The story via Twitter itself felt a lot more interesting than after Rolling Stone explained it. I do think Elon made a rare poignant statement about First Amendment insofar as Twitter taking instruction from politicians. I didn't realize the missing tweets were hacked nudes.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/elon-musk-twitter-files-1234640842/
@evaschue I think you removed your reply. I wanted to thoughtfully add to what you said though:
They were both things, politicians and campaigners. But I do see your point; The instruction wasn't coming from the White House or other government entity.
I still thought this showed more of a nuanced grasp of the 1st Amendment than what he had said previously, even if you're right that the campaigns are not "the government" as he implies here.
@evaschue I never understood the "public square" argument. Given the context that the instruction came from campaigns and not the goverment, as I said, doesn't appear to violate the 1st Amendment. It's still, for lack of a better word, juicy to me that the campaigns would do it.
The part I struggle with is Twitter as a company and what it chooses to broadcast. I always likened a lot of social media to modern-day printing presses and TV broadcasters. 1/
@evaschue Twitter as a company on its own seems free to me to publish or omit any speech it wants to, no matter how much Elon says he's a "1st Amendment absolutist" and all that b.s.
But as a broadcaster and/or publisher, I don't know. To what extent does that complicate its relationship with the 1st Amendment? Maybe it doesn't. I just thought it was interesting. And likewise enlightening to learn via Rolling Stone those tweets were removed for violating an internal hacked info. policy. 2/2
Saul Sugarman
eva.schue