Elon Musk: Always A Douche

[Valmy]

I am somewhat skeptical the judge really is illegally ordering Musk to censor the judge's political opponents.

But in any case I am not sure what he is trying to achieve here. Unless he can appeal the ruling to some higher court who the hell cares what Elon Musk's interpretation of Brazilian law is?

Besides is he saying that if the laws of Brazil included censorship he would comply? Not really much of a stance.

[Syt]

Apparently he (Musk) said he would expose the judge's crimes and post them on Xchan.

[Valmy]

Apparently he (Musk) said he would expose the judge's crimes and post them on Xchan.

That would require work and effort, both things Musk doesn't do. He won't do shit.

[Josquius]

Apparently he (Musk) said he would expose the judge's crimes and post them on Xchan.

I guess he's got a team of sycophants to do this for him?
As even paying someone seems too much like work

[crazy canuck]

Apparently he (Musk) said he would expose the judge's crimes and post them on Xchan.

I guess he's got a team of sycophants to do this for him?
As even paying someone seems too much like work

If he has a team, they are not X employees.  He fired most of them.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Apparently he (Musk) said he would expose the judge's crimes and post them on Xchan.

seem rather useless since no one will (legally) see it in Brasil

[Jacob]

I wonder if Musk's reference to the constitutionality of the judge's order refers to the American or the Brazillian constitution?

[Tamas]

I wonder if Musk's reference to the constitutionality of the judge's order refers to the American or the Brazillian constitution?

I don't think he paused to think whether he is actually correct on that.

[crazy canuck]

I wonder if Musk's reference to the constitutionality of the judge's order refers to the American or the Brazillian constitution?

Even in the United States, a corporation must comply with the corporate registration requirements of the jurisdiction in which the corporation is doing business.

Mask may have such a simplistic view of the world that he really does believe that his freedom trumps everything.

[garbon]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn8ljjjmpg5o

Racial hatred post did not break X rules

A post on X that could result in the wife of a Tory councillor serving a "substantial" prison sentence did not violate the platform's rules for violent threats, it has emerged.

Lucy Connolly, a childminder from Northampton, has pleaded guilty to publishing a social media post intending to stir up racial hatred after calling for hotels housing asylum seekers to be set alight.

A few days after her post, X rejected a complaint from a user who flagged the message to it.

The social media giant did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

The 41-year-old had posted on 29 July calling for hotels housing migrants to be set on fire and for "mass deportation now".

"If that makes me racist, so be it," she added.

It came as disorder broke out at a number of locations across the country, with hotels containing asylum seekers attacked.

An X user, who did not want to be identified, described how they had alerted the platform to the now deleted post but had been rebuffed in an automated response.

They told the BBC: "I'm shocked and appalled. If they can ignore this clear-cut breach of their alleged rules of conduct and go against UK law, there is clearly a grave problem with their supposed moderation process."

X's rules, external explicitly prohibit "threats to inflict physical harm on others, which includes threatening to kill, torture, sexually assault or otherwise hurt someone".

In response to the complaint, X emailed: "After reviewing the available information, we want to let you know our automated systems found that [Connolly's X account] hasn't broken our rules against posting violent threats. We know this isn't the answer you're looking for."

The X user said they had previously flagged up concerning messages on the platform and had received similar responses.

"I've largely given up reporting now as I always get the 'no violation' response, despite clear breaches," they added.

Last month, policing minister Dame Diana Johnson said tech firms "have an obligation now" to tackle material that incites violence.

It followed an open letter, external from media regulator Ofcom to social media platforms that said they should take action against such posts and not wait until Ofcom gets enhanced powers under the Online Safety Act.

The new rules, which will come into force in 2025, will compel companies to take "robust action" against illegal content and activity.

Under the act, tech firms could be fined up to £18m or 10% of their qualifying worldwide revenue, and senior managers could face criminal action.

The user who complained to X about Connolly's post comes from the West Midlands but did not want to be identified because they feared trolling online.

"I have watched with dismay how racist rhetoric has flourished on the internet, across social media sites, spreading disinformation to deliberately stoke up division," they said.

"I don't think sites like X bear sole responsibility, but they play a significant role in the spread of disinformation and should, as a bare minimum, follow their own code of conduct."

The owner of X, Elon Musk, took to the platform to comment on the previous conviction of a Northampton man who was jailed for copying Connolly's message.

Tyler James Kay was sent to prison for 38 months after he admitted publishing the inflammatory posts calling for hotels housing asylum seekers to be set alight.

The billionaire described Mr Kay's conviction as "messed up" to his 196 million followers.

Connolly will be sentenced at Birmingham Crown Court on 17 October.

[crazy canuck]

Is anyone surprised to learn that X's automated systems didn't successfully replace all the employees who were terminated after Musk took over?

[The Minsky Moment]

Is anyone surprised to learn that X's automated systems didn't successfully replace all the employees who were terminated after Musk took over?

That's one interpretation.
The other is that the automated systems are working as designed.  Ex. A being Musk's comment on the Kay conviction.

[Sheilbh]

That's one interpretation.
The other is that the automated systems are working as designed.  Ex. A being Musk's comment on the Kay conviction.

I think this is it. Sunder Katwala is worth looking at for astonishingly racist accounts either being unbanned or not being sanctioned for very racist comments all over Twitter. It's a feature not a bug.

[crazy canuck]

Is anyone surprised to learn that X's automated systems didn't successfully replace all the employees who were terminated after Musk took over?

That's one interpretation.
The other is that the automated systems are working as designed.  Ex. A being Musk's comment on the Kay conviction.

For the systems to be designed in a particular way one would need to have workers to design them properly.  I'm not sure where Z would've gotten those
workers since they were all terminated.

Your alternative explanation requires a degree of sophistication and ability which likely does not exist.

The better explanation is that Whatever the systems are, They are completely inadequate to the task.

[crazy canuck]

That's one interpretation.
The other is that the automated systems are working as designed.  Ex. A being Musk's comment on the Kay conviction.

I think this is it. Sunder Katwala is worth looking at for astonishingly racist accounts either being unbanned or not being sanctioned for very racist comments all over Twitter. It's a feature not a bug.

It does not require any degree of sophisticated systems to allow people to post what they will.  It's actually easier to do if you don't put proper systems in place at all.  And that's probably what happened.

Both you and JR are giving way too much credit in assuming that a sophisticated system was developed when all of the evidence indicates that there was nobody there to do so.