This little douche baby censors anything he can when itās negative towards him or his companies. Heās a whiny hypocrite who would rather lie than be a decent human being.
Ftr, video of people getting stabbed/dying doesnāt belong on Twitter.
Iām a bit torn, because I think that horrific atrocities should be seen by the public for them to face the reality of the world we live in. The full color combat footage played on the nightly news during the 60ās and 70ās played a huge role in turning public support against the war. The horrors going in in places like Gaza, Ukraine, Myanmar, Yeman and Sudan shouldnāt be hidden from our āsensibleā Western eyes when it is daily life for millions across the globe.
Snuff films like 3 Guys, 1 Hammer probably donāt belong on Twitter, but I donāt know where the line should be drawn. Should footage of JFKās assassination be censored and hidden from public view? What about the attempt on Regan? Or the killing of George Floyd? What about footage of US sponsored drone strikes on civilians?
Cutting off Internet access to Ukrainian soldiers on the front lines just before an attack is fine, but removing a violent video from the Internet is just too far for him.
Twitter is a signatory to the Christchurch Call, which agrees to remove any videos supporting terrorism from its platform. This is not something Musk abandoned when he took over. He assured Macron that Twitter would adhere to it in 2022.
Interestingly, that does not appear to have been discovered by the local media.
I also checked the Christchurch Call website which clearly shows Xitter as a member of the community that agreed to:
āTake transparent, specific measures seeking to prevent the upload of terrorist and violent extremist content and to prevent its dissemination on social media and similar content-sharing services, including its immediate and permanent removal, without prejudice to law enforcement and user appeals requirements, in a manner consistent with human rights and fundamental freedoms. Cooperative measures to achieve these outcomes may include technology development, the expansion and use of shared databases of hashes and URLs, and effective notice and takedown procedures.ā
Iāve just advised the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the national broadcaster here. No idea if itās going to do anything.
I sent this:
X (twitter) is a signatory to the Christchurch Call set-up by Jacinta Adern. Signatories agree among other things to suppress the dissemination of terrorism. Nobody is talking about this.
I checked the Christchurch Call website which clearly shows Xitter as a member of the community that agreed to:
āTake transparent, specific measures seeking to prevent the upload of terrorist and violent extremist content and to prevent its dissemination on social media and similar content-sharing services, including its immediate and permanent removal, without prejudice to law enforcement and user appeals requirements, in a manner consistent with human rights and fundamental freedoms. Cooperative measures to achieve these outcomes may include technology development, the expansion and use of shared databases of hashes and URLs, and effective notice and takedown procedures.ā
Iām criticizing Australia for trying to tell South Koreans what content they can share online with other South Koreans, amongst other things. Australia isnāt the World Police. I can freely join you in despising Elon Musk while still being very critical of the Aussie government.
So then Twitter should not adhere to what Musk personally said they would adhere to.
Why the hell not?
Because the Christchurch Call doesnāt say that terrorism videos should be taken down on a country-by-country basis.
An agreement Twitter consentually signed/agreed to is radically different from what the Aussie govt is trying to do here. Why are you conflating the two?
The Aussie government is literally trying to get Twitter to delete the tweets that promote terrorism as Twitter agreed to when it agreed to the Christchurch Call.
