Prime Minister Anthony Albanese responded by describing Musk as an “arrogant billionaire” who considered himself above the law and was out of touch with the public.
I’m criticizing Australia for trying to tell South Koreans what content they can share online with other South Koreans, amongst other things. Australia isn’t the World Police. I can freely join you in despising Elon Musk while still being very critical of the Aussie government.
So then Twitter should not adhere to what Musk personally said they would adhere to.
Why the hell not?
Because the Christchurch Call doesn’t say that terrorism videos should be taken down on a country-by-country basis.
An agreement Twitter consentually signed/agreed to is radically different from what the Aussie govt is trying to do here. Why are you conflating the two?
The Aussie government is literally trying to get Twitter to delete the tweets that promote terrorism as Twitter agreed to when it agreed to the Christchurch Call.
Australia is acting very American when it claims jurisdiction over the entire internet.
Fun fact: if Xitter wants to do business in Australia they have to follow their laws. This was never a problem until a manchild was in charge
Should Twitter adhere to what they pledged to adhere to? What Musk personally said they would adhere to?
https://www.christchurchcall.com/
Of course - not that it should surprise anybody that Elon Musk has absolutely zero integrity.
Then I don’t really understand your criticism.
I’m criticizing Australia for trying to tell South Koreans what content they can share online with other South Koreans, amongst other things. Australia isn’t the World Police. I can freely join you in despising Elon Musk while still being very critical of the Aussie government.
So then Twitter should not adhere to what Musk personally said they would adhere to.
Because the Christchurch Call doesn’t say that terrorism videos should be taken down on a country-by-country basis.
Why the hell not?
An agreement Twitter consentually signed/agreed to is radically different from what the Aussie govt is trying to do here. Why are you conflating the two?
The Aussie government is literally trying to get Twitter to delete the tweets that promote terrorism as Twitter agreed to when it agreed to the Christchurch Call.
Here’s a doozy:
The current Christchurch Call website shows Xitter as a signatory. What if man child demands that his company is taken off the website and it refuses?