> By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law.
Was the account violating any 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...
He specifically said he would not ban it as part of his commitment to free speech.
It would be useful if Musk adopted transparency and shared the rationale behind this banning, along with all internal communications regarding it.
https://mastodon.social/@JxckS/109513788818540405
There is an explanation:
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.
First I've heard of this. The ElonJet person was a Twitter employee then? What communications did they leak?
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:
They also never ignored "Musk's hypocrisy on free speech." Simply because he isn't being hypocritical here.
False.
> using Fox News no less.
Speaking of irrelevant to the discussion, this sentence fragment wins first prize for most irrelevant.
> It's irrelevant to the discussion about Musk's hypocrisy on free speech
False. I am comparing the type of speech that is "far beyond the law" that Elon Musk is now allowing versus the type of speech that he is not.
