Earlier quoted context omitted.
His commitment to his free speech is unwavering.
Philosophically, I think his “freedom of reach” distinction is a hack/loophole without a strong basis. Twitter is a promotion service, just like Facebook (in each, they let users promote themselves in exchange for being targeted for promotion by others). The entire point of it is to promote content. It is not a content platform, except by coincidence. Once you “maximum derank” somebody, you are denying them access to…
ElonJet Is Now Suspended
821–830 of 1001 posts
Re: ElonJet Is Now Suspended
#822I understand this move, but need to point out how hypocritical this is for Mr. Free Speech. Basically, his entire tenure so far has been "free speech for me and the accounts that were rightfully banned for violating the TOS!" in public, and then "we'll deboost anyone who doesn't pay me a subscription" and "let's selectively release internal comms in a misleading way to make normal company operation in good faith seem…
So we have a company headquartered in SF, and I think something like 98% of twitter's political donations went to democrats, and the employees acted as constant activists whenever the executives didn't take action against high level conservatives (I'll leave aside whether that action was justified or not). Also, if you read the twitter files, the enforcement was fairly lopsided. Look what happened to @libsoftiktok --…
Re: ElonJet Is Now Suspended
#823It's pretty clear Elon wants everyone that has insulted or crossed him or otherwise proven him wrong to suffer some consequence to alleviate his bruised ego. Fauci, ElonJet, and more Think I'm wrong? Let's see if he'll go after Jack Dorsey in the future for recently correcting him on going after CSAM.
The cracks are already showing. Musk and Dorsey are in different sides of the argument with Elon accusing previous Twitter leadership of inaction. Jack didn't like that accusation: https://twitter.com/jack/status/1601302412056473600
> Jack: No, it is not.
> Elon: When Ella Irwin, who now runs Trust & Safety, joined Twitter earlier this year, almost no one was working on child safety.
> She raised this with Ned & Parag, but they rejected her staffing request.
> I made it top priority immediately.
Why doesn't he set the record straight on this?
Re: ElonJet Is Now Suspended
#824Re: ElonJet Is Now Suspended
#825I understand this move, but need to point out how hypocritical this is for Mr. Free Speech. Basically, his entire tenure so far has been "free speech for me and the accounts that were rightfully banned for violating the TOS!" in public, and then "we'll deboost anyone who doesn't pay me a subscription" and "let's selectively release internal comms in a misleading way to make normal company operation in good faith seem…
I'm flabbergasted by the overwhelming response that this account should be allowed "in the name of Free Speech". This isn't a free speech issue. This is a personal safety issue. It is a personal attack towards Musk. As high profile as he is, and the amount of controversy surrounding him, he certainly has a target on his back. I consider that account a form of Doxxing, and I can't think of any good reason it should be…
Re: ElonJet Is Now Suspended
#826Re: ElonJet Is Now Suspended
#827It's amazing to me the mental gymnastics one must have to do to defend the @ElonJet account, simply because you might not like Elon on a personal level. Of course that account should be suspended. Yeah I know, public information/ free speech, blah blah. But it is quite frankly a personal attack on Musk, and I consider it a form of Doxxing. As high profile as Musk is, something like that account is a real threat to hi…
My commitment to free speech extends even to not banning the account following my plane, even though that is a direct personal safety risk - @elonmusk 11/06/22
Re: ElonJet Is Now Suspended
#828Re: ElonJet Is Now Suspended
#829I understand this move, but need to point out how hypocritical this is for Mr. Free Speech. Basically, his entire tenure so far has been "free speech for me and the accounts that were rightfully banned for violating the TOS!" in public, and then "we'll deboost anyone who doesn't pay me a subscription" and "let's selectively release internal comms in a misleading way to make normal company operation in good faith seem…
Yeah I agree that Elon is full of shit, but there's a little lie in here that needs to be addressed: > normal company operation in good faith But it wasn't "normal company operation" because they completely disregarded preexisting company policy for dealing with political figures. Here are political figures that they didn't ban (who were inciting violence) > 20. In June 2018, Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei tweeted, “#…
Is there any public information about how twitter handled the two examples you provided at the end there? Do we know for sure they actively chose not to take any actions?
If not, I'm not sure it is fair to claim they completely ignored them. They may have limited their reach via some kind of shadow banning. Action like that is harder to notice than an account ban.
Also, since your examples predate the particular ban we are discussing, do we know for sure there weren't policy changes in between. Perhaps even because of examples like the ones you list.
Personally, I wonder if Twitter might have a more American-centric view of the world and a higher sense of urgency for "events at home", so to speak. That could go some way to explaining what seems to be selective enforcement of their terms of service.
Re: ElonJet Is Now Suspended
#830I understand this move, but need to point out how hypocritical this is for Mr. Free Speech. Basically, his entire tenure so far has been "free speech for me and the accounts that were rightfully banned for violating the TOS!" in public, and then "we'll deboost anyone who doesn't pay me a subscription" and "let's selectively release internal comms in a misleading way to make normal company operation in good faith seem…
So we have a company headquartered in SF, and I think something like 98% of twitter's political donations went to democrats, and the employees acted as constant activists whenever the executives didn't take action against high level conservatives (I'll leave aside whether that action was justified or not). Also, if you read the twitter files, the enforcement was fairly lopsided. Look what happened to @libsoftiktok --…
The text shared was this:
===== Site Policy Recommendation Site Policy recommends placing @LibsOfTiktok ([LTT] 1.3M followers, not verified) in a 7-day timeout at the account level meaning, not for a specific Tweet] based on the account's continued pattern of indirectly violating Twitter's Hateful Conduct Policy by tweeting content that either leads to or intends to incite harassment against individuals and institutions that support LGBTQ communities. At this time, Site Policy has not found explicitly violative Tweets, which would result in a permanent suspension of the account. This type of enforcement action [repeated 7-day timeouts at the account-level] will not lead to permanent suspension, however: should LTT engage in any other direct Tweet-level violations of any of Site Policy's policies, we will move forward with permanent suspension.
Assessment Since its most recent timeout, while LTT has not directly engaged in behavior violative of the Hateful Conduct policy, the user has continued targeting individuals/allies/supporters of the LGBTQIA+ community for alleged misconduct. The targeting of at least one of these institutions =====
It’s inaccurate to say that LoTT didn’t violate the rules. LoTT didn’t directly violate the rules. Weiss chose to cut the text off before getting to the description of what happened as a result of LoTT’s tweets.
So at this point you can ask a more nuanced question: what do you do about indirect violations which you believe in good faith have potentially harmful results? Such as, say, bomb threats?
I’m not going to try and answer that here because it’s a really difficult question and I don’t think we’d reach an answer. I will say that I think it’s important to acknowledge that the question itself is reasonable. The Twitter Files fail to acknowledge that.
I will also note that Weiss selectively quoted the text in her screenshot. “Since its most recent timeout, while LTT has not directly engaged in behavior violative of the Hateful Conduct policy…” became “LTT has not directly engaged in behavior violative of the Hateful Conduct policy.” That changes the meaning of the sentence and obscures the question I raised above. I would also like to know if Twitter determined that LoTT directly engaged in such behavior before the most recent timeout; it seems very relevant.
Finally, we have no idea how lopsided the enforcement was because we don’t have the complete dataset. Showing us a handful of cases selected by unclear means is hardly enough data to form conclusions!