151–160 of 207 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No (I have no idea who he has banned or not) but that sounds like a powertrip!
Not just leftists, but also journalists critical of him: https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/x-journalist-ban-elon-mus... His so-called free-speech absolutism is a sham and he does not deserve the benefit of doubt on this.
> All the accounts were restored in a few hours
X is turning into a wasteland of angry people and bots. Bluesky is much more refreshing, similar to the old twitter.
Personally I have not seen much difference. Twitter has been a cesspool for as long as I can remember.
I loved it when it was T9 text (sms) to tweet. It was a novel way to share what you were doing say to day. The transformation from personal—to-promotional was their business plan.
When the feed becomes suggested, that’s when shit hit the fan for every social product. They still offer that as annoyware where you have to click over to it, but the nash equilibrium means that even the people you follow are trying to go viral instead of just sharing thoughts.
Reddit targeted the market for thoughtful discussion, and Twitter became the place for one-directional, bumper-sticker, talk radio style politics where nobody actually cares about the truth.
But for those few years between 2006-2010, Twitter was really a cool product.
Is this a principled defense of free speech or a case of a man treating ostensibly independent companies as divisions of his personal conglomerate?
It's one thing leading to the other. It is what it is. Are the judge's (possibly illegal) moves motivated by interpretation of the law or by personal vendetta? Hard to tell , but i'm glad for less censorship.
"However, Brazilian law, specifically the Civil Code and the Consumer Defense Code, includes a mechanism known as "desconsideração da personalidade jurídica" (piercing the corporate veil). This legal principle allows courts to disregard the separate legal personality of a company in cases where there is evidence of fraud, misuse of the corporate form, or abuse of rights.
If an owner uses multiple companies in a way that is fraudulent or meant to evade the law, the courts can "pierce the corporate veil" and hold the owner and their other companies liable. This means that if there is a proven link between the misconduct in Company A and other companies owned by the same person, those other companies could potentially be affected."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't that full of loopholes though? It seems like that would allow someone in Germany to say "I think the Nazis were 100% right in what they did to the Jews", though my understanding is that would be very much illegal under German law. Similarly, would it be illegal to say "Kill the N-words!" but not "I think all the N-words should be killed!"? Obvious caveat - this is a highly contentious topic. Thank you for helpi…
Actually, that's why there's judge to interpret the Law In Europe, in general (and that's something that look a bit strange to US it seem), we judge on THE SPIRIT of the Law more than on THE TEXT. So a European court would surely consider "hate speech" independantly of how it is phrased exactly However "I think the Nazis were 100% right in what they did to the Jews" is IMHO NOT "hate speech" but an opinion. What woul…
The idea that two reasonable people can so easily read the examples I gave as hate speech or free expression of opinion feels very wrong. Laws should be much more clear if they are meant to actually serve in the best interests of the public.
It's frightening how authoritarian the Left has become around the world. Ambiguous laws about'hate' seem poised to protect the world from thought crimes by curtailing basic human rights. In this context Musk is right and has the power to bring change. He will lose a lot of that power under a Harris presidency that has advertised it plans to continue the crusade against freedom of speech.
Wow, just wow. The gloves are off. I wouldn’t expect anything this naive on HN. There is a difference between freedom of expression (freedom of opinion) and freedom of speech. The latter contains the former, but is much more than that because freedom of expression stops where hate and discrimination begins.
Sorry I don't get: how is possible to find anybody defending Musk when the Supreme Court of a democracy ruled to exclude X from the country ? Free speech is a good thing AS LONG AS it respect the country laws. In France, the People decided democratically (through their elected representatives) against some kinds of so-called "free speech" (for example: racism apology). That's OUR choice, on OUR territory (like it or…
> Free speech is a good thing AS LONG AS it respect the country laws. In France, the People decided democratically (through their elected representatives) against some kinds of so-called "free speech" (for example: racism apology). That's OUR choice, on OUR territory (like it or not: rule your own country but not mine). Why should X be allowed to refuse to respect the France laws on the french territory (resp. Europe…
A major problem with online discourse about "free speech" is that is so ameri-centric. American view on what's allowed is the only definition that counts.
It's frightening how authoritarian the Left has become around the world. Ambiguous laws about'hate' seem poised to protect the world from thought crimes by curtailing basic human rights. In this context Musk is right and has the power to bring change. He will lose a lot of that power under a Harris presidency that has advertised it plans to continue the crusade against freedom of speech.
How is preventing a color revolution "authoritarian"? https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/01/08/brazil-... https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202112/1240540.shtml You'd want the white house to do the same if China would want to do something similar with, let's say, TikTok ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes we desperately do need it. Sure if you are living in your comfy American city you don't see the need. But most places on earth actually don't have a convenient cell tower or terrestrial network. Starlink is much more efficient to cover those areas then manually building out infrastructure there. It's not even a contest.
Yeah but you don't need 10000 satellites to provide cell coverage when 100 would do. Hybrid ground station networks have been a thing for a long time now... if your goal is to provide mobile networks for the lowest possible cost to the end user. That's not Starlink's goal -- these "uninternetnetted" folks don't have money to pay, they typically don't even have electricity. Rural broadband in developed countries do. T…
And yes the unreachable people have family in reachable areas that can pay, sometimes the Internet is what keeps them away, since solar and batteries exist
See the Marubo for example
Sorry I don't get: how is possible to find anybody defending Musk when the Supreme Court of a democracy ruled to exclude X from the country ? Free speech is a good thing AS LONG AS it respect the country laws. In France, the People decided democratically (through their elected representatives) against some kinds of so-called "free speech" (for example: racism apology). That's OUR choice, on OUR territory (like it or…
Free speech is an ideal, not a reflection of the laws of a single country. Personally, I don’t think countries should get international control over satellites that they didn’t launch or operate.