By "free speech", I simply mean that which matches the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law. If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect. Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people.,
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ter-at-all
One of the ways Twitter, and other social media platforms, held a very important technical line was by making their own rules in other countries they were simply banned. There were 11 countries where Twitter was banned but right at the top of the list is China - the world's biggest market.
The problem was China were, and still are, quite happy to let anyone say whatever they want on Twitter as long as they know who is saying it so the law can be enforced. All .38 calibres of the law.
The line that was held was simple. Twitter would not allow governments access to the data, and most especially the meta data, they held. They also wouldn't allow access to the algorithms that are able to identify, through likes, shares or simply reading a tweet or clicking on a link and most importantly they would not allow any government access to the end to end encryption used.
Elon Musk's definition of free speech throws that all out of the window.
But why should you care. The American government won't ask for that, neither will the British and the Australian government couldn't care less. The trouble is - and Elon Musk is a South African and will know this - that once one government has access to that sort of information they all do.
So when you next send a Tweet - think who Elon Musk has given access to more information about you than you know about yourself.
