also,elon is consistent about the free speech applying as long as it is legal i the jurisdiction twitter.com/elonmusk/status/15190369831…...

Musk has explicitly and repeatedly said that his standard for free speech is that which complies with the law in any given country. The logic is that domestic laws represent the will of their citizens and it shouldn't be a corporation's (or a billionaire's) responsibility to second guess this. Quote — "By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law. If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect. Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people." [0] Quote — "Like I said, my preference is to hew close to the laws of countries in which Twitter operates. If the citizens want something banned, then pass a law to do so, otherwise it should be allowed." [1] Personally I think this the only sane stance for a corporation like Twitter/X. We shouldn't be looking to capitalist non-democratic corporations as an end-run around governments — especially democratic governments. [0] twitter.com/elonmusk/status/15190369831…... [1] twitter.com/elonmusk/status/15236541067…...

People know this. This isn't confusing. The hypocracy being pointed out is when Elon Musk says that he is a free speech absolutist[1], yet consistently blocks his critics and competitors. This is ignoring his very confused notion of what free speech is[2] > By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law. > I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law. > If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect. Not only is this inconsistent with his 'free speech absolutist' views, and inconsistent with Twitter's actions, but it states that he's actually all for the government censoring people. That's not even non-absolutist free speech. [1]: x.com/elonmusk/status/14999769671054336… [2]: x.com/elonmusk/status/15190369831375093…

> He's the one that made the incompatible claims that Twitter will be "free speech absolutist" but at the same time will follow the laws from your average corrupt dictator. Er, is that what he claimed? All I've seen is: > By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law. > I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law. - twitter.com/elonmusk/status/15190369831… Which this is - for better or worse - in line with.

> By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law. > I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law. > If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect. > Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people. Elon Musk one year ago. mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519…...

Even 4chan is moderated so I think it will be interesting to see how Musk thinks he's solved the moderation problem. I'm confident he would have listened to counsel and not waded into that cesspool without having some sort of new moderation idea that he thinks will work. He says he's a free speech absolutist without ever defining that. He can't rely on the law, because people are free to say all kinds of awful things without breaking the law. 4chan gets away with hate speech every hour of the day. Edit: This just in, he just defined it and says he will rely on the law. twitter.com/elonmusk/status/15190369831…

twitter.com/elonmusk/status/15190369831… Musk himself claims that the only curtailment is "what is prohibited by law". This isn't some tweet dragged from his history, either. It's from two days ago, and is on this topic.

Then why is Musk doing work with Chinese censorship agencies? Why is his definition of free speech determined by authoritarian governments [1]? [1] twitter.com/elonmusk/status/15190369831…

> He never said that Get it from the horse's mouth: twitter.com/elonmusk/status/15190369831…...

Assuming this all goes back to Elon's tweet: twitter.com/elonmusk/status/15190369831…, which reads: """ By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law. If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect. Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people. """ I don't think it's reasonable to interpret this as referring to any speech which constitutes a civil wrong. There is simply no way for a third party to have the slightest clue based on the content of a tweet whether that tweet causes someone to suffer a loss, or constitutes a breach of contract,

They don't, they call out the hypocrisy of habitual liar making claims about first amendment rights. twitter.com/elonmusk/status/15190369831…

Not putting any words into anyone's mouth: By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law. If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect. Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people.[1] So there doesn't seem to be any kind of carve out there. [1] twitter.com/elonmusk/status/15190369831…

Elon Musk discussed this on Apr 26, 2022: > By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law. If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect. Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people. Source: twitter.com/elonmusk/status/15190369831… If you want to argue Musk's position on free speech is anything else, "absolute" or otherwise, kindly cite your sources.

The point is, I think, how you interpret "free speech". In his own tweet [0], he says: "By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law." The information @ElonJet is publishing is publicly available. One interpretation says: if it's publicly available information, then preventing it being republished is censorship. Therefore Musk is breaking his own rule. Another interpretation says: whilst it's freely-available information, publishing risks increased harm to Musk himself. I'm no expert on US law, but I'd imagine there's some sort of provision that protects against deliberately risking harm to someone. Assuming that's the case, Musk is being consistent with his own rule. Given his public profile - and his desire/willingness/record of being provocative - I'd imagine most will adopt the former interpretation. [0]: twitter.com/elonmusk/status/15190369831…...

Elon himself, on twitter.com/elonmusk/status/15190369831…: > By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law. Was the account violating any law?

Why yes, he did, eg: twitter.com/elonmusk/status/15190369831… Musk repeatedly said that his aim is to allow anything that's legal. He even promised not to ban this specific account: i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/uplo…...

He tweeted a few times that he is not a free speech absolutism. For example: twitter.com/elonmusk/status/15190369831… Unless, of course, you think people are not allowed to update their opinion.

From: twitter.com/elonmusk/status/15190369831…... Elon Musk @elonmusk "I simply mean that which matches the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law. If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect. Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people."

The pivot from “I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law”[1] to “I get to use censorship to kneecap a competitor because it’s my site now” was almost comically quick. [1] twitter.com/elonmusk/status/15190369831…