Clearly, because even that article is bullshit and couldn’t find 10 despite naming it “Elon Musk, King of Censorship: 10 Times the ‘Free Speech Absolutist’ Silenced Twitter Users” lol
Government ordered takedowns are not Twitter censoring people - it’s the government.
As for “cis” and “cisgender” - they’re considered slurs on there, but they’re not censored. You can go on there and post “cisgender” as much as you want.
No one is buying your bogus goods, man. The free speech affectation is meaningless when the platform kowtows to any authoritarian’s request for censorship or engages in its own algorithmic manipulation of your feed.
They operate within the law. If a government says you either ban an account in their country or you stop providing your service to the entire country, which do you think X should do? Because those are the options - follow the law or exit the country.
X are challenging the government legal orders in court btw, but in the meantime they have to cooperate. Like I said, the government are the ones censoring free speech here, not X. Do you but see the difference? To operate in a country you need to follow their laws. Not every country has free speech constitutionally guaranteed btw.
https://gizmodo.com/10-times-elon-musk-censored-twitter-users-1850570720
Do you think this is hard to find examples for?
Clearly, because even that article is bullshit and couldn’t find 10 despite naming it “Elon Musk, King of Censorship: 10 Times the ‘Free Speech Absolutist’ Silenced Twitter Users” lol
Government ordered takedowns are not Twitter censoring people - it’s the government.
As for “cis” and “cisgender” - they’re considered slurs on there, but they’re not censored. You can go on there and post “cisgender” as much as you want.
No one is buying your bogus goods, man. The free speech affectation is meaningless when the platform kowtows to any authoritarian’s request for censorship or engages in its own algorithmic manipulation of your feed.
They operate within the law. If a government says you either ban an account in their country or you stop providing your service to the entire country, which do you think X should do? Because those are the options - follow the law or exit the country.
X are challenging the government legal orders in court btw, but in the meantime they have to cooperate. Like I said, the government are the ones censoring free speech here, not X. Do you but see the difference? To operate in a country you need to follow their laws. Not every country has free speech constitutionally guaranteed btw.