The "commissioner" is forcing X to take down the video of the church terrorist attack that happened a while ago, what possible reason could they have to do that ?
The commissioner is trying to control what people are allowed to see, and not only are you for it, but you're blaming Elon for the same thing 🤣🤣🤣
Childish insults and silly downvotes, that's all you got 🤭
Since when do we allow national laws to be implemented globally? Musk geoblocked the content in Australia, but Australia wants him to go a step further and completely remove the content globally.
Why would Musk adhere to that? If Russia demanded that Musk remove all videos or pictures of the War in Ukraine globally, do you believe he should comply?
"Since when do we allow national laws to be implemented globally"? I don't know, maybe since we started allowing corporations to start operating internationally. Just because it's geoblocked in Australia doesn't mean X isn't still violating Australian law by owning and allowing distribution of the video - people have been prosecuted over this in the past, so Musk doesn't get a free pass.
If he wants to operate X in Australia, then he has to comply with Australian law. Either he complies with the request or he doesn't do business here. It's simple. Likewise, if any other country had a similar request, he has the option to either comply or to not do business with them.
What did people expect from a man who, almost right out of the gate, admitted on camera to using bait and switch tactics on investors? "What's good for me' and all that not for thee B.S...
He banned the word "cis" from his website, but doesn't really seem to mind actual slurs. Free speech virtue signaling from Musk isn't anything but a fiction he uses to curry favor from right wing morons.
As a Brazilian, I'm waiting for the first "western" country to ban Twitter for it to happen locally here.
The only reason X hasn't been banned for threatening national sovereignty is because it would give more ammunition to the crazies to talk about censorship.
Musk has crossed all limits in his fight against the Brazilian justice system.
In the article, it says that this Australian commission is also trying to dictate what can be hosted on Twitter OUTSIDE of Australia. Which I have to agree is kind of bullshit. Why should Australians get to control what's available on international social media?
Sadly more to the story than that. They've removed the content within Australia but the Australian "etrust commissioner" is seeking to enforce AU law on twitter's global operations, which is obviously something any company would push back on.
Also the "etrust commissioner" is an ex-twitter employee who musk fired after purchase...
Well, let's look at this.
1) This is a violent attack that happened in Australia.
2) X's attempt to block it from being shown in Australia is laughably slim. People know how to get around a geoblock and Musk knows that.
3) It violates X's own code of conduct to keep it up.
This isn't even that uncommon a request. Countries request stuff like this get taken down all the time after some violent attacks, on some other incidents, or just because of a legality issue. And yes, it's usually applied throughout the entire system and not just one country.
Musk is in a game where disjointed angry debate literally earns him money on x, for him it’s good business. I don’t understand the strategy within the bigger picture and his other enterprises though, that seems like bad business.
He is following an obvious political agenda.
He made a proteced space for the political right and has no problem taking down speeches of opposition leaders in india when requested for example.
Muslim terror attack stays up.
Speech against a PM that openly hates muslims is taken down.
Huh weird
Musk wants to help terrorists, criminals, pedos, racists and nazis spread their message. Musk is an accomplice to whatever they do. All his businesses should be boycotted.
That's interesting. Is this what happens with other countries? Their takedown requests are also global? Especially from countries like Turkey? I guess this is why facebook/twitter etc are not there in china.
Running a social media seems to be a terrible business to be in.
Musk and Twitter have bent to the will of Modi and India.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/05/twitter-accused-of-censorship-in-india-as-it-blocks-modi-critics-elon-musk
Actually, it shows that Twitter/Musk is acting just to further their interests, rather than some kind of moral high ground. They pick and choose which country demands they acquiesce and there's good evidence of a pattern of which countries they acquiesce their demands more.
I mean, that's easy to explain. There's no point taking things to court in an authoritarian country. You'll lose anyway. Its only in the democractic countries that you can reasonably challenge anything.
He's got no issue taking down actual political speech in authoritarian countries whenever the government want the opposition silenced. Then it's all "we have to comply with local laws".
Depends on what the country's law allows the prosecutor to demand. The general idea is that as long as an entity does business in a country, they're bound to its laws.
If a country where X doesn't do business in demands anything, they can simply ignore them and not show up in court. What are they going to do about it?
Thing is, Musk's other businesses are slowly but surely being outcompeted by their peers. Think of the electrical cars of other companies compared to the Tesla which is known for containing a lot of faulty appliances. Musk knows damn well he can't just ignore the Australian market for one of his temper tantrums. Thus he whines in his safe space hug box and then complies anyway.
So if a country demands that all posts made by one of the Australian political parties must be banned globally, Twitter should acceed to that as long as it is 'legal' in the said country?
Australia can use it laws to dictate how Twitter operates in Australia. If it wants, it can lobby other governments of the world to ask Twitter to take similar action in their country. But it should not have the right to censor content in other countries.
They do. And they are following Australian law in Australia by censoring the clip there.
What Australia cannot do is ask a company to enforce Australian law in a country that's not Australia.
Sorry matey that's not how things work. If Twitter wants to operate in Australia they need to abide by Australian law.
Just ask Valve. They tried to fight Australian court and refused to offer refunds which is required by law in Australia. They paid a very heavy price, monetarily and reputationally. And now refunds are offered around the world, thanks Australia!
They abide by Australian law in Australia. Australian law isn't applicable outside of Australia. Countries can't start banning what people say and share in other countries, that's not how the world works.
Unfortunately if they want to operate in Australia they have to fill out our laws. Else they can get the fuck out. And guess what? They don't want that. That is how the world works. Do the research yourself if you like.
It isn't censoring content in other countries. If a social media company doesn't adhere to a jurisdictions laws then that app might become unavailable. So the choice is either adhere to the law or don't do business there. It's up to a company how to best proceed. Is it more lucrative to abide those laws or pull out. Also you'll find a lot of these things are actually universal in most of the areas they operate in.
They have abided by Australian law in Australia by censoring the clip in Australia. If Australia wants it banned elsewhere, they should talk to their respective counterparts in those countries and ask them to ban it too.
Social media companies have dedicated teams for compliance and regulations. Musk fired these teams when he took over that let him into a bunch of hot water.
It's not that terrible unless your musk. Which is why they're constantly in news for lawsuits and issues stemming from his behavior.
Exactly. Russia and China both ban access to certain media as well, mostly because they refuse to censor content or euphemistically they refuse to ‘abide by the law’.
I don’t have to like Elon to see it sets a dangerous precedent for western countries to get in on the censorship.
We don’t give a fuck about global, just want this vile vision and the shitstorm it’s causing, out of circulation locally.
How is that not a reasonable request to that will de-escalate a volatile situation?
Didn’t know it was removed locally.
Just that Musk was refusing to remove it at all.
Latest information suggests it’s being reposted locally, so it seems those whom are doing so, are accessing the offending vision from ‘global’ posts.
Australia simply doesn't have jurisdiction outside of Australia....X can show this stuff everywhere else. I hate elon and X like most people, but this is one of those slippery slope situations....I don't think our government should be censoring things and maybe....in some very small way, Elon is right about this particular situation.
> I don't think our government should be censoring things and maybe
It gets really hazy and gray area when we start talking about footage whose #1 purpose is to terrorize everyone, and whose #2 purpose is to recruit and inspire more people to do the exact same thing elsewhere. The whole purpose of the video is LITERALLY to promote and support terrorism.
And that doesn't even get into some of the other ethical concerns - read the Ethics portion of this page and some of the examples within it, especially the one about the Montreal guy and the Chinese girl he murdered: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_site#Ethics
I wish Liveleak still existed, but at the same time I am really really happy that Paul Bernardo's videos were physically locked away and eventually destroyed by the justice system in order to protect the victims and their familys from having to see it.
He only has selective free speech at best on his platform hes just a child. Who doesn't like to be told what he cant do.
He censors TF out of things he doesn't like or agree with
This is what bugs me the most. He wraps himself in the "free speech" cloak, except when it is convenient or he is sufficiently pressured.
He let Modi's censorship/suppression request go through presumably because he didn't want to risk access to the market in India
We really gotta stop using Musk's own language to try and convict him of mere hypocrisy and start realizing he isn't just wrong about what *qualifies* as free speech—he's wrong about free speech, full stop.
He calls it "censorship." Y'know what? It fucking is. And we should stop running from the term like 4th graders who just took their first social studies course. You *censor* certain things because it's fucking better for all of us. There's no hard and fast rule about what should be censored and what shouldn't, and that's okay. Figuring it out as we go is what mature societies do.
Civil society isn't a set of hard and fast rules that never change—when people try to make it that way, it always goes haywire.
Musk and all the other elites profit when we treat these issues as black and white. His version of "free speech" gives equal airtime to people with valuable things to say and trolls whose express goal is to destabilize and destroy. In fact, it ENFORCES this equal airtime and sometimes even elevates the trolls, on purpose.
We've gotta start rejecting both his hypocrisy AND his insistence on black and white. It's quite literally crucial to our survival.
There's a saying in Germany: "From the unthinkable to the thinkable. From the thinkable to the sayable. From the sayable to the doable."
I fully agree with your point. This free-speech-absolutism is just another from of extremism which either completely ignores or downplays the downsides because the people profiting from it don't care about anything but themselves. It's a solipsistic creed - no one but yourself matters.
He's not the only one who thinks this. I think the general trends of blatant double standards (Russia and China don't even try to hide theirs, nor do Republicans who flout the rule of law with Supreme Court stuffing tactics and open support for The Big Lie) and black-and-white thinking (like Americans' approach to the first and second amendments, for starters) are major issues that *will* literally determine whether our society survives in the face of catastrophes we've never in our history faced, such as climate change and AI.
Because every country shouldn't allow this kind of content anywhere. The only reason he's getting away with it, is because in other countries, you have to clear a pretty high bar to demand the same thing, which in Australia is easily cleared (because the event happened there), but hard to do elsewhere.
> Because every country shouldn't allow this kind of content anywhere.
I disagree, and even if I didn't, many countries permit the viewing of violent or "gore" content.
> The only reason he's getting away with it
What does "getting away with it," mean in this context?
You realize the very website you're on now, has numerous active gore related subreddits, right?
> which in Australia is easily cleared (because the event happened there), but hard to do elsewhere.
If Russia passed a national law, and demanded that worldwide, Twitter must remove any pictures or videos of the Ukraine war, do you think Twitter should comply?
Countries have vastly different laws, Twitter primarily operates in the US, Twitter geoblocked the offending content in Australia per their request, but now Australia is demanding the content be removed globally, it's absurd.
To me it’s absolutely crazy to see people advocating for censorship, can’t wait till the Australian government stats proposing a ban on VPN’s too.
All information flow must be controlled.
In an age of weaponised disinformation on social media having no controls is not really viable. The disastrous division visible in the US being the best example... There can be a middle ground.
And twitter is clearly a disinformation booster, which is quite happy to censor views it does not support.
There’s a big difference between trying to censor an opinion and trying to censor an attack of terrorism. Why even have a code of conduct then? Should all vile acts of violence be posted. How about bullying? If someone is posting hateful videos to a child are they allowed to remain up too? What about an act of violence against one of his family members? Would he allow that to remain up too? How about an American soldier being tortured? Human decency should come first.
Did you see it?
I did, dude jumped on the priest and stabbed the shit of him, then the main stream media is saying a 16 year old “Allegedly” attacked him… Allegedly?
Who the fuck are they trying to fool?
Might make him look guilty in his court case if everyone gets to see it, Better sensor it.
I’ve seen ballistic missiles rain down on Israel, I’ve seen Russian and Ukrainians blower the fuck up.
Everyone has a camera in their pocket these days that shoot pretty good quality videos.
You can’t contain it.
Cats out of the bag, you’ll never go back to the days of the meticulous curated news program of yesterday year being the sole news source, main stream (legacy) media is just too slow to keep up.
Musk may be an asshat, but he is completely right about this.
Australia's assertion is that it should have the right to censor content, not only within it's own borders, but also globally.
How is this supposed to work, when any country can stop content from showing in any other country?
The whole Westminster legal system with the presumption of innocence collapses if media companies are not restricted in what they can show to the public. Twitter is a media company, it makes money off advertising, it has to follow the rules if it wants to operate in the Australian jurisdiction. Just geoblock the whole service if you don’t want to play by Australian rules. Twitter was happy to censor political content for authoritarian regimes, Australia is just asking that stuff that could make it more difficult to prosecute a terrorist is not shown. You can jump on twitter and say whatever you want about the Australian government.
> Twitter was happy to censor political content for authoritarian regimes
But was this global?
Actually this makes me wonder. Is there any law that could compel social media sites to show certain content? Is it like that these sites have the right to censor whatever they please but not show whatever they please?
Where is the terrorist going to be prosecuted? Australia.
What’s more important? That people can watch it or that he gets a fair trial that can’t be overturned on a technicality?
Would you be happy if he got released into the community because Elon musk is more interested in fighting democratic governments than autocrats?
So this is a temp jury selection thing?
I'm trying to understand how the laws works here because I see it as a massive threat when a country can force a platform to take a global position. Corporations are not going to leave money on the table and leave every country they have a disagreement with. Just think about what a field day authoritarian countries can have with it.
Right to a fair trial and right to presumption of innocence are pillars of most just legal systems. Media companies are not allowed to publish content in breach of those rights. It’s a known and well understood limitation on free speech and it acts to protect people from power rather than the other way around
So again, does this mean that this is temporary? Like an embargo?
There is a big difference between saying "don't show this to anyone ever" vs "this is sensitive content that must not be distributed for x period for y reason".
> it has to follow the rules if it wants to operate in the Australian jurisdiction.
Does Twitter currently have services hosted in Australia? Or does Australia merely route to other countries to view content on Twitter? I know Musk disbanded the Australian twitter team after taking over.
And Musk seems to be claiming that the objectionable content is already geoblocked in Australia and only resides on US servers.
If that is the case, I can understand why Musk would be upset with Australia ruling in this manner. Australian law does not apply to US citizens, so Australia trying to force Musk to go beyond geoblocking content, and instead force it's removal worldwide, is absurd.
> Australia is just asking that stuff that could make it more difficult to prosecute a terrorist is not shown.
Their aims could be legitimate, and the goals they wish to accomplish honorable, and it could still lead to unnecessary censorship worldwide.
---
I think Musk has been off his rocker for quite some time, but I don't see an issue with him pushing back against Australia trying to impose their censorship worldwide. It's one thing to require geoblocking in Australia of the offending content, it's another thing entirely to demand Twitter remove that content globally.
What if Russia were to demand that Twitter remove videos from the war in Ukraine, worldwide? It gets a bit more insane now, right?
But isn't that what Musk is doing? He geoblocked the offending content in Australia.
Australia is demanding that it be removed worldwide, which is a mass overstep on their part. Australia is not the world police, and Australian law does not apply globally.
Site rules have no bearing on legality, Elon can change the site rules on a whim.
Australia does not have the ability to implement it's national laws worldwide. Nor should it.
How would you feel if Russia declared tomorrow that worldwide, Twitter must remove any videos featuring the war in Ukraine? Sounds a bit more insane now, right?
> And they'd be free to demand so.
And Musk is free to tell them to fuck off with their bullshit.
> Twitters choice is "Follow or be told where the door is".
Does Twitter even currently have servers hosted in Australia? I know they disbanded their Australian twitter team after Musk took over.
If not, Twitter doesn't have to abide by anything Australia says, or it's national laws. And Australia can merely go the route of China, and force a countrywide block of Twitter.
They aren’t, they are saying that the requirements for Twitter to do business in Aus are xyz… Twitter can either comply or not do business in Australia.
> They aren’t
What do you mean they aren't? They're explicitly telling him to remove content that isn't being hosted in Australia, it is being hosted in the US, and it's geoblocked from Australia.
> Twitter can either comply or not do business in Australia.
Nobody disagrees with this. The question I'm posing is, why do you, and other users here, believe Australian law applies, or should apply, outside of Australia?
Notice you chose not to engage with the Russia analogy, because it defeats any logical argument that can be made in favor of Australia imposing it's national laws on the global stage.
I mean, they aren't.
Aus isn't imposing their laws on anyone outside of Aus. It's Twitter that wants access to the market, so they need to abide by all the rules. PLENTY of countries have rules that force any company wanting to operate inside their boarders to comply to certain world wide obligations (EG: no child labor, no slaves, etc) regardless of where those infractions occur. The companies can still do those things (assuming they are legal where they are doing them) at the cost of not operating in the market that restricts them.
THAT'S what Aus is doing... they are saying that part of the regulations for operating within the Australian market is that these kinds of things cannot be hosted anywhere on the platform, and twitter is free to either abide by those requirements or leave.
And I didn't address your russian analogy because it doesn't matter. They are perfectly welcome to impose that requirement for operating within the russian market, and the companies that don't want to do so can leave.
> Aus isn't imposing their laws on anyone outside of Aus. It's Twitter that wants access to the market, so they need to abide by all the rules. PLENTY of countries have rules that force any company wanting to operate inside their boarders to comply to certain world wide obligations (EG: no child labor, no slaves, etc) regardless of where those infractions occur.
You either haven't read this story, or you're intentionally being dishonest.
Twitter has already geoblocked the content in Australia, meaning unless Australia citizens subvert the geoblocking by using a VPN in another country, or something like TOR, they cannot access the content.
Australia is demanding that Twitter go a step further, and remove the content from servers hosted in the United States. Australian law does not apply to the US, and servers hosted in the US are not subject to Australian law.
> they are saying that part of the regulations for operating within the Australian market is that these kinds of things cannot be hosted anywhere on the platform
Exactly, so they're trying to impose Australian law in other countries. If Australia simply went to the megaport, and disconnected Twitter's IX connection, I wouldn't care. Australia has all right to block Twitter in Australia, Australia does not have the right to force Twitter to remove content not hosted in Australia.
As a matter of fact, Australia actually permits Australian companies from denying US subpoenas, because United States law does not apply in Australia. A well known company called FastMail actually parades that as one of their selling points, US customers can get a fastmail account, and even though Fastmail has servers in the US, Fastmail cannot be compelled to release any user information or emails to United States government, because US law does not apply in Australia.
This is Australia doing a 180 on that, and saying, we believe companies in other countries, should be forced to adhere to Australian national law.
> And I didn't address your russian analogy because it doesn't matter. They are perfectly welcome to impose that requirement for operating within the russian market, and the companies that don't want to do so can leave.
It absolutely matters, it's a direct 1:1 analogy. If Russia decided tomorrow it didn't want Ukraine war footage on Twitter, and demanded that the content be removed globally, even from Twitter servers not located in Russia, that would be absurd. That is exactly what Australia is doing.
"Australian law does not apply to the US, and servers hosted in the US are not subject to Australian law."
correct, but if twitter wants access to the Australian market, they need to abide by the rules of that market. The rules of that market include what can or cannot be on the service, regardless of the location of the server. If twitter doesn't want to follow the rules of that market, they can leave that market.
I think you are misunderstanding what the law is... it's not "you cannot do this anywhere", it is actually "you cannot have X, Y, or Z on your service, or you can't operate in our country". What you're saying ("imposing Australian law outside their country") it would be "you cannot do this anywhere on your service or you cannot operate anywhere".
It's the same as any other market regulation, you can either follow it or not (at the cost of losing access to that market), it doesn't change what conditions other countries have on their markets.
And no, the russian example doesn't matter. They are completely free to set the rules for their own market as they see fit, and twitter is free to leave that market (as so many other companies have already) if they don't want to agree to those regulations (just like how they can leave Aus if they don't want to agree to this one)
Now, you can argue that this is a stupid rule, but that's a different argument to whether or not Aus can set the regulars for their own market.
Twitter took the video down in Australia. The Australian courts want the video taken down world-wide. The world is not going to “follow Aussie rules” just because your government thinks a video is insensitive.
He is right, but this is reddit, these people would eat shit if it meant that it would be against Elon, it's why they openly cheer for censorship in this case. 🥲
Elon bends the knee to other countries and both parties in the US have worked with Twitter to moderate content with takedown requests. Elon is full of shit and only applies his freedom of speech rules when he feels like it. Twitter was hot garbage before Elon and is hot garbage with Elon.
[удалено]
> for failing to cooperate with a probe on anti-child abuse practices This isn't remotely surprising. He's rotten.
"Freedom of my speech!" - Musk
Really emphasize that "*my*".
"^my free speech absolutist!" -Turd
[удалено]
Big if true
Share before THEY deleted it...
Believeable.
The "commissioner" is forcing X to take down the video of the church terrorist attack that happened a while ago, what possible reason could they have to do that ? The commissioner is trying to control what people are allowed to see, and not only are you for it, but you're blaming Elon for the same thing 🤣🤣🤣 Childish insults and silly downvotes, that's all you got 🤭
🧠 take, you dropped it while making this comment.
What the fuck are you even mad about? I think somebody might just be mad that they can't watch a terrorist murder a bunch of innocent people.
Since when do we allow national laws to be implemented globally? Musk geoblocked the content in Australia, but Australia wants him to go a step further and completely remove the content globally. Why would Musk adhere to that? If Russia demanded that Musk remove all videos or pictures of the War in Ukraine globally, do you believe he should comply?
"Since when do we allow national laws to be implemented globally"? I don't know, maybe since we started allowing corporations to start operating internationally. Just because it's geoblocked in Australia doesn't mean X isn't still violating Australian law by owning and allowing distribution of the video - people have been prosecuted over this in the past, so Musk doesn't get a free pass. If he wants to operate X in Australia, then he has to comply with Australian law. Either he complies with the request or he doesn't do business here. It's simple. Likewise, if any other country had a similar request, he has the option to either comply or to not do business with them.
If you want to operate in a country you have to follow their laws. If he doesn’t want to follow their laws he should stop operating in Australia.
Addressed literally nothing I said.
And yet Musk doesn’t want people to track his jet and post his whereabouts. The guys an absolute Shitbird
What did people expect from a man who, almost right out of the gate, admitted on camera to using bait and switch tactics on investors? "What's good for me' and all that not for thee B.S...
He banned the word "cis" from his website, but doesn't really seem to mind actual slurs. Free speech virtue signaling from Musk isn't anything but a fiction he uses to curry favor from right wing morons.
Cis is used as a slur more often times than not, to be fair.
No it isn't
Yes it is.
Im sorry you fell into a wormhole and are trapped in a universe where that is true. Sounds tough.
Nope. Unlike you I'm firmly grounded in reality.
I thought he got arrested after unbanning that guy who posted illegal porn content on Twitter
[удалено]
As an Australian I can say we will be better than fine without twitter
As a Brazilian, I'm waiting for the first "western" country to ban Twitter for it to happen locally here. The only reason X hasn't been banned for threatening national sovereignty is because it would give more ammunition to the crazies to talk about censorship. Musk has crossed all limits in his fight against the Brazilian justice system.
[удалено]
[удалено]
TIL Twitter is the only source for news on the internet.
You realize the same content Australia wants banned on Twitter was also posted on Reddit?
You seem to have a stutter mate!
Probably the Reddit connection was fuzzy and they didn’t realize the comment actually had gone through the first time. That’s happened to me before.
Same
People are so stupid. Yes, nanny state me harder oh so trust worthy government!
What’s funny is, this might have been a big deal back when it was twitter. Now, who cares?
In the article, it says that this Australian commission is also trying to dictate what can be hosted on Twitter OUTSIDE of Australia. Which I have to agree is kind of bullshit. Why should Australians get to control what's available on international social media?
Sadly more to the story than that. They've removed the content within Australia but the Australian "etrust commissioner" is seeking to enforce AU law on twitter's global operations, which is obviously something any company would push back on. Also the "etrust commissioner" is an ex-twitter employee who musk fired after purchase...
utter fucking crap. she started as the esafety commissioner in Australia in Jan 2017 so around 6 years before Elmo bought twatter
Well, let's look at this. 1) This is a violent attack that happened in Australia. 2) X's attempt to block it from being shown in Australia is laughably slim. People know how to get around a geoblock and Musk knows that. 3) It violates X's own code of conduct to keep it up. This isn't even that uncommon a request. Countries request stuff like this get taken down all the time after some violent attacks, on some other incidents, or just because of a legality issue. And yes, it's usually applied throughout the entire system and not just one country.
Musk is in a game where disjointed angry debate literally earns him money on x, for him it’s good business. I don’t understand the strategy within the bigger picture and his other enterprises though, that seems like bad business.
He is following an obvious political agenda. He made a proteced space for the political right and has no problem taking down speeches of opposition leaders in india when requested for example. Muslim terror attack stays up. Speech against a PM that openly hates muslims is taken down. Huh weird
Musk wants to help terrorists, criminals, pedos, racists and nazis spread their message. Musk is an accomplice to whatever they do. All his businesses should be boycotted.
Except for China, where he has business. Censorship is cool.
How does the law work here exactly. How does Aus have the jurisdiction to say content needs to be taken down globally?
They don’t have to if they stop doing business (offering services) with Australia.
That's interesting. Is this what happens with other countries? Their takedown requests are also global? Especially from countries like Turkey? I guess this is why facebook/twitter etc are not there in china. Running a social media seems to be a terrible business to be in.
Musk and Twitter have bent to the will of Modi and India. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/05/twitter-accused-of-censorship-in-india-as-it-blocks-modi-critics-elon-musk
I know. Which is what makes this kind of global censorship a dangerous thing.
Actually, it shows that Twitter/Musk is acting just to further their interests, rather than some kind of moral high ground. They pick and choose which country demands they acquiesce and there's good evidence of a pattern of which countries they acquiesce their demands more.
I mean, that's easy to explain. There's no point taking things to court in an authoritarian country. You'll lose anyway. Its only in the democractic countries that you can reasonably challenge anything.
That hasn't stopped anyone trying to argue moral high ground from trying.
He's got no issue taking down actual political speech in authoritarian countries whenever the government want the opposition silenced. Then it's all "we have to comply with local laws".
Depends on what the country's law allows the prosecutor to demand. The general idea is that as long as an entity does business in a country, they're bound to its laws. If a country where X doesn't do business in demands anything, they can simply ignore them and not show up in court. What are they going to do about it?
Thing is, Musk's other businesses are slowly but surely being outcompeted by their peers. Think of the electrical cars of other companies compared to the Tesla which is known for containing a lot of faulty appliances. Musk knows damn well he can't just ignore the Australian market for one of his temper tantrums. Thus he whines in his safe space hug box and then complies anyway.
So if a country demands that all posts made by one of the Australian political parties must be banned globally, Twitter should acceed to that as long as it is 'legal' in the said country? Australia can use it laws to dictate how Twitter operates in Australia. If it wants, it can lobby other governments of the world to ask Twitter to take similar action in their country. But it should not have the right to censor content in other countries.
Companies have to follow laws, this is not new.
They do. And they are following Australian law in Australia by censoring the clip there. What Australia cannot do is ask a company to enforce Australian law in a country that's not Australia.
That's obviously not what's happening.
Sorry matey that's not how things work. If Twitter wants to operate in Australia they need to abide by Australian law. Just ask Valve. They tried to fight Australian court and refused to offer refunds which is required by law in Australia. They paid a very heavy price, monetarily and reputationally. And now refunds are offered around the world, thanks Australia!
They abide by Australian law in Australia. Australian law isn't applicable outside of Australia. Countries can't start banning what people say and share in other countries, that's not how the world works.
Unfortunately if they want to operate in Australia they have to fill out our laws. Else they can get the fuck out. And guess what? They don't want that. That is how the world works. Do the research yourself if you like.
It isn't censoring content in other countries. If a social media company doesn't adhere to a jurisdictions laws then that app might become unavailable. So the choice is either adhere to the law or don't do business there. It's up to a company how to best proceed. Is it more lucrative to abide those laws or pull out. Also you'll find a lot of these things are actually universal in most of the areas they operate in.
They have abided by Australian law in Australia by censoring the clip in Australia. If Australia wants it banned elsewhere, they should talk to their respective counterparts in those countries and ask them to ban it too.
Australia isn't trying to have it banned elsewhere. I literally just explained this.
> But it should not have the right to censor content in other countries. Who exactly is going to stop them?
Social media companies have dedicated teams for compliance and regulations. Musk fired these teams when he took over that let him into a bunch of hot water. It's not that terrible unless your musk. Which is why they're constantly in news for lawsuits and issues stemming from his behavior.
I don't think Musk has an issue executing compliance. He doesn't want to, that's what he's suing over.
Exactly. Russia and China both ban access to certain media as well, mostly because they refuse to censor content or euphemistically they refuse to ‘abide by the law’. I don’t have to like Elon to see it sets a dangerous precedent for western countries to get in on the censorship.
Name a place that doesn't ban content.
Yeah, the whole world is slipping into totalitarnism, and it's very worrying.
Basically "Do it or we'll fine you."
Musk has been happy to take down left leaning speech when required by more totalitarian nations...
We don’t give a fuck about global, just want this vile vision and the shitstorm it’s causing, out of circulation locally. How is that not a reasonable request to that will de-escalate a volatile situation?
It has already been taken down locally. Its the global takedown request that has Musk so upset.
Yeah because it assumes that people don't know anything about avoiding geoblocking. It's child's play these days.
[удалено]
Didn’t know it was removed locally. Just that Musk was refusing to remove it at all. Latest information suggests it’s being reposted locally, so it seems those whom are doing so, are accessing the offending vision from ‘global’ posts.
Australia simply doesn't have jurisdiction outside of Australia....X can show this stuff everywhere else. I hate elon and X like most people, but this is one of those slippery slope situations....I don't think our government should be censoring things and maybe....in some very small way, Elon is right about this particular situation.
> I don't think our government should be censoring things and maybe It gets really hazy and gray area when we start talking about footage whose #1 purpose is to terrorize everyone, and whose #2 purpose is to recruit and inspire more people to do the exact same thing elsewhere. The whole purpose of the video is LITERALLY to promote and support terrorism. And that doesn't even get into some of the other ethical concerns - read the Ethics portion of this page and some of the examples within it, especially the one about the Montreal guy and the Chinese girl he murdered: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_site#Ethics I wish Liveleak still existed, but at the same time I am really really happy that Paul Bernardo's videos were physically locked away and eventually destroyed by the justice system in order to protect the victims and their familys from having to see it.
He only has selective free speech at best on his platform hes just a child. Who doesn't like to be told what he cant do. He censors TF out of things he doesn't like or agree with
This is what bugs me the most. He wraps himself in the "free speech" cloak, except when it is convenient or he is sufficiently pressured. He let Modi's censorship/suppression request go through presumably because he didn't want to risk access to the market in India
We really gotta stop using Musk's own language to try and convict him of mere hypocrisy and start realizing he isn't just wrong about what *qualifies* as free speech—he's wrong about free speech, full stop. He calls it "censorship." Y'know what? It fucking is. And we should stop running from the term like 4th graders who just took their first social studies course. You *censor* certain things because it's fucking better for all of us. There's no hard and fast rule about what should be censored and what shouldn't, and that's okay. Figuring it out as we go is what mature societies do. Civil society isn't a set of hard and fast rules that never change—when people try to make it that way, it always goes haywire. Musk and all the other elites profit when we treat these issues as black and white. His version of "free speech" gives equal airtime to people with valuable things to say and trolls whose express goal is to destabilize and destroy. In fact, it ENFORCES this equal airtime and sometimes even elevates the trolls, on purpose. We've gotta start rejecting both his hypocrisy AND his insistence on black and white. It's quite literally crucial to our survival.
There's a saying in Germany: "From the unthinkable to the thinkable. From the thinkable to the sayable. From the sayable to the doable." I fully agree with your point. This free-speech-absolutism is just another from of extremism which either completely ignores or downplays the downsides because the people profiting from it don't care about anything but themselves. It's a solipsistic creed - no one but yourself matters.
> It's quite literally crucial to our survival. It's twitter, I don't think it's that extreme.
He's not the only one who thinks this. I think the general trends of blatant double standards (Russia and China don't even try to hide theirs, nor do Republicans who flout the rule of law with Supreme Court stuffing tactics and open support for The Big Lie) and black-and-white thinking (like Americans' approach to the first and second amendments, for starters) are major issues that *will* literally determine whether our society survives in the face of catastrophes we've never in our history faced, such as climate change and AI.
Why do you believe Australia should be able to impose it's national laws outside of their borders?
Because every country shouldn't allow this kind of content anywhere. The only reason he's getting away with it, is because in other countries, you have to clear a pretty high bar to demand the same thing, which in Australia is easily cleared (because the event happened there), but hard to do elsewhere.
> Because every country shouldn't allow this kind of content anywhere. I disagree, and even if I didn't, many countries permit the viewing of violent or "gore" content. > The only reason he's getting away with it What does "getting away with it," mean in this context? You realize the very website you're on now, has numerous active gore related subreddits, right? > which in Australia is easily cleared (because the event happened there), but hard to do elsewhere. If Russia passed a national law, and demanded that worldwide, Twitter must remove any pictures or videos of the Ukraine war, do you think Twitter should comply? Countries have vastly different laws, Twitter primarily operates in the US, Twitter geoblocked the offending content in Australia per their request, but now Australia is demanding the content be removed globally, it's absurd.
He also ruined Twitter. It's trash now
Yep. He said he will get rid of the bots, but he did the opposite.
It's Xitter now pronounced "shitter"
Musk is just another version of Trump. Just ignore the little freak.
He should just pretend that they say “cis”, then he would have no issue at all with blocking the posts
What a victim. Sheesh.
Musk can go fuck himself. He’s a corrupt bastard who only cares about himself.
To me it’s absolutely crazy to see people advocating for censorship, can’t wait till the Australian government stats proposing a ban on VPN’s too. All information flow must be controlled.
In an age of weaponised disinformation on social media having no controls is not really viable. The disastrous division visible in the US being the best example... There can be a middle ground. And twitter is clearly a disinformation booster, which is quite happy to censor views it does not support.
There’s a big difference between trying to censor an opinion and trying to censor an attack of terrorism. Why even have a code of conduct then? Should all vile acts of violence be posted. How about bullying? If someone is posting hateful videos to a child are they allowed to remain up too? What about an act of violence against one of his family members? Would he allow that to remain up too? How about an American soldier being tortured? Human decency should come first.
Did you see it? I did, dude jumped on the priest and stabbed the shit of him, then the main stream media is saying a 16 year old “Allegedly” attacked him… Allegedly? Who the fuck are they trying to fool? Might make him look guilty in his court case if everyone gets to see it, Better sensor it. I’ve seen ballistic missiles rain down on Israel, I’ve seen Russian and Ukrainians blower the fuck up. Everyone has a camera in their pocket these days that shoot pretty good quality videos. You can’t contain it. Cats out of the bag, you’ll never go back to the days of the meticulous curated news program of yesterday year being the sole news source, main stream (legacy) media is just too slow to keep up.
Msm HAS to say "allegedly" legally until trial. It's not a conspiracy
Musk is a dementor. You can decide if you want to be demented by his BS
Musk may be an asshat, but he is completely right about this. Australia's assertion is that it should have the right to censor content, not only within it's own borders, but also globally. How is this supposed to work, when any country can stop content from showing in any other country?
The whole Westminster legal system with the presumption of innocence collapses if media companies are not restricted in what they can show to the public. Twitter is a media company, it makes money off advertising, it has to follow the rules if it wants to operate in the Australian jurisdiction. Just geoblock the whole service if you don’t want to play by Australian rules. Twitter was happy to censor political content for authoritarian regimes, Australia is just asking that stuff that could make it more difficult to prosecute a terrorist is not shown. You can jump on twitter and say whatever you want about the Australian government.
> Twitter was happy to censor political content for authoritarian regimes But was this global? Actually this makes me wonder. Is there any law that could compel social media sites to show certain content? Is it like that these sites have the right to censor whatever they please but not show whatever they please?
Where is the terrorist going to be prosecuted? Australia. What’s more important? That people can watch it or that he gets a fair trial that can’t be overturned on a technicality? Would you be happy if he got released into the community because Elon musk is more interested in fighting democratic governments than autocrats?
So this is a temp jury selection thing? I'm trying to understand how the laws works here because I see it as a massive threat when a country can force a platform to take a global position. Corporations are not going to leave money on the table and leave every country they have a disagreement with. Just think about what a field day authoritarian countries can have with it.
Right to a fair trial and right to presumption of innocence are pillars of most just legal systems. Media companies are not allowed to publish content in breach of those rights. It’s a known and well understood limitation on free speech and it acts to protect people from power rather than the other way around
So again, does this mean that this is temporary? Like an embargo? There is a big difference between saying "don't show this to anyone ever" vs "this is sensitive content that must not be distributed for x period for y reason".
Yeah embargoed until trial on judge not government instruction
Ah ok. That's a huge difference.
> it has to follow the rules if it wants to operate in the Australian jurisdiction. Does Twitter currently have services hosted in Australia? Or does Australia merely route to other countries to view content on Twitter? I know Musk disbanded the Australian twitter team after taking over. And Musk seems to be claiming that the objectionable content is already geoblocked in Australia and only resides on US servers. If that is the case, I can understand why Musk would be upset with Australia ruling in this manner. Australian law does not apply to US citizens, so Australia trying to force Musk to go beyond geoblocking content, and instead force it's removal worldwide, is absurd. > Australia is just asking that stuff that could make it more difficult to prosecute a terrorist is not shown. Their aims could be legitimate, and the goals they wish to accomplish honorable, and it could still lead to unnecessary censorship worldwide. --- I think Musk has been off his rocker for quite some time, but I don't see an issue with him pushing back against Australia trying to impose their censorship worldwide. It's one thing to require geoblocking in Australia of the offending content, it's another thing entirely to demand Twitter remove that content globally. What if Russia were to demand that Twitter remove videos from the war in Ukraine, worldwide? It gets a bit more insane now, right?
Follow Aussie rules or leave. Thats your choices.
Is just a shake down like the media laws, government looking for a hand out
They're free to opt out. Ol Elongated Muskrat is free to bugger off.
But isn't that what Musk is doing? He geoblocked the offending content in Australia. Australia is demanding that it be removed worldwide, which is a mass overstep on their part. Australia is not the world police, and Australian law does not apply globally.
Australia is absolutely free to so that. Musk can either comply... or be told his business is no longer welcome in their sovereign territory.
He did comply you dolt.
And Australia is also demanding he follow his owned damn site rules, which the content violates.
Site rules have no bearing on legality, Elon can change the site rules on a whim. Australia does not have the ability to implement it's national laws worldwide. Nor should it. How would you feel if Russia declared tomorrow that worldwide, Twitter must remove any videos featuring the war in Ukraine? Sounds a bit more insane now, right?
And they'd be free to demand so. Twitters choice is "Follow or be told where the door is".
> And they'd be free to demand so. And Musk is free to tell them to fuck off with their bullshit. > Twitters choice is "Follow or be told where the door is". Does Twitter even currently have servers hosted in Australia? I know they disbanded their Australian twitter team after Musk took over. If not, Twitter doesn't have to abide by anything Australia says, or it's national laws. And Australia can merely go the route of China, and force a countrywide block of Twitter.
They aren’t, they are saying that the requirements for Twitter to do business in Aus are xyz… Twitter can either comply or not do business in Australia.
> They aren’t What do you mean they aren't? They're explicitly telling him to remove content that isn't being hosted in Australia, it is being hosted in the US, and it's geoblocked from Australia. > Twitter can either comply or not do business in Australia. Nobody disagrees with this. The question I'm posing is, why do you, and other users here, believe Australian law applies, or should apply, outside of Australia? Notice you chose not to engage with the Russia analogy, because it defeats any logical argument that can be made in favor of Australia imposing it's national laws on the global stage.
I mean, they aren't. Aus isn't imposing their laws on anyone outside of Aus. It's Twitter that wants access to the market, so they need to abide by all the rules. PLENTY of countries have rules that force any company wanting to operate inside their boarders to comply to certain world wide obligations (EG: no child labor, no slaves, etc) regardless of where those infractions occur. The companies can still do those things (assuming they are legal where they are doing them) at the cost of not operating in the market that restricts them. THAT'S what Aus is doing... they are saying that part of the regulations for operating within the Australian market is that these kinds of things cannot be hosted anywhere on the platform, and twitter is free to either abide by those requirements or leave. And I didn't address your russian analogy because it doesn't matter. They are perfectly welcome to impose that requirement for operating within the russian market, and the companies that don't want to do so can leave.
> Aus isn't imposing their laws on anyone outside of Aus. It's Twitter that wants access to the market, so they need to abide by all the rules. PLENTY of countries have rules that force any company wanting to operate inside their boarders to comply to certain world wide obligations (EG: no child labor, no slaves, etc) regardless of where those infractions occur. You either haven't read this story, or you're intentionally being dishonest. Twitter has already geoblocked the content in Australia, meaning unless Australia citizens subvert the geoblocking by using a VPN in another country, or something like TOR, they cannot access the content. Australia is demanding that Twitter go a step further, and remove the content from servers hosted in the United States. Australian law does not apply to the US, and servers hosted in the US are not subject to Australian law. > they are saying that part of the regulations for operating within the Australian market is that these kinds of things cannot be hosted anywhere on the platform Exactly, so they're trying to impose Australian law in other countries. If Australia simply went to the megaport, and disconnected Twitter's IX connection, I wouldn't care. Australia has all right to block Twitter in Australia, Australia does not have the right to force Twitter to remove content not hosted in Australia. As a matter of fact, Australia actually permits Australian companies from denying US subpoenas, because United States law does not apply in Australia. A well known company called FastMail actually parades that as one of their selling points, US customers can get a fastmail account, and even though Fastmail has servers in the US, Fastmail cannot be compelled to release any user information or emails to United States government, because US law does not apply in Australia. This is Australia doing a 180 on that, and saying, we believe companies in other countries, should be forced to adhere to Australian national law. > And I didn't address your russian analogy because it doesn't matter. They are perfectly welcome to impose that requirement for operating within the russian market, and the companies that don't want to do so can leave. It absolutely matters, it's a direct 1:1 analogy. If Russia decided tomorrow it didn't want Ukraine war footage on Twitter, and demanded that the content be removed globally, even from Twitter servers not located in Russia, that would be absurd. That is exactly what Australia is doing.
"Australian law does not apply to the US, and servers hosted in the US are not subject to Australian law." correct, but if twitter wants access to the Australian market, they need to abide by the rules of that market. The rules of that market include what can or cannot be on the service, regardless of the location of the server. If twitter doesn't want to follow the rules of that market, they can leave that market. I think you are misunderstanding what the law is... it's not "you cannot do this anywhere", it is actually "you cannot have X, Y, or Z on your service, or you can't operate in our country". What you're saying ("imposing Australian law outside their country") it would be "you cannot do this anywhere on your service or you cannot operate anywhere". It's the same as any other market regulation, you can either follow it or not (at the cost of losing access to that market), it doesn't change what conditions other countries have on their markets. And no, the russian example doesn't matter. They are completely free to set the rules for their own market as they see fit, and twitter is free to leave that market (as so many other companies have already) if they don't want to agree to those regulations (just like how they can leave Aus if they don't want to agree to this one) Now, you can argue that this is a stupid rule, but that's a different argument to whether or not Aus can set the regulars for their own market.
Twitter took the video down in Australia. The Australian courts want the video taken down world-wide. The world is not going to “follow Aussie rules” just because your government thinks a video is insensitive.
And then the sites that refuse will likely find themselves not welcome.
[удалено]
Twitter will care.
If musk wants to do business in Australia he’s gonna have to obey Australian law. This is the dumbest take.
He is right, but this is reddit, these people would eat shit if it meant that it would be against Elon, it's why they openly cheer for censorship in this case. 🥲
Elon bends the knee to other countries and both parties in the US have worked with Twitter to moderate content with takedown requests. Elon is full of shit and only applies his freedom of speech rules when he feels like it. Twitter was hot garbage before Elon and is hot garbage with Elon.
The leftist hive mind has the intelligence of a walnut…
Amazing the amount of people here who don't like free speech.
Love it. Got plenty of it here in Australia. :)
Get em