What is the issue? Now there’s a goddamn paper trail of who asked for it and then the entity performed it. Get that shit in discovery if there’s actual harm. Odds are it’s mostly pearl clutching about how somebody’s elephant ballet porn got kicked out or some other dumb stuff.
Context:
Recently I went through a very toxic workplace gig that caused a severe mental episode, of issues I’ve known and been working to treat, but it damn near killed me and definitely hurt my family a LOT. After consulting with attorneys, the only recourse would be fiscally stupid - it would cost more to use the courts than recoup. These were good attorneys who felt very bad for what I went through.
That’s when I had the epiphany that the MSA handcuffs don’t mean shit unless they can prove harm in court. At that point, they are wasting shareholder money and company time on a personal vendetta - as a private company, that can be their choice, but it’s objectively stupid.
I’m still on the fence about going full name and shame, but they denied my unemployment claim so I was able to inform the workforce commission about their payments for works performed were more than a week after the law mandates…so I’ll let the professionals look into my claims before I let the whole peanut gallery take a crack at it.
My point? There are probably fewer than 10 cases where this will have significant juice to be worth fighting. Those will be worth it. Your elephant ballet pr0n? Plenty of republican message boards that would probably love to be flooded with that content.
They might say they want you to stop, but don’t mind that nonsense.
> Now there’s a goddamn paper trail of who asked for it and then the entity performed it. Get that shit in discovery if there’s actual harm. Odds are it’s mostly pearl clutching about how somebody’s elephant ...
So governments are going to agree to oversight of these requests then? Because that's what a paper trail is, if it's not public then it's not a paper trail. And if it is public that's true, then why do we only hear about it now?
> there’s a goddamn paper trail of who asked for it and then the entity performed it
Wait, what? The government asked somebody to censor something and instead they made a copy of what was censored and made that available? If so, I'm totally fine with that and will make that my feed, but that's not how I read this - when the government asks for something to be censored, it's unavailable for anybody to see what it was or that it ever existed (that's the point of censorship after all).
>What is the issue? Now there’s a goddamn paper trail of who asked for it and then the entity performed it. Get that shit in discovery if there’s actual harm. Odds are it’s mostly pearl clutching about how somebody’s elephant ballet porn got kicked out or some other dumb stuff.
In the USA context, if the government has a portal to prevent your speech without regard to the courts. That's a tremendous violation of your rights and would be an actual harm.
The problem is the blame has been on twitter. As if twitter itself has been the one responsible for shutting down the speech. The harmed person can't do anything because twitter is protected by the government.
Fundamentally the anti-republican speech reality may or may not have been ordered by the government. Rather than just twitter itself.
The big "nightmare" of elon's twitter is the government may be revealed as the one who has been illegally curbing speech. This has been vaguely confirmed by Jack Dorsey.
What happens when elon simply reveals this reality? Afterall why continue damaging the reputation of twitter? The reality is that the US government will have a large quantity of 1984 lawsuits paying out to republicans.
Context:
Recently I went through a very toxic workplace gig that caused a severe mental episode, of issues I’ve known and been working to treat, but it damn near killed me and definitely hurt my family a LOT. After consulting with attorneys, the only recourse would be fiscally stupid - it would cost more to use the courts than recoup. These were good attorneys who felt very bad for what I went through.
That’s when I had the epiphany that the MSA handcuffs don’t mean shit unless they can prove harm in court. At that point, they are wasting shareholder money and company time on a personal vendetta - as a private company, that can be their choice, but it’s objectively stupid.
I’m still on the fence about going full name and shame, but they denied my unemployment claim so I was able to inform the workforce commission about their payments for works performed were more than a week after the law mandates…so I’ll let the professionals look into my claims before I let the whole peanut gallery take a crack at it.
My point? There are probably fewer than 10 cases where this will have significant juice to be worth fighting. Those will be worth it. Your elephant ballet pr0n? Plenty of republican message boards that would probably love to be flooded with that content.
They might say they want you to stop, but don’t mind that nonsense.