Elon Musk Gives In To Censorship

David Thornton

David Thornton is a freelance writer and professional pilot who has also lived in Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. He is a graduate of the University of Georgia and Emmanuel College. He is Christian conservative/libertarian who was fortunate enough to have seen Ronald Reagan in person during his formative years. A former contributor to The Resurgent, David now writes for the Racket News with fellow Resurgent alum, Steve Berman, and his personal blog, CaptainKudzu. He currently lives with his wife and daughter near Columbus, Georgia. His son is serving in the US Air Force. You can find him on Twitter @CaptainKudzu and Facebook.

Related Post Roulette

50 Responses

  1. Greg In Ak says:

    Picky point. He’s not a hypocrite. He is cynically BSing. It’s just bad faith lying. That’s it.Report

    • Philip H in reply to Greg In Ak says:

      Agreed. I seem to recall this scenario being batted about during the run up to the purchase and a great many of our resident free speechers poo pooing such things.

      I’ll wait at that table on the left for the crow eating to start.Report

  2. Burt Likko says:

    A Turkish ban on Twitter would tell us a lot about the Turkish government, however.

    Yes, but nothing we didn’t already know. What we’re learning is about Elon Musk, and it isn’t particularly surprising either.

    His understanding of free speech is that of a fedora-wearing teenager fresh off his first Ayn Rand novel, and so it isn’t all that weird that when he does stick up for free speech it’s on behalf of catturd2 and other trolls, and it’s not on behalf of people who are actually being suppressed by their governments.Report

  3. Jaybird says:

    I don’t understand. I thought that consensus was that the US doing this wasn’t worth getting in a twist over.

    Is that not the case?Report

    • Greg In Ak in reply to Jaybird says:

      I thought government censorship was bad? Cause if it is, it is, then this is very bad. Old twitter didn’t bend the knee but musk did and got a sweet contract out of Turkey.Report

      • Burt Likko in reply to Greg In Ak says:

        I can’t conjure a good reason for Musk to have buckled under Erdogan’s pressure; I prefer to believe it is a combination of mercenary instinct and naiveté about Twitter’s ability to withstand the positive law.Report

        • Saul Degraw in reply to Burt Likko says:

          It is about his affection for authoritarian strongmen and his desire to own the libz. Nothing more, nothing less. Things will continue to get bad as long as we “prefer to believe” instead of stating things as they are.Report

        • Jaybird in reply to Burt Likko says:

          One thing that I would wonder is whether the EU has rules about this.

          I know that private companies can do whatever they want, of course.

          But is there an agreement among the EU countries that they not do stuff like this?Report

          • Jaybird in reply to Jaybird says:

            Believe it or not, there are rules about this! Article 11.

            Text:
            1. Article 11 corresponds to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which reads as follows:

            “1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

            2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”

            Pursuant to Article 52(3) of the Charter, the meaning and scope of this right are the same as those guaranteed by the ECHR. The limitations which may be imposed on it may therefore not exceed those provided for in Article 10(2) of the Convention, without prejudice to any restrictions which Community competition law may impose on Member States’ right to introduce the licensing arrangements referred to in the third sentence of Article 10(1) of the ECHR.

            2. Paragraph 2 of this Article spells out the consequences of paragraph 1 regarding freedom of the media. It is based in particular on Court of Justice case law regarding television, particularly in case C-288/89 (judgment of 25 July 1991, Stichting Collectieve Antennevoorziening Gouda and others [1991] ECR I-4007), and on the Protocol on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States annexed to the EC Treaty, and on Council Directive 89/552/EC (particularly its seventeenth recital).

            Source:
            Official Journal of the European Union C 303/17 – 14.12.2007

            Looks like there are loopholes galore, though.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Greg In Ak says:

        I thought that it wasn’t a bad thing for governments to engage in.

        Old twitter didn’t bend the knee but musk did and got a sweet contract out of Turkey.

        Really? Is that what the consensus was about how old Twitter handled things?Report

        • Greg In Ak in reply to Jaybird says:

          Apparently twitter fought censorship in turkey in 14. They went to court to avoid it and it was briefly taken down.

          Twitter used to aggressively fight lots of take down requests.Report

          • Jaybird in reply to Greg In Ak says:

            Oh, is that what the Twitter Files revealed?Report

            • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird says:

              Why don’t you just tell us what you think the Twitter Files revealed?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy says:

                I did! I posted them as comments a bunch of times.

                Would you like links to those comments? I can dig them up, if you’d like. You might be shocked to see some of the responses!Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird says:

                [eye roll]Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy says:

                Well, here is my take:

                Elon done screwed up with his decision on Turkey.

                He should have said something to the effect of “You know what? We’re going to make you ban the website.”

                And then made Erdogan ban the website. Then Elon could have asked everybody else in the EU to gently tell their censorious member to lighten the hell up.

                As it is, he paid the Danegeld.

                Which means he’ll be paying it again someday.

                As for morally, eh. I’m a fan of the Enlightenment. I think that Free Speech is one of those things that is good even when one’s opponents has it.

                And that’s without getting into how it’s irritating as hell to see people pivot from “well, you have to understand…” when it goes against their opponents to “WHERE ARE THE FREE SPEECH SUPPORTERS?” when the wrong ox gets gored.Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to Jaybird says:

                “As it is, he paid the Danegeld.”

                And I gotta say, he seemed quite happy to do it. That post about “I support free speech so long as it complies with the law” was…wheeeew buddy, someone who reads SF for fun should damn well know better than to talk like that!Report

              • Bob Fuller in reply to Jaybird says:

                Turkey is not a member of the EU. NATO yes, EU no.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Bob Fuller says:

                Oh. My bad.

                I suppose it wouldn’t make sense to appeal to the European Union–Turkey Customs Union. That’s only about trade, really.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird says:

                Weren’t you the one chastising people for talking about Trump in regards to claims of Biden corruption?

                Now you want to talk about Old Twitter in regards to New Twitter?

                How… convenient…Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy says:

                Oh, was I the one who brought up Old Twitter?Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird says:

                “I don’t understand. I thought that consensus was that the US doing this wasn’t worth getting in a twist over.

                Is that not the case?”

                Is this not about Old Twitter?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy says:

                No. It’s about us.Report

    • DavidTC in reply to Jaybird says:

      Jaybird, please do not tell me you’ve fallen for the Twitter Files billsh*t* story about Twitter censoring stuff. I swear, we have giant discussions where dumbass conspiracies get pretty thoroughly debunked, and then people here go back to arguing them as if they were true. It’s infuriating.

      The Twitter Files proved:
      a) Organizations sometimes make bad decisions when they notice that information is spreading via their own platform.
      a) You often can get illegal revenge porn taken down from social media.
      b) The FBI will alert companies if they discover those companies are spreading misleading information about the time and date of elections and how they operate.

      On top of the basic fact stuff like this always proves: Conservatives will lie by selectively releasing things that only impact themselves…it’s the ‘IRS is targeting conservative organizations’ all over again, a story that not only was extremely misleading in general, but literally was the result of a _very selective_ investigation into just looking at how the IRS interacted conservative organizations, and it turned out the IRS had been just as incompetent towards progressive ones. (And this also has been debunked dozens of times here but keeps popping up.)

      Because we all noticed that the Twitter Files mentioned a few times that the Trump campaign and administration also sent in requests, but for some completely inexplicably reason none of those were ever detailed or talked about about.

      You know, the actual government at the time, which literally got impeached for illegally applying political pressure on Ukraine? We all remember that happened, right? Might be interesting to, uh, see what they were telling Twitter! Were they pressuring Twitter in some manner?! As opposed to the Biden campaign, who asked Twitter to, uh, take down illegal revenge porn of Hunter. Something that is actually illegal and isn’t a speech issue, violates Twitter’s TOS, and anyone can ask to be done.

      But we don’t get that. We don’t get any information at all about what the actual government was asking, outside of the FBI saying ‘Hey, these tweets are incorrectly telling people how to cast a vote, a thing that is voter suppression, a violation of federal law, and explicitly something we’re in charge of, and also we’re literally just pointing them out to you and its up to you if you take them down’. But we don’t get any information about requests from the administration that was, against, impeached for illegally pressuring someone. And that makes it a pretty obvious political hit job, and means we shouldn’t listen to any of it…although that sorta was obvious from the start.

      And we already talked about all this. Aren’t we supposed to be, like, a smart site? Shouldn’t we _remember_ the stuff we’ve talked about?Report

      • Saul Degraw in reply to DavidTC says:

        He has fallen for it because it ownz the libs.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to DavidTC says:

        Eh, there was the Biden Laptop story that got suppressed as “Russian Disinformation”. That was something we watched in real time.

        How easy it is to forget!

        As for Trump also making requests… I’m confused. Is this something worth condemning or something worth shrugging about? Do we sigh and say “well you have to understand” or do we puff up and say “this is a matter of principle!”?

        Is it “who/whom”?

        Because it’s starting to look like “who/whom”.Report

        • DavidTC in reply to Jaybird says:

          Eh, there was the Biden Laptop story that got suppressed as “Russian Disinformation”. That was something we watched in real time.

          Got suppressed _entirely on Twitter’s own volition_, not by a government asking for it.

          As for Trump also making requests… I’m confused. Is this something worth condemning or something worth shrugging about? Do we sigh and say “well you have to understand” or do we puff up and say “this is a matter of principle!”?

          Jaybird, it’s your side that has absolutely no principles here, or they would have _also_ revealed what the ACTUAL LITERAL GOVERNMENT (That was literally impeached for illegally applying political pressure in another context) asked to be removed in addition to the ILLEGAL REVENGE PORN the Biden’s asked to be removed.Report

      • DensityDuck in reply to DavidTC says:

        “it’s the ‘IRS is targeting conservative organizations’ all over again, a story that not only was extremely misleading in general, but literally was the result of a _very selective_ investigation into just looking at how the IRS interacted conservative organizations, and it turned out the IRS had been just as incompetent towards progressive ones.”

        So when the IRS apologized for excessive targeting of conservative political groups, we should take that as just kind of general fuhfuh and not an actual statement of admission that they were excessively targeting conservative political groups?

        “The FBI will alert companies if they discover those companies are spreading misleading information about the time and date of elections and how they operate.”

        Please point to the Federal statute that makes “spreading misleading information about elections” something that the FBI is required to Step In and Handle (and something where the spreaders in question are required by law to do as the FBI says instead of telling them to eat it.)

        Do keep in mind that CDA Section 230 makes information-transmission companies not liable for the content of the information they transmit. Although if you want to suddenly discover that all along you were strongly against CDA Section 230 and think it should be repealed, well, congratulations you agree with me again.Report

        • Jaybird in reply to DensityDuck says:

          Here’s NPR covering the IRS’s apology.

          It makes you wonder if there is a secret cabal of people in the IRS and in the media whose goal it is to discredit neutral organizations like the IRS. Painting everything in the worst possible light.

          Secret Libertarians or something.Report

          • DavidTC in reply to Jaybird says:

            No, that’s NPR repeating Jess Sessions’ misleading comments about the apology. Here’s the ACTUAL apology they were required to issue by the consent decreed:

            The IRS admits that its treatment of Plaintiffs during the tax-exempt determinations process, including screening their applications based on their names or policy positions, subjecting those applications to heightened scrutiny and inordinate delays, and demanding of some Plaintiffs’ information that TIGTA determined was unnecessary to the agency’s determination of their tax-exempt status, was wrong. For such treatment, the IRS expresses its sincere apology.

            You will notice absolutely no mention of any sort of conservative targeting, in fact, if you read Sessions’ statement, you will notice _he_ made no mention of any sort of targeting either.

            Weird, huh. It’s almost as if everyone was deliberately lying about that.Report

        • DavidTC in reply to DensityDuck says:

          So when the IRS apologized for excessive targeting of conservative political groups, we should take that as just kind of general fuhfuh and not an actual statement of admission that they were excessively targeting conservative political groups?

          The IRS did no such thing. The IRS apology is this: The IRS admits that its treatment of Plaintiffs during the tax-exempt determinations process, including screening their applications based on their names or policy positions, subjecting those applications to heightened scrutiny and inordinate delays, and demanding of some Plaintiffs’ information that TIGTA determined was unnecessary to the agency’s determination of their tax-exempt status, was wrong. For such treatment, the IRS expresses its sincere apology.

          That was the actual apology issued by the IRS. Perhaps you have confused that with statements issued by Jess Sessions, who it should be pointed out is a) a political appointee and b) not the IRS, and c) didn’t actually say that either, he carefully said that the IRS’s incompetence had a _disparate impact_ on conservative organizations, not that they were excessive targeted.

          Please point to the Federal statute that makes “spreading misleading information about elections” something that the FBI is required to Step In and Handle (and something where the spreaders in question are required by law to do as the FBI says instead of telling them to eat it.)

          Twitter was _not_ required to do what the FBI asked, as evidenced by the fact that they sometimes didn’t! The Twitter Files actually talk about that, how Twitter removed some tweets, but left the ones that the FBI had pointed out but were obviously jokes. They felt no legal obligation to do what the FBI asked.

          It really is astonishing how many people who pretend to be political thinkers have literally never even bothered to look into situations, have never even _glanced_ at anything that might rebut what they have been informed of by right-wing media.

          Do keep in mind that CDA Section 230 makes information-transmission companies not liable for the content of the information they transmit.

          And that’s why Twitter didn’t feel REQUIRED to do anything, but did it ANYWAY because they did not think misinforming people about where and when they could vote belonged on their platform.

          And the thing making that under the FBI’s jurisdiction is this part of the Civil Right Act: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241

          §241. Conspiracy against rights

          If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

          Which, again, cannot be enforced against social media companies or any sort of information transmission companies, and shouldn’t be. But that doesn’t mean that the FBI can’t notice that and say ‘Hey, you all are transmitting the result of a crime, you might want to take that down’.Report

        • DavidTC in reply to DensityDuck says:

          I have no idea why my computer decided to call him Jess Session twice, I didn’t even type that on a phone, but his name is Jeff Sessions.Report

    • DensityDuck in reply to Jaybird says:

      “I thought that consensus was that the US doing this wasn’t worth getting in a twist over.”

      Personally, I’m still stuck on “Twitter is a private company and they can do as they please, there’s no free-speech or natural-rights issues implied in any decision they care to make”.Report

  4. CJColucci says:

    Musk has the right to do as he damn pleases with Twitter, (not optimal, though probably better than the alternatives), but the rest of us have the right to point and laugh, both at Musk and at the fanboys who expected better from him.Report