7 ms·

On the one hand, Musk has already retracted his claim[1] that he's a "free speech absolutist"[2], so I don't think it's fair to come after him for that: In

On the one hand, Musk has already retracted his claim[1] that he's a "free speech absolutist"[2], so I don't think it's fair to come after him for that: In last month’s interview with the BBC, Musk said, “the rules in India for what can appear on social media are quite strict, and we can’t go beyond the laws of a country … If we have a choice of either our people go to prison or we comply with the laws, we will comply with the laws.” At another point in the interview, Musk said: “If people of a given country are against a certain type of speech, they should talk to their elected representatives and pass a law to prevent it.” But blocking links to hacked documents regarding JD Vance seems a little suspect considering that, as the article mentions, he was opposed to blocking links to hacked documents about Hunter Biden: Twitter, before it was bought by Elon Musk, had a policy regarding hacked materials — but the page is no longer available. A pre-Musk version of the policy, dated 2019, stated that posting or linking to hacked content is prohibited. Under this policy, links to a story by The New York Post about Hunter Biden, the current president’s son, were banned. But in October 2020, Twitter changed its policy to say that it would no longer block hacked materials, after an outcry about how the company had handled the Post story. “Straight blocking of URLs was wrong, and we updated our policy and enforcement to fix,” wrote then-CEO Jack Dorsey. Musk was one of the people who was unhappy with the decision to ban links to the Post’s story. “Suspending the Twitter account of a major news organization for publishing a truthful story was obviously incredibly inappropriate,” Musk wrote of the decision on the story in April 2022. He even invited former Rolling Stone pundit Matt Taibbi to examine internal documents showing how Twitter handled the decision. (In the course of tweeting his conclusions, Taibbi exposed the email addresses of Dorsey and Representative Ro Khanna.) [1]: https://www.cato.org/commentary/elon-musk-sues-critics-silence-so-much-free-speech# https://www.cato.org/commentary/elon-musk-sues-critics-silen... [2]: https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/29/tech/elon-musk-twitter-government-takedown/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/29/tech/elon-musk-twitter-govern...

neaden 2y ago
At a certain point, if Musk consistently blocks things favoring one party and not another does X risk losing its Common Carrier status and start opening itself up to more liability?
- philipkglass 2y ago
  If you're referring to US law, Twitter was never a telecommunications common carrier. So it can't lose that status through any sort of moderation decisions.
- krapp 2y ago
  Twitter (I still refuse to call it X) doesn't have "Common Carrier" status, no website or platform does. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 protects platforms from liability for user content even if they display bias towards that content.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- tptacek 2y ago
  No. This is not a thing.
ursuscamp 2y ago
>But blocking links to hacked documents regarding JD Vance seems a little suspect considering that, as the article mentions, he was opposed to blocking links to hacked documents about Hunter Biden Per X, the links were blocked because they included un-redacted personal information such as address and SSN.
- orochimaaru 2y ago
  If that’s true I would say blocking is credible. I’d rather err on the side of caution on exposing potential privacy information. If there was no private info - obviously the block is b.s. But considering they’ve mentioned privacy details in the doc I’m prepared to give them the benefit of doubt for a few days or ask the initial poster to send a redacted version.
  - SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
    I'm not gonna spend an hour poring over the thing for an SSN, but it does have his unredacted home addresses in both Ohio and DC.
    - reaperducer 2y ago
      it does have his unredacted home addresses in both Ohio and DC. In the United States, the addresses of politicians are public records. It's how journalists and the general public verify that they live in the districts they are elected to represent.
      - SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
        The policies of the United States government really have nothing to do with the policies a social media website can or should enact. I'm honestly not sure what I think of this precise situation, but it's not crazy to think that nothing good will come from running around posting the home addresses of unpopular politicians.
- FergusArgyll 2y ago
Veserv 2y ago
It is absolutely fair to continue to point out his ongoing hypocrisy. “If we have a choice of either our people go to prison or we comply with the laws, we will comply with the laws.” in 2023. Here he is on Brazil just a few months ago [1]: “We are lifting all restrictions. This judge has applied massive fines, threatened to arrest our employees and cut off access to in Brazil. As a result, we will probably lose all revenue in Brazil and have to shut down our office there. But principles matter more than profit.” If we have to risk employees going to jail, then we will follow the law. We risk employees going to jail, so we will ignore the law on principle. Literal opposites. He is just a free speech opportunist who realized that you can say “free speech” to get people to overlook your selfish goals and get the benefit of the doubt when you deserve strict scrutiny. [1] https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1776739518240170254 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1776739518240170254
- SmartJerry 2y ago
  You must realize this document doxxes JD Vance. Including birthdate, phone number, most of SSN, his home address, criminal history, etc. The dude will have to move now.
foldr 2y ago
>Musk has already retracted his claim[1] that he's a "free speech absolutist The article you link shows that his subsequent actions are inconsistent with that claim, but not that he's 'retracted' it. Musk has repeatedly said that Twitter will allow 'all legal speech'. There's nothing illegal about sharing links to this document in most jurisdictions (certainly not in the US).
- jonathanyc 2y ago
  I don’t think you and I disagree! I agree that Musk is being a hypocrite and that his actions are inconsistent both with (1) being a ‘free speech absolutist’ and with (2) allowing all legal speech. But (2) is definitely not (1). He used to say he supported (1), now he says (2). I guess you could say that that isn’t retraction, and that he still claims he’s a free speech absolutist, but as much as I think he’s a hypocrite I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and allow him to change his mind. It’s also legal to post flight tracker information, but Musk opposes that in contradiction to (2) as well. That’s also incredibly hypocritical. I get the feeling you and many others didn’t finish reading my comment before concluding that I’m an Elon Musk fan when in fact I’m the opposite :P I’m guessing people stopped around the first quote, before I point out that what he’s doing here is also hypocritical: blocking documents on JD Vance while having been vocally against blocking documents on Hunter Biden. Such is HN!
  - foldr 2y ago
    I think the main issue that people took with your original comment is just that it makes a false claim (the 'retraction'). Even if we accept the alleged retraction, it doesn't really make sense in this context to say that it's unfair to come after Musk for saying (1) because he's subsequently said (2), given that (2) is equally inconsistent with banning posts sharing this dossier.
    - jonathanyc 2y ago
      I mean, I'll accept your interpretation with as much charity as I take Musk's public statements, even though I think both are wrong :) Hope to chat again in a happier context!
mmooss 2y ago
> “If people of a given country are against a certain type of speech, they should talk to their elected representatives and pass a law to prevent it.” Yet Brazil's speech laws he publicly flouted and attacked. As a theory worth exploring: Is it because India's government matches Musk's far-right politics (or do they have any direct relationship), and Brazil's does not? Are there other data points we can use?
- intermerda 2y ago
  > Are there other data points we can use? Yes, he has censored information on Erdogan's request as well. He never calls out the censorship from strongmen authoritarians but loves attacking nations with strong democracies.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    Thanks. We should be careful of confirmation bias, of course: How many authoritarians / far-right causes has Musk obstructed based on free speech? How many non-far right and liberal causes has Musk enabled?

neaden 2y ago

At a certain point, if Musk consistently blocks things favoring one party and not another does X risk losing its Common Carrier status and start opening itself up to more liability?

philipkglass 2y ago
If you're referring to US law, Twitter was never a telecommunications common carrier. So it can't lose that status through any sort of moderation decisions.
krapp 2y ago
Twitter (I still refuse to call it X) doesn't have "Common Carrier" status, no website or platform does. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 protects platforms from liability for user content even if they display bias towards that content.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
tptacek 2y ago
No. This is not a thing.

ursuscamp 2y ago

>But blocking links to hacked documents regarding JD Vance seems a little suspect considering that, as the article mentions, he was opposed to blocking links to hacked documents about Hunter Biden Per X, the links were blocked because they included un-redacted personal information such as address and SSN.

orochimaaru 2y ago
If that’s true I would say blocking is credible. I’d rather err on the side of caution on exposing potential privacy information. If there was no private info - obviously the block is b.s. But considering they’ve mentioned privacy details in the doc I’m prepared to give them the benefit of doubt for a few days or ask the initial poster to send a redacted version.
- SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
  I'm not gonna spend an hour poring over the thing for an SSN, but it does have his unredacted home addresses in both Ohio and DC.
  - reaperducer 2y ago
    it does have his unredacted home addresses in both Ohio and DC. In the United States, the addresses of politicians are public records. It's how journalists and the general public verify that they live in the districts they are elected to represent.
    - SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
      The policies of the United States government really have nothing to do with the policies a social media website can or should enact. I'm honestly not sure what I think of this precise situation, but it's not crazy to think that nothing good will come from running around posting the home addresses of unpopular politicians.
FergusArgyll 2y ago

Veserv 2y ago

It is absolutely fair to continue to point out his ongoing hypocrisy. “If we have a choice of either our people go to prison or we comply with the laws, we will comply with the laws.” in 2023. Here he is on Brazil just a few months ago [1]: “We are lifting all restrictions. This judge has applied massive fines, threatened to arrest our employees and cut off access to in Brazil. As a result, we will probably lose all revenue in Brazil and have to shut down our office there. But principles matter more than profit.” If we have to risk employees going to jail, then we will follow the law. We risk employees going to jail, so we will ignore the law on principle. Literal opposites. He is just a free speech opportunist who realized that you can say “free speech” to get people to overlook your selfish goals and get the benefit of the doubt when you deserve strict scrutiny. [1] https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1776739518240170254 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1776739518240170254

SmartJerry 2y ago
You must realize this document doxxes JD Vance. Including birthdate, phone number, most of SSN, his home address, criminal history, etc. The dude will have to move now.

foldr 2y ago

>Musk has already retracted his claim[1] that he's a "free speech absolutist The article you link shows that his subsequent actions are inconsistent with that claim, but not that he's 'retracted' it. Musk has repeatedly said that Twitter will allow 'all legal speech'. There's nothing illegal about sharing links to this document in most jurisdictions (certainly not in the US).

jonathanyc 2y ago
I don’t think you and I disagree! I agree that Musk is being a hypocrite and that his actions are inconsistent both with (1) being a ‘free speech absolutist’ and with (2) allowing all legal speech. But (2) is definitely not (1). He used to say he supported (1), now he says (2). I guess you could say that that isn’t retraction, and that he still claims he’s a free speech absolutist, but as much as I think he’s a hypocrite I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and allow him to change his mind. It’s also legal to post flight tracker information, but Musk opposes that in contradiction to (2) as well. That’s also incredibly hypocritical. I get the feeling you and many others didn’t finish reading my comment before concluding that I’m an Elon Musk fan when in fact I’m the opposite :P I’m guessing people stopped around the first quote, before I point out that what he’s doing here is also hypocritical: blocking documents on JD Vance while having been vocally against blocking documents on Hunter Biden. Such is HN!
- foldr 2y ago
  I think the main issue that people took with your original comment is just that it makes a false claim (the 'retraction'). Even if we accept the alleged retraction, it doesn't really make sense in this context to say that it's unfair to come after Musk for saying (1) because he's subsequently said (2), given that (2) is equally inconsistent with banning posts sharing this dossier.
  - jonathanyc 2y ago
    I mean, I'll accept your interpretation with as much charity as I take Musk's public statements, even though I think both are wrong :) Hope to chat again in a happier context!

mmooss 2y ago

> “If people of a given country are against a certain type of speech, they should talk to their elected representatives and pass a law to prevent it.” Yet Brazil's speech laws he publicly flouted and attacked. As a theory worth exploring: Is it because India's government matches Musk's far-right politics (or do they have any direct relationship), and Brazil's does not? Are there other data points we can use?

intermerda 2y ago
> Are there other data points we can use? Yes, he has censored information on Erdogan's request as well. He never calls out the censorship from strongmen authoritarians but loves attacking nations with strong democracies.
- mmooss 2y ago
  Thanks. We should be careful of confirmation bias, of course: How many authoritarians / far-right causes has Musk obstructed based on free speech? How many non-far right and liberal causes has Musk enabled?