Olives @olives@social.cleverlibre.org

The interesting thing about U.S. Supreme Court precedent is that an individual can have terroristic views (First Amendment), it just can't be a proscribed organization.

It's easy to see how slippery it could be, if they didn't take that angle though.

During Twitter v Taamneh, Elon's incompetent lawyer essentially made the argument that platforms should be held liable, if say, an authoritarian government claims someone is a "terrorist".

It took everyone else writing to the Court, and presumably, sensible justices to bypass that.

Free speech absolutist.

"Sorry for being a free speech absolutist"

Early last year, Elon tried to push an idea that he was some sort of principled free speech figure.

We have seen significant evidence that he is not.

We have seen significant evidence that he has wrongly suspended anime themed accounts for no reason whatsoever, although considering the number of conspiratorial nutcases he surrounds himself with, perhaps he doesn't need a real reason.

Elon has censored keywords related to mainstream LGBT content, such as "bisexual". Why? No one knows.

If we consider that other companies, such as Patreon, are doing similar things, it might be pressure to suppress pornography from religious groups.

Why on earth would a "free speech absolutist" be taking directions from them?

Elon Musk has kowtowed to authoritarians. Turkey. India.

He berated the previous management for taking the "shocking" step of taking legal action against the Modi Regime's censorship.

He did this as a "get out of jail card" when he wanted to get out of acquiring the company by claiming that Twitter were jeopardizing their own ability to operate in India.

This was always a silly claim. In the context of looking for a perfunctory excuse to back out of a deal, it didn't seem so bad.

Elon has granted far more censorship requests from governments than the previous management ever did, even if we think that they could have or should have pushed back more on requests.

When journalists rubbed him the wrong way, Elon's staff looked for excuses to suspend their accounts.

Elon appears to loath people posting photos of him with Ghislaine Maxwell. He censors that too.

While I imagine Ghislaine, as a socialite fraternized with many powerful people, and he is extremely unlikely to be part of a "cabal", it is thin skinned.

Suppressing links to competing companies was problematic. A practice which might actually be illegal, and which offended his own VC friends.

Elon also stopped consulting, among other civil society groups, the Center for Democracy and Technology. For a so-called "free speech absolutist", it is interesting that he doesn't consult with any free speech groups.

Ella Irwin, Head of Trust & Safety, more or less signalled she would stop doing impact assessments to make sure that people aren't unfairly censored by moderation changes.

Yes, the "free speech absolutist" who made a point about how if in doubt he would lean towards speech, is far worse about that than the previous management.

Seemingly, the only speech he does protect is that of a few odious public figures.

Even that has a dodgy history, such as his "I know it when I see it" approach to moderation with Kanye West.

It's not unusual for a site to have a policy against Nazi symbolism. It is nonetheless unusual to make a point about being a free speech absolutist and to quickly strike someone down.

His moderation rationale boils down to "take down the bad content and keep up the good content". He doesn't seem to understand that everyone has a different idea of what this should be, and he lacks any sort of coherent principles in this regard.

Elon appears to be censoring dark humor. So much for the "anti-woke" warrior who is sick of people trampling on "fun".

There are many ways in which Elon is anything but the free speech warrior he portrays himself to be.

Posing as a free speech warrior is a fairly common grift for some nowadays.

It allows someone to feign outrage about people being "cancelled" without actually taking substantive action to provide people with a platform for free expression.

If anything, some of the biggest "free speech" grifters appear to be the biggest censors. How about that.

Once again, Elon apologizes to odious people for, uh, his company slapping their hateful content with a warning, all the while banning accounts for posting pretty inane content which offends him.

https://www.techdirt.com/2023/05/31/onlyfans-throws-the-open-internet-under-the-bus/ That's rich from a company which requires payment to view anything on it.

They're likely saying that because:

1) They doubt it will happen.

2) They want politicians to leave them alone.

3) It's bad for their competitors.

Americans sure love guns, lol.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/education/2023/06/01/bible-is-banned-these-utah/ Obscene Bible removed from a few Utah schools.

Uh, that law backfired...?

Oftentimes, a bill will be far more narrowly worded, and it will still have significant unintended consequences (and might well stop short of it's goals).

This bill has a far wider sweep ("what is 'harmful'?") and consequently has even more room for being, ironically, harmful.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/06/foreign-intelligence-surveillance-court-has-made-mockery-constitutional-right NSA surveillance makes a joke of the Fourth Amendment.

What could possibly go wrong when you write a vague "eliminate 'harms' to minors" requirement in a bill like the "AADC"?

Newsom's argument for why NetChoice shouldn't vaporize that brazenly unconstitutional bill in court is so lousy.

It has a strong ring of "won't anyone please think of the children?" to try to get someone to ignore how it so brazenly tramples over people's rights.

Similar theory of media affecting someone, although "we want to avoid hurting someone's feelings" (and going way too far) is still different from "we don't think these people's lives are valid".

It's interesting how both "LGBT books / media turn people gay / trans" and "orcs promote racism" (debunked) have a similar theory underlying it.

Some Republicans believe porn can "turn you trans", even though there is no evidence for this claim whatsoever (assertions are not evidence).

The only scientific evidence I know of shows that people who view trans themed porn tend to have more positive views towards LGBT folks.

Isn't greater empathy and compassion towards others a good thing? Okay, maybe, if you hate LGBT people, and want more people to hate them too, that might be a "bad" thing.

For anyone else though, this is bad how exactly? Even if porn was doing something there, this something appears to be... Good?

Also, porn filters and anti-porn policies find it very hard to distinguish between LGBT content and porn, but that's another discussion matter.

Nor is there any evidence about these books... For that matter. Can someone even show these books are read by a significant portion of people who aren't LGBT?

Or even that a significant number of people read them? It feels like someone just saw a bunch of books which offended them and decided they wanted them banned.

There is also a very disturbing wider McCarthy like trend here. If a piece of media contains a crush involving a girl and a girl? Is this suddenly heinous and evil?

How much media would have to be burned because someone has a bunch of baseless and fanciful fears?

You could even say that that part of this blog post has aged like spoilt milk.

Those social conservatives have gone from hardly being taken seriously, and people not catching on until it was too late, to being a huge threat to human rights.