My understanding of the issue from afar, and watching 5 min from a Musk interview:
Musk/X is for free speech, but also for following the local laws.
In Brazil apparently the law against free speech was not clear enough.
But now after 3 weeks I guess the Brazil law/stance has become more clear, no reason for Musk/X to fight for free speech if Brazil does not want it.
It's not "critical". If Whatsapp vanished tomorrow it would get replaced by the next one so fast it would make your head spin. Not saying I can guess which one it would be, but one would win and people would carrying on with their lives just fine.
Absolutely, free speech [within the confines of the law] :) Principals are based in legality, I see. /s I'm just being difficult, find it kind of funny posturing
Are we still pretending Musk fights for free speech? He had no problems abiding by India's or Turkey's censoring laws.
Brazil made it pretty clear what they wanted, but Musk had some petty beef with the Brazilian judge in charge of the operation (cue the ai image he posted of that judge behind bars), and so refused to comply.
How dare the Brazilians enforce their sovereignty. That clearly isn't free speech! /s
I suspect the lack of full throated public support from Brazilians for Musk is telling. They may not fully agree with the ruling but they also don't think Musk is playing altruistically.
People often rather live in a world they believe in versus the one that really exists. Think the term is Cognitive Distortions.
Reality, Musk's X-Twitter free speech policy is about his personal tastes.[1] [2]
My personal taste, I cannot support anyone that willfully pushes miss-information nor narratives that detract words and statements from their actual meanings. Miss-information, tell a lie long enough people will believe it. This how conversion therapy works and the movie "But I'm a Cheerleader" highlights this farce.
The ruling was reviewed and upheld by an entire panel.
The law is very clear, and X was very clearly violating it. Multiple laws, even, as it's also legally required to have a representative in the company.
That was "2 days ago", the NYT article is about newer developments:
>Now, X’s lawyers said the company had done exactly what Mr. Musk vowed not to: take down accounts that a Brazilian justice ordered removed because the judge said they threatened Brazil’s democracy. X also complied with the justice’s other demands, including paying fines and naming a new formal representative in the country, the lawyers said.
Turns out that 10 million Brazilians flocking into BlueSky is an argument much more solid than any "free speech" bullshit that Elon posts.
In case anyone believes this is about "free speech": the jurisprudence for the Brazilian Supreme Court decision is American, in fact. It is a doctrine known as "clear and present danger" and was established by the SCOTUS in 1919, by Oliver Wendel Holmes Jr in "Schenk vs. United States"[1]. The U.S. Supreme Court already applied it a couple of times.
> It is a doctrine known as "clear and present danger" and was established by the SCOTUS in 1919, by Oliver Wendel Holmes Jr in "Schenk vs. United States"[1]. The U.S. Supreme Court already applied it a couple of times.
Probably worth noting that US free speech jurisprudence has changed since then. Schenck v. US was overturned in 1969 by Brandenburg v. Ohio [0].
reply