just yesterday the owner of twitter was getting his employees to delete the accounts of posts he disagreed with
The previous site was pretty well moderated. The current site is pretty awful, and the site owner is capricious about meting out punishment to those who offend him. It’s all personal, whereas before it was based on moderation policy.
Yes it is, it's just censorship that (most of) the people who would have heard whatever's being censored want.
it's like my alcoholic doctor telling me I need to cut my drinking: his advice may be sound, but it's rich coming from him.
I'm referring to the people who denied or did not decry the previous twitter administration deleting huge volumes of tweets they didn't like, the people who now populate bluesky and the fediverse they themselves are quite open about saying, because it's a cozy little echo chamber world where the people who disagree are erased from their view
that is completely false.
you should work on developing respect for the opposing views of people of honest intent.
shadowbanning which stops people from seeing content is also censorship, you're wrong (and don't confuse mix this site with twitter either)
You have access to the same internet everyone else does. Look it up yourself instead of trying to argue with people who are paying attention and put in the time to be informed.
https://www.axios.com/2024/12/27/musk-x-loomer-h1b-maga-veri...
MAGA vs. Musk: Right-wing critics allege censorship, loss of X badges.
A handful of conservative critics of Elon Musk are alleging censorship and claiming they were stripped of their verification badges on X after challenging his views on H-1B visas for highly skilled foreign workers.
The thing about him censoring Laura Loomer only illustrates what a ridiculous point it's gotten to. It's not his censorship and anti-free-speech she's complaining about, it's that it's now to a point that it finally applies to her. She's not against leopards eating people's faces, she's just against leopards eating HER face.
If you still believe Elon Musk supports free speech because you're skeptical of Laura Loomer, you're just as gullible and ignorant and dishonest and unethical as she is.
Of course, just like Musk and Loomer, you're not even arguing in good faith, since your own words prove you obviously didn't read the article. You said "Nothing in the article about account deletions, and nothing but one notorior crank claiming, without evidence, they are being censored.", but right up at the top the article clearly states that THREE people were complaining, and he's deleted or threatened to delete the accounts of several other people and organizations:
>Driving the news: Trump's conspiracy-minded ally Laura Loomer, New York Young Republican Club president Gavin Wax and InfoWars host Owen Shroyer all said their verification badges disappeared after they criticized Musk's support for H-1B visas, railed against Indian culture and attacked Ramaswamy, Musk's DOGE co-chair.
And also:
>He threatened to reassign NPR's account handle last year and marked some links to the site as "unsafe" when users click through.
>Musk also removed the verification badge of The New York Times in 2023.
>X also suspended independent journalist Ken Klippenstein's account after he shared Sen. JD Vance's vetting document from the alleged Iranian hack of Trump's campaign.
And as someone who's not arguing in good faith, you know very well it's absolutely true Elon Musk doesn't support free speech, and the list of people and organizations he's banned or demonetized because he doesn't approve of THEIR free speech goes on and on, and there's nowhere near enough room in a typical article or attention span in a typical reader to list them all. You have a lot of nerve to be that blatantly dishonest in a discussion about ethics.
But you're so intellectually lazy, you didn't even read the article you're facetiously pretending to have read, so don't demand other people write and read exhaustive 50 page well researched detailed articles enumerating every fact and scrap of evidence for you, if you're too lazy to read a one page article yourself. Because you risk embarrassing yourself again by having your own words and the article's words quoted back to you in juxtaposition.
That's unmitigated bullshit. Elon Musk now IS the censorship industrial complex of a corrupt government.
You sure have a lot of nerve and contempt and disrespect for the HN community to repeatedly be THAT brazenly unethical and dishonest in a discussion about ethics. Read the room and take the L.
With all due respect, as Musk would tell you, and I literally quote, which you can independently verify yourself: "Please post a bit more positive, beautiful or informative content on this platform." [1] ... "Take a big step back and FUCK YOURSELF in the face." [2]
[1] Notorious troll Elon Musk ripped for demanding more ‘positive, beautiful’ content on his social media platform: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
[2] Musk Appears to Quote Popular Film in ‘F** Yourself in the Face’ Tweet: https://www.thedailybeast.com/elon-musk-appears-to-quote-tro...
Whether you or anyone else organize consequences as meaningful or not is a moral abdication. The first thing an immoral person does is justifying the consequences of their actions as inconsequential. This happens to such a degree that doing so is a signal of immorality. Immorality doesn't look like choosing evil, it looks like choosing inconsequentialism.
I offer that that rights aren't ethics. Musk has a reasonable right to censor speech on his platform that he doesn't agree with.
However, when someone establishes themselves as a free speech absolutist, it is arguably unethical for them to remove, suppress and continually work to eliminate speech they disagree with.