this post was submitted on 08 May 2025
1144 points (99.1% liked)
Technology
69889 readers
2732 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The context is in the article in the OP. It doesn't really matter. Elon is notoriously apathetic about the law. He could choose not to comply as he does so very often and realistically face very little in the way of repercussions. But that's how little he actually cares about free speech.
The context is extremely important in this one. It changes the sentiment from “Musk is censoring the political opposition because he supports the government” to “Musk complied with the legal demands so as to not have to remove X from the entire country of Turkey, and is fighting the demands in court as he says they are censorship”.
X is now notoriously law abiding, but also notorious for fighting against government ordered censorship in court. They comply with legal orders so as to not face legal trouble, and then file legal challenges - even going so far as to pay for and help with legal challenges for individuals who the government are censoring.
It's not important. Elon did not say "I'm a free speech absolutist within the confines of the law". Free speech absolutism does not make exceptions for law.
Further, those legal demands were made by a foreign country with no authority over him or his company. Here's some helpful context: Elon doesn't even recognize the local authority but suddenly he bends knee to authority demanded from the other side of the planet? Nah.
It absolutely does when you’re running a business.
Companies operating in a country need to follow that countries laws, or they can’t operate in that country. Fact.
Why do you think the GDPR laws were such a big deal worldwide?
It absolutely does not. If you're running a business you simply don't refer to yourself as a "free speech absolutist" because it's fucking stupid.
Then a "free speech absolutist" would stop operating in that country. Fact.
So you think the best way for a company to fight a government trying to eliminate free speech from their country is to…..checks notes…..remove their product that is used by millions from said country?
Not to take them to court to fight their attempts to stifle free speech, but to just……leave?
"Free speech absolutism" is not "the best way" to do a God damn thing. This has nothing to do with the "best way" to do anything. It's about the owner being a pathological fucking liar.
You said a free speech absolutist would stop operating in that country. I’m asking if you think that’s what they should have done here.