Oh, X is banned in Brazil and Australia? Or what happened in those countries?

E.g., Russia saying it’s denazifying Ukraine.

They’re not even fighting against fascism per se they’re just asking him to obey the law. Asking people to obey the law isn’t exactly a political position.

The people fighting fascists do look a lot like, and behave like fascists. Why don’t we just stamp out twitter ? They are unredeemable and detrimental to existing. Just shut it down. And all forms of social media along with it.

None of it has any worth, burn it all diwb.

Reminds of all the conservative whackos calling the BLM protesters “fascists”.

So, we’re not doing Section 230 anymore ?

So, are we giving the right to twitter, no, the mandate, to delete everyone we and they don’t like ?

I mean, this is what’s going to happen and is already happening. Just the most powerful people on earth become the arbiters of Truth ?

Like, isn’t anyone else seeing this is bad ?

I mean, the worst outcome possible that we’ve seen coming for 40 years kind of bad ?

I think just kill all social media, would be a much preferable solution. Maybe cut every optic fiber instead !

Just don’t give these monsters that power, I think global thermonuclear war is a cakewalk compared to this prison we’re building around us.

There are only two ways to do this:

1. Him becoming destitute and poor

2. Him being dead

Neither is likely to happen anytime soon, so we’re stuck with this piece of shit for some decades longer. If the human race could collectively just ignore him, stop buying his cars and stop thinking he’s some kind of genius, then perhaps there’s a third option. But that relies on the human race having the capacity to critically think, which is even more unlikely than option #1.

What a strange selection of censored words… “fail to comply”, “The billionaire owner…”, “would strenghten the Australian”, “has yet to be passed”

I guess his PoV is that Xitter is his property, thus when he does whatever there, it’s not censorship, but when state demands from him to do whatever there, it is.

But his position would be easier to defend were he not Elon Musk.

For me at least, that opinion came from a time when the internet wasn’t dominated by corporations, and giant coordinated misinformation campaigns weren’t a problem.

When the main actors on the internet were individuals, I agree, government interference would limit their freedom.

But as it is now, corporations determine who gets access to information, how it gets filtered, which voices get amplified and which get silenced.

One of the only effective ways we’ve seen in recent years to force corporations to do the right thing, and restore some freedom for individuals, is by government regulation.

That’s why I’ve changed my mind on that.

That was a different internet. In that unregulated internet there was no moron with unlimited money trying to ruin everything.

It was a more optimistic time, perhaps a more naive time depending on your perspective. A time when most people felt that crowds were wise and the truth would surface spontaneously. Where the internet would help us spread knowledge and democracy and none of the bad things. Where conspiracy theories, disinformation, outright hatred and bigotry were considered fringe phenomena that could be kept at bay. When people would point to 4chan as the worst the internet had to offer, if they even knew about it. Where politicians and their voters could argue passionately, without necessarily feeling that other side are “extremists” or “fascists” who would literally “destroy our country” if they win an election.

The world is cracking at the seams lately and this leads more people to wanna put the brakes on the internet. Liberals especially, witnessing with horror the surge of the far right and attributing it in part to the internet’s ultimate ability to amplify anything, any voice, any shitty little take, no matter how extreme, how misinformed, or bigoted. Most likely misinformed and bigoted with someone like Musk at the helm, the thinking goes. In short, liberals have shifted from the exuberant naïveté of the past to protection mode, trying to stem the tide of right wing populism and perhaps ultimately fascism. And thus will come off as overbearing censors to anyone who doesn’t understand why they do what they do or is still optimistic that a lack of censorship will only lead to good things.

Freedom only works with a social contract in place, some consensus, some ground truths about the world that we can all agree on. Or that a solid, relatively stable majority at least can agree on. When that starts to break down, freedom to say and do whatever you want online may in fact bring the downfall sooner by stoking the fires of division. Of course the likes of Musk probably do think that they are fighting the good fight and are championing free speech, but increasingly he seems to be shifting to the right politically, and rather fighting for his presumed right to shape the world in his image and grow his business empire unchecked, if anything, and not some ideal of freedom and democracy. The likes of him, businessmen with nearly unchecked power and ultimately more concern for their business and personal aspirations than democracy, are probably going to become a bigger threat to our freedoms than the government of Australia. Maybe. Probably.

I personally do think that liberals have often gone overboard in their speech policing zeal, but on the other hand understand why they do what they do. Policing the internet seems like a much easier alternative than actually addressing all the major, sometimes seemingly existential socioeconomic challenges liberal democracies face today. The latter would deprive right wing populists and extremists of much of their influence, but is of course way, way harder than policing speech.