Spain plans under-16 social media ban, Elon Musk calls prime minister a "tyrant"

In my reply to your comment, I addressed free speech, not Musk specifically
You forget my comment was a reply to your first post. Are you now disavowing your remarks?

. At any rate, X seems to comply with many censorship requests (link elided)
Oops! None of those were "requests". They were government demands to comply with local law. As your article itself says:

"...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,” and in doing so put his staff at risk, he added. “If we have a choice of either our people going to prison or us complying with the laws, we will comply with the laws.”....

I'll also note that no social media platform has fought such requests harder than Twitter, as they have legally battled the governments of Russia, Turkey, Brazil, Germany, and others. In the US, it was the release of the "Twitter files" that forced Facebook and other social media platforms to finally admit the extent to which they'd been pressured and extorted to silence true, but politically damaging content by Biden's FBI.

Precedent doesn't make something right. If a consumer product is affecting people's lives negatively, limits are called for
So why aren't you calling for bans on tobacco, sugary sweets, videogames, and binge shopping?
 
You forget my comment was a reply to your first post. Are you now disavowing your remarks?


Oops! None of those were "requests". They were government demands to comply with local law. As your article itself says:

"...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,” and in doing so put his staff at risk, he added. “If we have a choice of either our people going to prison or us complying with the laws, we will comply with the laws.”....

I'll also note that no social media platform has fought such requests harder than Twitter, as they have legally battled the governments of Russia, Turkey, Brazil, Germany, and others. In the US, it was the release of the "Twitter files" that forced Facebook and other social media platforms to finally admit the extent to which they'd been pressured and extorted to silence true, but politically damaging content by Biden's FBI.


So why aren't you calling for bans on tobacco, sugary sweets, videogames, and binge shopping?
I stand by all that I say. You are selectively quoting me and leaving out other parts. Therefore, I do not think this argument is in good faith and will leave it as is.
 
I do not think this argument is in good faith
Arguments are supported by facts, not faith. You made some wild claims against Musk, claims that are not only unsupported, but directly contradicted by what evidence we have.
 
Arguments are supported by facts, not faith. You made some wild claims against Musk, claims that are not only unsupported, but directly contradicted by what evidence we have.














 
[wall of links elided]
You've certainly proven the size of the media propaganda campaign against Musk. However, not one of those links supports your contention that Musk's rejection of social media bans for children is motivated by financial benefit to himself. Quite the opposite, as TikTok, SnapChat, Facebook -- all his major competitors -- would be devastated by such a ban, whereas Twitter's near-all adult audience unscathed. Oops.

As for the links themselves, all ignore the enormous turnaround in social media freedom since Musk released the Twitter files. And most of them are filled with either scurrilous rumors, or they intentionally distort what "free speech" is, or conflate it with "being free of the consequences of your speech". Free speech doesn't allow you to post libel, slander, or incitement to violence. And while it does allow you to post in real time the exact coordinates of Musk himself in real life -- doxxing him to an audience of people known for violent assaults on those for which they disagree-- it doesn't allow you to use Musk's own platform to do so, in violation of its own long-stated rules against doxxing.

Those "journalists" who conflate a social media company being paid by the FBI to censor millions of true, but politically damaging posts -- especially right before an election cycle, with the express purpose of influencing that election -- with a publisher refusing to publish the real-time coordinate of their own CEO are nothing more the fascist drones, serving their cause zealously. Care to try again?
 
Back