11–20 of 209 posts
This is a nothing burger.
They have to follow the law of the country as tyrannical as it is like they did in Brazil. I hope one day they say fuck it.
They have to follow the law of the country as tyrannical as it is like they did in Brazil. I hope one day they say fuck it.
Turkey has a law requiring social networks to shadowban opposition-party candidates?
X's stated goal is to comply with the laws of any given country that it operates in. As the article states, there is a court order to restrict that particular users account https://x.com/GlobalAffairs/status/1920426409358455081 . This is a nothing burger.
They have to follow the law of the country as tyrannical as it is like they did in Brazil. I hope one day they say fuck it.
What other moral standard is there besides laws? Is it that the laws of non-tyrannical countries should override those of tyrannical ones? How do you decide tyrannicalness? Or should internet companies decide what should be allowed in other countries despite those countries and their populations disagreeing? Great firewalls are the solution when nobody can agree with each other across borders but that's a pity.
To be honest, you could restrict your compliance to only the laws of the country you're based in. American companies follow American laws, etc. Then move your company to where you most agree with the laws.
I am not an Elon or X fan, and I don’t think this is Good, but Twitter’s policy pre-X to comply with national content laws was to geo-block content when a government demanded it be blocked. I don’t recall if the algorithmic shadow-ban was in that toolkit pre-X as well, but it wouldn’t surprise me. Again, I don’t think this is a good outcome, but it’s not substantially at odds with what Twitter pre-Elon would’ve done…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_Ara...