Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Wednesday January 25 2023, @03:02PM   Printer-friendly
from the circle-of-life dept.

https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/21/potemkin-ai/#hey-guys

Here is how platforms die: first, they are good to their users; then they abuse their users to make things better for their business customers; finally, they abuse those business customers to claw back all the value for themselves. Then, they die.

I call this enshittification, and it is a seemingly inevitable consequence arising from the combination of the ease of changing how a platform allocates value, combined with the nature of a "two sided market," where a platform sits between buyers and sellers, hold each hostage to the other, raking off an ever-larger share of the value that passes between them.

[...] Search Amazon for "cat beds" and the entire first screen is ads, including ads for products Amazon cloned from its own sellers, putting them out of business (third parties have to pay 45% in junk fees to Amazon, but Amazon doesn't charge itself these fees). All told, the first five screens of results for "cat bed" are 50% ads.

This is enshittification: surpluses are first directed to users; then, once they're locked in, surpluses go to suppliers; then once they're locked in, the surplus is handed to shareholders and the platform becomes a useless pile of shit. From mobile app stores to Steam, from Facebook to Twitter, this is the enshittification lifecycle.


Original Submission

 
This discussion was created by janrinok (52) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 25 2023, @04:43PM (39 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 25 2023, @04:43PM (#1288547)

    Great first-glance. Let's look deeper. Elon believes in Free Speech. Everyone should study history, but no, many people think they're smarter than the USA's Founding Fathers, so they re-invent the concept. "If you say something I don't like, that's dangerous! You're dangerous!"

    Okay, then we do more and more and more policing of writing, speech, and everything, and we move ever more toward a totalitarian police state. Wonderful.

    Oh but wait, those same people want to defund police. Huh, something's not making sense.

    Back to Freedom of Speech.

    https://www.dosomething.org/us/facts/11-facts-about-free-speech [dosomething.org]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech [wikipedia.org]

    The better path is for everyone to take things with a grain of salt. "Triggered" are the people who can't let it go and move on with life. I guess they don't have enough to keep them busy.

    You have the right to be on the side of oppression. You have the right to talk and write about it, but wow, I'm not sure what you're afraid of. I'm not sure why you want to subvert the USA and its Constitution, and have to re-learn what the colonists went through that led them into a Revolution.

    I'm not sure why you'd support the philosophies that lead to, for example, countries in the world, right now, that MURDER their own citizens for daring to SPEAK against the established State Religion. You'd be one of the DEAD ones now. You don't seem to understand how much has gone into the centuries of struggles and fights and death that led to the freedoms you so obviously take for granted.

    Study, and think a bit, about where Elon is from, what they've gone through in only a few short generations. Sure, like all societies they have some problems, but look how far they've come, how much oppression they've overcome, the freedoms they now enjoy. They learned much from the USA's many many years of many many similar struggles. You and yours deeply dishonor people like the USA's Founding Fathers, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, and far too many to list here.

    You're much smarter than your words. Learn from history. Study it. Stop with the herding mentality. Shed your ego and pride that makes you think you're smarter than history's truly great people and what they did and sacrificed, for us.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +3  
       Flamebait=1, Troll=4, Insightful=6, Interesting=1, Overrated=1, Underrated=1, Touché=1, Total=15
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 25 2023, @06:41PM (32 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 25 2023, @06:41PM (#1288566)

    Lost me here:

    > ...and we move ever more toward a totalitarian police state...

    You falsely imagine a Golden Era when we had more free speech than we do now. We are talking about it now whereas in every other possible time and place in history we have been prohibited and prevented from speaking truth. Acknowledging the existence of prohibited speech is the beginnings of free speech. We can have a conversation about non-protected speech - oh look, we are. That's the opposite of a totalitarian police state.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by khallow on Wednesday January 25 2023, @07:30PM (24 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 25 2023, @07:30PM (#1288574) Journal

      You falsely imagine a Golden Era when we had more free speech than we do now.

      How about 20 years ago? That was when Twitter, Facebook, etc were young and didn't have all this censorship infrastructure in place and various governments hadn't cared enough to impose the requirement for such infrastructure. And given how much better 20 years ago is that now, forgive us for thinking that maybe it'll get worse 20 years from now - with some part of that harm coming from people who wet their pants over "dangerous tweets".

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 25 2023, @08:33PM (11 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 25 2023, @08:33PM (#1288591)

        Show me something that was written 20 years ago that is prohibited now.

        • (Score: 5, Funny) by kazzie on Wednesday January 25 2023, @09:05PM (2 children)

          by kazzie (5309) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 25 2023, @09:05PM (#1288597)

          I can't: It's prohibited.

          • (Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 25 2023, @10:55PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 25 2023, @10:55PM (#1288603)

            Well that's fucking convenient for your argument. A Golden Wonderland 20 years ago that was DEFINITELY TEH BESTEST but nobody except a few Elders remember nostalgically. That's definitely not ripe for abuse. May I purchase a red baseball cap too?

            • (Score: 5, Insightful) by driverless on Thursday January 26 2023, @12:38AM

              by driverless (4770) on Thursday January 26 2023, @12:38AM (#1288620)

              That's actually what makes MAGA so potent, everyone who's used it since Reagan (he was just the first of many) has recognised that it's effective because everyone decides for themselves when America was "great". Whether it was pre-Civil War with the darkies singin' in the fields and pickin' cotton or the late 1800s when a select few were getting rich off the suffering of others or the 1940s when we had the bomb and no-one else did or the 1950s when uppity women knew their place, everyone gets to chose the time they want to dream about.

              And, presumably, the demographic they at that time they want to be part of, because you certainly didn't want to be anything but a higher-level boss or owner during the Gilded Age.

        • (Score: 1, Informative) by khallow on Wednesday January 25 2023, @11:48PM (4 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 25 2023, @11:48PM (#1288609) Journal

          Show me something that was written 20 years ago that is prohibited now.

          The entire Twitter history [politico.com] of Donald Trump. Seriously, Twitter announced in April 2021, that it wouldn't let the National Archives make available former president Trump's tweets available. The entire history, including a couple decades of stuff that didn't get banned, was completely censored. That account lasted about 12 years [timesofisrael.com].

          • (Score: 0, Redundant) by khallow on Thursday January 26 2023, @12:04AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 26 2023, @12:04AM (#1288615) Journal

            including over a decade of stuff that didn't get banned

            Sorry, sloppy writing.

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2023, @08:13AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2023, @08:13AM (#1288673)

            That ain't prohibited you retard. That's your problem you didn't save them on your own hard drive rather than expect someone else to host that shit. You can read Trump's Tweets to your hearts content in any public space in this country. Shame on you - fuck you - for associating your precious expectations with oppression.

          • (Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday January 26 2023, @05:26PM (1 child)

            by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday January 26 2023, @05:26PM (#1288734) Journal

            The entire Twitter history [politico.com] of Donald Trump.

            Here ya go, first result on google. [thetrumparchive.com]

            • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Friday January 27 2023, @04:53AM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 27 2023, @04:53AM (#1288857) Journal
              And will that website be around in five years? There are no guarantees in life, but the National Archives is likely to be around then.
        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 26 2023, @02:19AM (2 children)

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday January 26 2023, @02:19AM (#1288633)

          Help me please, I am a good Christian Nigerian Prince who has been cast out by evil men in my country. I have a considerable fortune tied up in the U.S. banking system and I humbly ask your assistance in retrieving it. For your troubles I will reward you with 10% of my US$247 million balance. All we must do to retrieve my fortune, and your fee, is give me your account number...

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
          • (Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Saturday January 28 2023, @07:06PM (1 child)

            by hendrikboom (1125) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 28 2023, @07:06PM (#1289105) Homepage Journal

            In Europe it's pretty routine to give people your bank number, so that they can deposit money in it.
            So the normal practice isn't to write a cheque to pay someone; it's to send your bank a request to transfer money to their bank.
            It has the effect of eliminating NSF cheques.

            • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday January 28 2023, @08:35PM

              by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday January 28 2023, @08:35PM (#1289117)

              Oh, this is just the first step, the ones that respond to this are far more likely to take the next step and pay a "small fee" to release the funds.

              --
              🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday January 26 2023, @03:54AM (11 children)

        by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 26 2023, @03:54AM (#1288649)

        And given how much better 20 years ago is that now, forgive us for thinking that maybe it'll get worse 20 years from now - with some part of that harm coming from people who wet their pants over "dangerous tweets".

        Maybe if you directed some of your ire towards those that were making tweets dangerous instead of digging your heels in to defend them...

        --
        🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday January 26 2023, @04:40AM (10 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 26 2023, @04:40AM (#1288650) Journal

          Maybe if you directed some of your ire towards those that were making tweets dangerous instead of digging your heels in to defend them...

          I'd be wasting my time. Even if they were to change which is unlikely, someone new would take their place. There's not much point to caring in the first place either since dangerous tweets are about the same as non-dangerous tweets in terms of danger to others.

          And besides, the real problem here are the people who are willing to crack down on everyone's speech because there are mean/stupid people somewhere in the world.

          • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Tork on Thursday January 26 2023, @04:54AM (9 children)

            by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 26 2023, @04:54AM (#1288651)

            ... because there are mean/stupid people somewhere in the world

            Because people were hurt. This distinction is important because it's the reason lots of people scream about being CeNsOrEd when in actuality a private entity opted to sever their relationship with them. 🙄

            --
            🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 26 2023, @05:21AM (8 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 26 2023, @05:21AM (#1288652) Journal

              Because people were hurt.

              By those tweets? Prove it.

              • (Score: 3, Touché) by Tork on Thursday January 26 2023, @05:40AM (7 children)

                by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 26 2023, @05:40AM (#1288654)
                Heh. Let's just say if you were right, your best efforts to defend some of these people would be a lot more sophisticated than "nuh uh, plea deals and confessions don't count!"
                --
                🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 26 2023, @05:43AM (6 children)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 26 2023, @05:43AM (#1288655) Journal

                  Heh. Let's just say if you were right, your best efforts to defend some of these people would be a lot more sophisticated than "nuh uh, plea deals and confessions don't count!"

                  While I've defended such people, they didn't merely tweet. You're moving the goalposts.

                  • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by Tork on Thursday January 26 2023, @06:01AM (3 children)

                    by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 26 2023, @06:01AM (#1288658)
                    Heh. The reason we know why the people you're blindly defending did what they did was because they talked too much. They were even told the best-case scenario of that scheme wouldn't work and they went for it anyway. Most places don't want that shit happening on their platform, not even Truth.

                    Your energy would be better spent focused in the right direction.
                    --
                    🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
                    • (Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Thursday January 26 2023, @06:34AM (2 children)

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 26 2023, @06:34AM (#1288662) Journal

                      The reason we know why the people you're blindly defending did what they did was because they talked too much.

                      In other words, if things went as you claim, the talking actually made the situation safer by giving information to authorities which would stop further criminal acts.

                      • (Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday January 26 2023, @07:25AM (1 child)

                        by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 26 2023, @07:25AM (#1288665)
                        Maybe. But at the end of the day businesses can freely choose who they do business with. Perhaps if you change enough minds you can convince advertisers to look the other way while they facilitate altering the outcome of an election. 🤷‍♂️
                        --
                        🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 26 2023, @01:19PM

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 26 2023, @01:19PM (#1288691) Journal

                          But at the end of the day businesses can freely choose who they do business with.

                          Except of course under a variety of circumstances such as providing a public space (restricting their ability to restrict political speech, for example) or advertising their openness for who they do business with. My take is that this is in large part a bait and switch. This arbitrary censorship and massive personal data collecting isn't what users signed up for, but that's what they're getting now.

                          And if they're censoring people in exchange for benefits from a US-based government, the First Amendment comes into play. So no, there are constraints on that freedom. I think some of those come into play for major social media sites.

                          Perhaps if you change enough minds you can convince advertisers to look the other way while they facilitate altering the outcome of an election.

                          Perhaps.

                  • (Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday January 26 2023, @05:37PM (1 child)

                    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday January 26 2023, @05:37PM (#1288735) Journal

                    Seditious Conspiracy is a plot to overthrow the government. They did their plotting via tweet. And they were convicted of this crime by a jury of their peers.

                    Messages show Rhodes and the Oath Keepers discussing the prospect of a “bloody” civil war and the need to keep Biden out of the White House.

                    Four Oath Keepers convicted of Jan. 6 seditious conspiracy [apnews.com]

                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 26 2023, @07:24PM

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 26 2023, @07:24PM (#1288768) Journal

                      Messages show Rhodes and the Oath Keepers discussing the prospect of a “bloody” civil war and the need to keep Biden out of the White House.

                      And? The story has better:

                      Prosecutors alleged that the Oath Keepers amassed weapons and stashed them at a Virginia hotel for so-called “quick reaction force” teams that could quickly shuttle guns into Washington to support their plot if they were needed. The weapons were never used.

                      Defense attorneys sought to downplay violent messages as mere bluster and said the Oath Keepers came to Washington to provide security at events before the riot. They seized on prosecutors’ lack of evidence that the Oath Keepers had an explicit plan to storm the Capitol before Jan. 6 and told jurors that the extremists who attacked the Capitol acted spontaneously like thousands of other rioters.

                      Hackett, Moerschel and other Oath Keepers approached the Capitol in a military-style stack formation before they entered the building, according to prosecutors. Minuta and his group from a second stack of Oath Keepers clashed with police after heeding Rhodes’ call to race to the Capitol, according to court documents.

                      Prosecutors said that Vallejo, a U.S. Army veteran and Rhodes ally, drove from Arizona to prepare with the “QRF” — the quick reaction force — at the hotel outside Washington. Jurors heard an audio recording of Vallejo talking about a “declaration of a guerilla war” on the morning of Jan. 6.

                      That's real evidence but notice that key phrases "the weapons were never used" and "lack of evidence that the Oath Keepers had an explicit plan" (presumably the prosecution disagrees). Basically, if law enforcement on the scene had acted brutally, then we might see some real though disorganized sedition. But neither happened.

                      And that's a story of seditious conspiracy I'm willing to buy should we find more evidence for it (which might be in the court documents though no one has mentioned it yet): that there was intent by this group to use these protests to push the defenses of the Capitol hard enough that the escalation of large scale shooting started. That would provide ideological cover for the guns to come out of storage (they did have those "rapid deployment teams") and mass sedition/civil war to start. But so far, I still have yet to hear more here than a bunch of ITG (Internet tough guys) ranting about how awesome they'll be when the civil war starts and organizing their part of the January 6 protest (definitely not spontaneously!). The firearms could just as well be part of a paranoid, ill-thought self-defense plan (though that would be during the commission of at least felony trespass and unlikely to hold up in court as self-defense).

                      I still have yet to see the damning evidence of seditious conspiracy, but they do show remarkable bad behavior and numerous other crimes committed. They did plan their actions ahead of time which would be necessary for any sort of conspiracy charge. And if the police acted in the way that they expected or worried about, there probably would be a lot more deaths.

                      Again, this doesn't show a need for censorship of social media. Instead, I'd say social media helped defuse the situation by more rapidly bringing down public condemnation of the protest. There was remarkable professionalism and restraint on the part of the police involved versus the thuggish behavior of the protesters - much which was available unfiltered through that social media. And as a result, the protesters failed hard and more thoroughly than if they could have offered the excuse of censorship as to why they looked bad.

    • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 25 2023, @10:58PM (6 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 25 2023, @10:58PM (#1288604)

      Not sure who you are, but you're definitely someone who takes things to extremes. "Black-or-white" thinker, a.k.a "binary thinker" you are.

      It's a dynamic, in motion, moving toward totalitarianism. But, because you're obviously on the side of wanting more censorship, you defend censorship, and generally the side of "some speech will land you in prison".

      Nobody's arguing in favor of it being okay to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. It's a matter of drawing lines; shades of gray.

      I can't wait until they start censoring your beloved (but crazy) ideals being uttered or (gads!) written.

      • (Score: 2, Troll) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday January 26 2023, @07:26AM (5 children)

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday January 26 2023, @07:26AM (#1288666) Journal

        So incitement to violence is fine then?

        --
        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
        • (Score: 1, Disagree) by khallow on Thursday January 26 2023, @01:41PM (4 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 26 2023, @01:41PM (#1288695) Journal

          So incitement to violence is fine then?

          What incitement to violence? I think there's clear signs that this is already being misapplied badly.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday January 26 2023, @01:54PM (3 children)

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday January 26 2023, @01:54PM (#1288697) Journal

            I give you, just as a random example, the entire leadup to the January 6th insurrection. Stop playing dumb, asshole. No one's fooled.

            --
            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 26 2023, @06:42PM (2 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 26 2023, @06:42PM (#1288756) Journal

              I give you, just as a random example, the entire leadup to the January 6th insurrection.

              And that's relevant why? The lead up didn't commit any crimes except allegedly that of seditious conspiracy. It wouldn't count as incitement to violence since the participants all had plenty of opportunity to reflect on their future actions. That's a legal thing [ncac.org].

              Three elements must be met: (1) the speaker must intend to cause violence, (2) he or she must intend that the violence occur immediately, and (3) the violence must be likely to occur immediately.

              Moral of the story: learn what legal phrases mean before you drop them in an internet conversation where everyone has access to Google.

              • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday January 27 2023, @01:47AM (1 child)

                by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday January 27 2023, @01:47AM (#1288833) Journal

                "Stochastic terrorism" is a bit too advanced a concept for you I see. No one so blind as he who will not look, of course :)

                --
                I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 27 2023, @04:45AM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 27 2023, @04:45AM (#1288854) Journal

                  "Stochastic terrorism" is a bit too advanced a concept for you I see.

                  More too bullshit a phrase. I see serious use of the phrase as a sign of weaseling.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday January 26 2023, @05:11PM (3 children)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 26 2023, @05:11PM (#1288727) Journal

    Nobody was suppressing Elon's free speech. Nobody was suppressing Trump's free speech. Twitter (and other platforms) are not obligated to carry your message if it violates their policies. They were not trying to censor conservative views, they were stopping the spread of dangerous misinformation. If you want dangerous misinformation, there are plenty of platforms other than Twitter which are happy to provide you with that.

    YouTube was taking down videos of the Tide Pod Challenge. Is that censoring free speech? I say it is not. It is enforcing their written policy -- that the poster agreed to.

    Free Speech, in the constitution is only about the government not suppressing political views. Something that many other countries do, but the USA does not do. The government allows your free speech. Private platforms do not have to host it. And there are plenty of private platforms that will welcome dangerous misinformation if that is what you like.

    But I will suggest:

    Don't eat Tide Pods

    Don't take horse dewormer to treat a novel Avian Flu virus when there is a real vaccine available.

    Don't try to somehow put ultraviolet lights inside your body as a treatment for covid-19.

    Don't stand near the edge of a cliff.

    --
    The people who rely on government handouts and refuse to work should be kicked out of congress.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2023, @06:15PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2023, @06:15PM (#1288749)

      But I will suggest:

      Don't eat Tide Pods

      Don't take horse dewormer to treat a novel Avian Flu virus when there is a real vaccine available.

      Don't try to somehow put ultraviolet lights inside your body as a treatment for covid-19.

      Don't stand near the edge of a cliff.

      Oppression!

    • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2023, @10:04PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2023, @10:04PM (#1288812)

      Don't pull on Superman's cape.
      And don't spit in the wind either.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 27 2023, @04:50AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 27 2023, @04:50AM (#1288856) Journal

      Twitter (and other platforms) are not obligated to carry your message if it violates their policies.

      There are several exceptions. For example: when their policies are a case of false advertising, discriminating on the usual list (race, sex, political beliefs, religion, etc), and if they're acting as agents of a US-based government (subject to First Amendment).

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday January 26 2023, @05:21PM

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday January 26 2023, @05:21PM (#1288732) Journal

    Elon believes in Free Speech.

    Elon only cares about free speech for Elon.

    Meanwhile, he is busy banning anyone who dares to criticize him. [cnn.com]

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by DannyB on Friday January 27 2023, @02:43PM

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 27 2023, @02:43PM (#1288916) Journal

    Great first-glance. Let's look deeper. Elon believes in Free Speech

    Bzzzzzt. Elon does NOT believe in free speech. He just uses "free speech absolutist" to virtue signal. He doesn't believe in free speech and never will.

    THERE ARE NO FREE SPEECH ABSOLUTISTS.

    Just like there are no unicorns.

    Free Speech Absolutist Elon Musk Pulls Down Documentary About India PM Modi [techdirt.com]

    There’s a new documentary, produced by the BBC about India’s Prime Minister, Narendra Modi. [ . . . . ] And, apparently, it doesn’t make Modi look very good. I know this because India has banned the documentary. And is also demanding that clips of the documentary be removed from the internet.

    And Twitter (and YouTube) have complied.

    Elon has banned other things on Twitter that he personally did not like. So please don't tell me Elon believes in free speech. He just got triggered because someone he worships violated Twitter's well stated policies -- policies that the user agreed to -- and then that person got kicked off several social media platforms for willfully spreading dangerous misinformation.

    --
    The people who rely on government handouts and refuse to work should be kicked out of congress.