Complying with the incumbent to silence opposition is a political decision.
Comment on X.com blocks access to Ekrem Imamoglu, leader of Turkish opposition
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 3 weeks ago
A little context might have been nice, but then the musk hate and conspiracy theories would be harder to justify:
X restricted Imamoglu’s account in Turkey complying with a legal request by Turkish authorities who cited national security and public order concerns.
sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 3 weeks ago
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 3 weeks ago
Complying with the incumbent to silence opposition is a political decision.
No it’s not. Did you even read the linked X Global Affairs post?
Lack of compliance with these orders can lead to severe sanctions, including throttling of the entire platform in Türkiye. X complied with the court order while we challenge the order in court because we believe keeping the platform accessible in Türkiye is vital to supporting freedom of expression and access to information, particularly following natural disasters and other emergencies.
It’s not a political decision, it’s a legal one. If they don’t comply then the entire site can legally be banned from the entire country, for example.
sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 3 weeks ago
Yes I read that and hold that this decision is still highly political. Technically X can choose to simply not exist in Turkey. Obviously they won’t do thos and Erdogan knows this, profit is king. This doesn’t change the fact that they are choosing to cow to threats by a dictator. Legal decisions are political and ahve political implications. Who do you think wrote those laws?
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 3 weeks ago
So you think that instead of complying while fighting the legal order and being able to tell users that what is happening, you think that they should pull the entire site from the country?
They aren’t “choosing to cow to threats by a dictator” - they are following the law, and fighting the legal order through the courts.
Come on mate lol. They’re doing the absolute most user and free speech friendly thing they can possibly do given the situation.
Ulrich@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
The context is in the article in the OP. It doesn’t really matter. Elon is notoriously apathetic about the law. He could choose not to comply as he does so very often and realistically face very little in the way of repercussions. But that’s how little he actually cares about free speech.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 3 weeks ago
The context is extremely important in this one. It changes the sentiment from “Musk is censoring the political opposition because he supports the government” to “Musk complied with the legal demands so as to not have to remove X from the entire country of Turkey, and is fighting the demands in court as he says they are censorship”.
X is now notoriously law abiding, but also notorious for fighting against government ordered censorship in court. They comply with legal orders so as to not face legal trouble, and then file legal challenges - even going so far as to pay for and help with legal challenges for individuals who the government are censoring.
Ulrich@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
It’s not important. Elon did not say “I’m a free speech absolutist within the confines of the law”. Free speech absolutism does not make exceptions for law.
Further, those legal demands were made by a foreign country with no authority over him or his company. Here’s some helpful context: Elon doesn’t even recognize the local authority but suddenly he bends knee to authority demanded from the other side of the planet? Nah.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 3 weeks ago
It absolutely does when you’re running a business.
Companies operating in a country need to follow that countries laws, or they can’t operate in that country. Fact.
Why do you think the GDPR laws were such a big deal worldwide?
Gsus4@mander.xyz 3 weeks ago
Yeah, he has to, but he will bitch for a month if this happens for even more legitimate reasons in any country that is a functioning democracy e.g. UK, Brazil, Biden US, Germany, South Africa…
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 3 weeks ago
X is challenging the legal order in court btw:
x.com/GlobalAffairs/status/1920426409358455081
Just like they have done and are doing in basically every country that makes legal demands like this.
Deceptichum@quokk.au 3 weeks ago
Oh thats funny because they refused to take down the Sydney stabbing videos, despite being told to for months. They gave us a half arsed geoblock for Australia while still allowing the offending material to circulate.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 3 weeks ago
They took the stabbing videos down in Australia. They fought against removing them from the rest of the world saying that the Australian “safety commissioner” doesn’t have the jurisdiction to do that.