zlacker

> Is this a problem now only because people you like are targeted?

Yes, this is exactly the problem but in the opposite direction you are implying.

Musk believed that Twitter blocking the sharing of an article about ToS breaking behavior was worthy of the “Twitter Files” when the story was bad for his political opponent, but he thinks it is fine when the story is bad for him. It shows that he has no actual principled beliefs. He simply is acting in his own best interest.

Odds are people would be more willing to accept Elon’s rules if Elons’s rules weren’t a constantly moving target of whatever benefits him the most at this exact moment.

>>slg+(OP)
In other words it strongly implies that the shifting current moods of individual high profile people are not a good way to sort out the rules of public discourse.

It's perfectly legal under the current rules as they apply to Twitter (in the United States) but one has to wonder (now and before) if it is advisable to keep them as such.

That is the public discussion societies around the world will have.

Elon Musk highlighted this issue by falsely and strongly claiming impartiality

>>Vespas+k3
Elon is showing exactly why we moved from absolute monarchs to constitutional systems with rule of law. He's running twitter as an absolute monarch, making up new rules to suit his whims, while he is above those rules.

And I think this also shows why corporate capitalism is inherently at odds with democracy: every corporation is effectively a dictatorship, their internal economy a plan economy, its rules at the whim of the CEO. And Elon is more eager than many CEOs to abuse this power. I wonder if it's going to lead to a revolution against corporations similar to the revolutions we got against monarchs.