Your very own tweet disproves what you're saying: "I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law."
Even back in April he was not saying he was only going to censor illegal speech. Anyways, since Elon acquired twitter he's made it a major talking point to say that twitter is still moderating by the same rules as before: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1588538640401018880
"Twitter has had a massive drop in revenue, due to activist groups pressuring advertisers, even though nothing has changed with content moderation and we did everything we could to appease the activists."
The ElonJet account was violating rules for leaking internal company communications. Is that type of censorship going "far beyond the law?" I don't think so. Internal leaks can damage a company and the company should therefore protect itself. If anything, Twitter could be legally liable to shareholders for failing to do so.
On the other hand, blacklisting Dr. Jay Bhattacharya for saying things about Covid that turned out to be far more correct than what the CDC was saying at the same time is indeed going far beyond the law and also harming all of society: https://www.foxnews.com/media/twitter-files-confirm-stanford...
I thought he was all about the law? And what are these other rules? There's not really any defense of musk here. Leaving up the other "jet tweeters" makes it clear. He's just thin skinned.
Everyone is energized by this situation because it's so obviously blatantly self serving.
The owner of the ElonJet account published those leaked communications, and that account hasn’t been suspended, so there’s some inconsistency there. Zoe Schiffer, who has published many Twitter leaks this month, has not been suspended.
It would be useful if Musk adopted transparency and shared the rationale behind this banning, along with all internal communications regarding it.
This is no longer accurate: all of Jack Sweeney’s accounts have been banned, apparently permanently (despite Musk’s statement that permanent bans are wrong).
Violating our rules against platform manipulation and spam.
You may not use Twitter's services in a manner intended to artificially amplify or suppress information or engage in behavior that manipulates or disrupts people's experience on Twitter.
“Artificially amplify” probably covers it, since he wrote code to amplify information that was otherwise tricky to view. Interesting precedent, though.
Here’s another update (yes, I know nobody’s reading this far nested):
The rules and policies covering personal information have been changed to include “live location information, including information shared on Twitter directly or links to 3rd-party URL(s) of travel routes, actual physical location, or other identifying information that would reveal a person’s location, regardless if this information is publicly available.”
I have confirmed via the Wayback Machine that this change occurred within the last 48 hours.
I am going to be non-neutral now: what a dumb policy. That means you could report someone for posting a photo of a sporting event, because it identifies the location of the players. I’m not even totally against the concept but that is a terrible, terrible implementation.
Remember how the people deciding whether or not to ban Trump were relying on nuances and intent rather than trying to write iron-clad rules? This is why.
Musk claims an attempt was made to assault him: "Last night, car carrying lil X in LA was followed by crazy stalker (thinking it was me), who later blocked car from moving & climbed onto hood.
Legal action is being taken against Sweeney & organizations who supported harm to my family."
>On the other hand, blacklisting Dr. Jay Bhattacharya for saying things about Covid that turned out to be far more correct than what the CDC was saying at the same time is indeed going far beyond the law and also harming all of society: https://www.foxnews.com/media/twitter-files-confirm-stanford...
This is textbook whataboutism, using Fox News no less. It's irrelevant to the discussion about Musk's hypocrisy on free speech, which you also ignored in your previous comment:
Who is "you people"? And how is it not relevant when it is the verbatim-repeated left-wing talking point to say that the Twitter files are a "nothing burger"?
You know you are losing an argument when you call the literal facts (tweets) saying you wouldn't do something that you did a nothing burger. Musk can do whatever he wants, and we can all make fun of him for being so obviously self serving and foolish.
I don't lose arguments very often, and I'm certainly not losing this one. Circumstances change, and the accounts were suspended for violating a different rule. You can post what you want, and we can all make fun of you for being wrong.
Where's the hypocrisy? Musk said he wanted to broaden the speech allowed on the platform, not allow speech of all kinds.
> "let's selectively release internal comms in a misleading way to make normal company operation in good faith seem like a liberal conspiracy."
Maybe try getting your info from a non-leftwing source. There has been plenty of damning info coming from these internal comms.