's not irrelevant to me, which why I'm asking. I'm asking if you would have preferred Musk to be consistent and ban those accounts instead. And if so, why? Do you agree with censorship if and only if it's legal (whatever that means in a particular jurisdiction)? Or is there some other reason?

[fjkdlsjflkds]

As I mentioned, I agree with censorship when it is legitimate (ethically or morally justified), and I agree with the need for rule-of-law. It is not me that is arguing that censorship is ok when it is legal (and not ok otherwise), but Twitter/Musk.

In this particular case, I do not have enough information to state with certainty whether I think this particular case is legitimate or not, but it does seem to be lawful (which is the criterion that is seemingly important for Twitter/Musk).

I have no particular preference with regards to whether Musk chooses to be consistent or not: that's his decision and he/Twitter is the one that has to endure the consequences of his actions (not me). Since I am not a Twitter user, it does not affect me either way, and I don't see how it will significantly affect Brazilian's capacity to freely communicate (note: there are plenty of other private communication platforms that do comply with Brazilian law... Telegram, Whatsapp, Instagram, Facebook, etc.).

On the other hand, I do think it is hypocritical to claim to be a "defender of free speech", and then both engage in non-state-mandated censorship AND comply with state-mandated censorship (as long as it suits him or Twitter). It's a laughable claim. That was my only point.