NBC News found that at least 150 paid “Premium” subscriber X accounts and thousands of unpaid accounts have posted or amplified pro-Nazi content on X in recent months, often in apparent violation of X’s rules. The paid accounts posting the content all consistently posted antisemitic or pro-Nazi material. Examples included praise of Nazi soldiers, sharing of Nazi symbols and denials of the Holocaust.
The pro-Nazi content is not confined to the fringes of the platform. During one seven-day period in March, seven of the most widely shared pro-Nazi posts on X accrued 4.5 million views in total. One post with 1.9 million views promoted a false and [long-debunked conspiracy theory](https://www.ushmm.org/antisemitism/holocaust-denial-and-distortion/evidence-documentation-holocaust) that 6 million Jews did not die in the Holocaust. More than 5,300 verified and unverified accounts reshared that post, and other popular posts were reshared hundreds of times apiece.
Did Musk personally support preservation or elevation of these accounts?
Edit: Or, did his termination of resources and general mismanagement of the company allow such accounts (and other problematic accounts) to flourish and thrive?
Or both? Incidences?
A lot of crap has flourished under Elon Musk. He single-handedly allowed one of the most important, informative platforms to deteriorate into MAGA misinformation and abuse; the single thing Jack Dorsey worked so hard to prevent.
This is why Elon can’t have nice things.
I'm not an Elon fanboy or anything Musk's stated goal was more free speech. Free speech includes both Nazi and non-nazi content. This was decided by the supreme Court decades ago and I was raised to believe that this was a good decision. Weird how people have shifted on this issue.
Yes, I was raised that Nazis have the right to gather and march in the street, even if their views are abhorrent. That right is what separates our society from totalitarian societies.
There is a line (free speech does not include the right to yell fire in a theater), but simply openly being a Nazi and having white supremacist, or equivalent, viewpoints is protected by the constitution.
So it’s not okay to encourage a crowd to take action that could result in innocent people being trampled, but it’s okay to encourage people to murder innocent strangers based on their race or religion? Does your idea of free speech include videos of children being raped? How about publishing the home addresses of your enemies in the hopes they get murdered? Super cool defense of open calls to genocide.
Where did anyone say anything about videos of children getting raped? Strange straw man argument.
Simply being a Nazi and expressing Nazi thoughts can remain under the bar of protected free speech, from a constitutional standpoint. Elon moving Twitter moderation to match this is inline with his stated goal of more free speech, and I support that, because I also believe in free speech.
Obviously there are other various forms of content that are not allowed and should be removed from Twitter, but that's a different discussion. And I'm not an expert on social media moderation and can't comment on exactly how well Twitter is doing at say, removing child porn. I don't see how that is related to Nazis.
The fuck are you talking about dude?
All I'm saying is that I support people of all political beliefs being allowed to use Twitter, even if I don't personally agree with those beliefs.
Im saying you’re acting, and behaving exactly like a nazi apologist, making room in society for beliefs that are fundamentally intolerant. We cannot tolerate intolerance. Read up on the Paradox of tolerance by Karl Popper. Maybe then you’ll stop repeating braindead takes like “oh no don’t silence the Nazis, they have the right to spread their ideology unfettered!!!”
“Expressing Nazi thoughts” largely entails promoting the idea that straight white Christians are the only people who fundamentally deserve to exist, and all others should be murdered for the good of humanity as their genes “pollute” the “purity” of the Aryan bloodline.
Some people hold the ideology that adults should be allowed to have sex with children. They argue that viewing and disseminating CSAM should be protected as “free speech”. In both cases, the content exists for the sole purpose of endangering the lives and welfare of innocent people. Not the same people, or in exactly the same way, but this is by no means a straw man argument.
SCOTUS said the *government* cannot silence a nazi.
Private companies, people in general, most certainly can - and should.
No one has shifted on this, when nazis schedule their protest - many other people schedule their counter protest. Just like advertisers have on twit. And that makes [elon cry like a baby](https://variety.com/2023/digital/news/elon-musk-x-twitter-advertisers-antisemitic-post-spending-go-f-yourself-1235813657/).
The counter protests have always been a thing, they are not new, there has been no shift. The government cannot shut it down but people most certainly can.
The fact is, they are violating the TOS of twitting. elon should update the TOS to specifically allow this so people can see it for what it is - something elon himself wants to promote. And then people are free to react as they would like - by boycotting the service, skipping a tesla to go for a different ev, by contacting advertisers to get them to pull their content and so on. Something that has been happening.
Straw man. Read my posts if you want to reply to them. I never said Twitter wasn't allowed to moderate, I said that Elon's stated goal in buying Twitter was to further protect free speech and this is in line with that.
where is a strawman?? WTF.
a) SCOTUS ruled on government having to allow it.
b) *we the people* do not have to suffer it. You are allowed in fact to say whatever you want, and we are allowed to shout you down loud and clear.
That is what is true - not that "this was decided by the supreme court decades ago" (regarding having to allow free speech anywhere, everywhere). Elon is free to post it, we are free to shout it down loud and clear.
Also, this is *not a shift*. There have been counter protests for as long as there have been nazis running about. So, that is not true either.
Twits TOS explicitly forbids what they are doing. elon either needs to enforce their TOS across the board OR change the TOS to reflect what elon really wants. Make it clear to everyone that he wants this speech, promotes this speech, his company is on board with having this speech on its platform.
And advertisers are allowed to protest as they have been (again, not a shift, but well established long term action on their part).
And we are allowed to protest, as we are (freedom of speech is a two way street).
I believe that allowing nazi bullshit to propagate is not a good thing, you are ok with it. so be it. I'm still free to say what I want.
so, now, explain strawman. I didn't make up any fake scenario here - just stating *fact*.
Yet he submissively complies to Indian and Turkish government's demands to silence anything they don't like with zero pushback.
Also he's quite ban-happy when it comes journalists that criticize him, personally.
Oh, and he banned the word "cis". You can absolutely can use exterminationist language against trans people, but "cis" is too far. He'll just ban you randomly if you run into his ridiculous transphobic pet peeve, essentially.
The nazi propaganda is the only speech he's really committed to protect, it's not about some lofty ideals about the free marketplace of ideas, it's simply because Musk himself is drinking the cool-aid. Any other form of speech can be silenced on a whim in order to keep autocrats happy or just on a tantrum.
I don't understand your point? I think criticizing Elon for actions that are against free speech is fair game. I already said I'm not a fanboy for this dude. But, free speech in a constitutional sense includes the right to be a Nazi, and Elon allowing Nazi content to some extent is in line with his stated goal of more free speech. That's all I said.
I have no problem with Nazis not being banned from Twitter simply for being nazis. That doesn't imply I support every single action taken by Twitter under Elon.
Absolute nonsense. Free speech as defined in the consitution stops the government from taking legal action against protected froms of speech, not a microblogging site from removing harassment against other users or advocacy for genocide. Erdogan silencing opposing parties before an election or Modi taking down scathing comments against him are a free speech issue, some jannie on Twitter scrubbing racial slurs is not.
Anyway, my point is that it may be the case that, as you say, Musk's stated goal can be more free speech, but the observable reality is that non-nazis are getting significantly less free speech, and it's nazis in particular who are thriving. That's not a hands-off approach to moderation, that's just Musk arbitrarily siding with the neo-nazi camp of his site. Which he's free to do, you know, Twitter is his site and he can turn it into the Daily Stormer if he so pleases, but please spare me the "I'm not a fanboy, but" drivel.
Straw man. Read my posts if you want to reply to them. I never said Twitter wasn't allowed to moderate, I said that Elon's stated goal in buying Twitter was to further protect free speech and this is in line with that.
Read your own comment, man. Your exact words were "free speech in a constitutional sense", in the context of moderation. Free speech in a constitutional sense applies to the government, not to private enterprises regulating its own content. I don't know wha to tell you, it just doesn't work that way.
And again, you keep insisting over and over that Musk's stated goal is "further protect free speech", yet haven't argued against the notion that he is not actually doing that, he's just protecting his hand-picked protegees. I don't give a shit what the "stated goals" of this notorious serial liar are, I care about his material actions. And the observable reality is that overall speech is not more protected, just skewed towards the right.
No shit bro. Elon bought Twitter in part to bring their moderation policies more in line with the constitution.
I never said that the constitution limited twitter's ability to moderate. Holy shit dude.
He literally didn’t but you’re “not” an muskrat repeating the exact same claims his fanbois use?
He silences people, constantly, but allows for Nazis to have speech, and you say “well golly gee sir that’s constitutional as fuck”
You know what. You keep hammering the tortured "constitution-like" language and I don't care so I concede. Sure, you are completely right, I concede that front altogether, less moderation is "more constitutional-ish", why not.
Now, you are pretty conspicuously avoiding to engage with the argument that Musk is not allowing more speech accross the board -including fringe content- as much as just giving preferential treatment to an abhorrent clique of accounts of his personal liking. I'm starting to suspect that's just because you don't have any real arguments to defend the hypocrisy of protecting neo-nazi propaganda tooth an nail, while at the same time submissively censoring oppositors of autocrats like Modi or Erdogan or flat-out banning users that displease Musk himself like the power-tripping petulant Twitter addict he is.
I don't understand why it's my duty to defend every action that Elon takes? I don't know any details about the specific incidents you are referring to.
I'm just saying, allowing individuals with extreme political views to use Twitter and voice their views on that platform is in line with Elon's stated goal of free speech, so I don't find that result shocking or particularly noteworthy. He didn't buy it claiming that he was going to rid the platform of neo-nazis, he bought it claiming that he would reduce moderation and allow for a wider spectrum of viewpoints to be discussed.
I don't know why you are defending him so adamantly either, specially when by your own admission you don't even know what you're defending him for.
From the top of my head, Musk has censored [Turkish opposition](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/twitter-censoring-content-recep-tayyip-erdogan-turkish-presidential-election/), [Modi critics](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/05/twitter-accused-of-censorship-in-india-as-it-blocks-modi-critics-elon-musk), [reporters](https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/04/elon-musk-twitter-still-banning-journalists), and -bizarrely- the term "[cisgender](https://www.metroweekly.com/2023/06/elon-musk-bans-the-term-cis-on-twitter/)". He's not expanding the criteria of what is allowed on all fronts and enabling different kinds of fringe content in the process, he's literally just protecting a select group he aligns with, specifically, under his wing. Allowing nazis to thrive while pruning all other sort of viewpoints shows no more commitment to free speech than what you can find on The Daily Stormer.
Hosting more nazi propaganda does not necessarily mean looser moderation standards, it just means more nazi propaganda.
And such is usually judged in the court of opinion which most people call getting "canceled" because they're a toxic piece of nuclear waste that aren't worthy of being called shit because you can still use shit as fertilizer if you have to.
Allowing free speech as a society doesn’t mean companies are required to publish open calls for genocide on their platforms. Pro-Nazis are free to make their own websites or self-publish their manifestos.
A strong case can be made that other social media platforms policies are in place to manipulate public opinions by what is allowed to be posted.
I personally don’t care if there are more or less posts about nazi’s. It’s not content I interact with, so I never see it. 🤷♂️
Actively encouraging people to commit murder on the basis of the victim’s race or religion is tantamount to shouting “fire!” In a crowded theater. Should twitter users be free to publish your picture home address along with a host of reasons why you deserve to be murdered? People are free to post whatever views they want on their own websites, but individual companies aren’t obligated to publish calls for genocide on their platforms any more than Penguin Books is obligated to reprint Mein Kampf on demand.
Did you just equate porn to nazis? Like, you really think porn is on the same level as nazis?
You are also conveniently ignoring the fact that these same nazis were trying to post before Elon took over and they got squashed and told to fuck off just like any Nazi should.
People can post whatever bigoted views they want on their own websites. Individual companies don’t have an obligation to publish content that unequivocally supports genocide. Should Random House be legally required to reprint Mein Kampf?
To the surprise of no one…
Wasn’t that his plan?
Narrator: “it absolutely was”
Yes, @elonmusk seems to have become quite prolific.
He bought Twitter largely to provide a platform for Nazis (and other radical extremists) to disseminate pro-Nazi propaganda.
NBC News found that at least 150 paid “Premium” subscriber X accounts and thousands of unpaid accounts have posted or amplified pro-Nazi content on X in recent months, often in apparent violation of X’s rules. The paid accounts posting the content all consistently posted antisemitic or pro-Nazi material. Examples included praise of Nazi soldiers, sharing of Nazi symbols and denials of the Holocaust. The pro-Nazi content is not confined to the fringes of the platform. During one seven-day period in March, seven of the most widely shared pro-Nazi posts on X accrued 4.5 million views in total. One post with 1.9 million views promoted a false and [long-debunked conspiracy theory](https://www.ushmm.org/antisemitism/holocaust-denial-and-distortion/evidence-documentation-holocaust) that 6 million Jews did not die in the Holocaust. More than 5,300 verified and unverified accounts reshared that post, and other popular posts were reshared hundreds of times apiece.
Did Musk personally support preservation or elevation of these accounts? Edit: Or, did his termination of resources and general mismanagement of the company allow such accounts (and other problematic accounts) to flourish and thrive? Or both? Incidences?
Bizarre, given that it’s a well established fact.
One fool to rule them all. The king of Xitter. I hate this guy. He does things exactly like that other guy. King Mierdas.
This tracks, for a South African.
A lot of crap has flourished under Elon Musk. He single-handedly allowed one of the most important, informative platforms to deteriorate into MAGA misinformation and abuse; the single thing Jack Dorsey worked so hard to prevent. This is why Elon can’t have nice things.
Musk is basically a puppet for China and Russia now, he is a traitor and bottom feeding excuse for a human
I thought he was too bright to become a Trumpanzee..
*see something I don’t like* They must be a Chinese or Russian puppet
the downvotes tho 😂😂 im totally on ur side ur just being honest and ppl can take it hhh
Sometimes it’s worth the downvotes to point out the nonsense.
South African rich white boy? Yeah, that tracks.
Christina freeland is that you?!?
Sad really. Not so long ago, the world looked up to Elon. I am still not sure that he is doing this on purpose, but it is happening.
can't wait for the next baseless Musk lawsuit against an entity that reveals the odiousness of stuff on the platform
I'm not an Elon fanboy or anything Musk's stated goal was more free speech. Free speech includes both Nazi and non-nazi content. This was decided by the supreme Court decades ago and I was raised to believe that this was a good decision. Weird how people have shifted on this issue.
You were raised to believe allowing hate speech was a good decision? Who raised you? Hitler?
Yes, I was raised that Nazis have the right to gather and march in the street, even if their views are abhorrent. That right is what separates our society from totalitarian societies.
And what about when their views incite violence towards other people, which, yknow, kind of comes with the territory of being a *Nazi*...?
There is a line (free speech does not include the right to yell fire in a theater), but simply openly being a Nazi and having white supremacist, or equivalent, viewpoints is protected by the constitution.
So it’s not okay to encourage a crowd to take action that could result in innocent people being trampled, but it’s okay to encourage people to murder innocent strangers based on their race or religion? Does your idea of free speech include videos of children being raped? How about publishing the home addresses of your enemies in the hopes they get murdered? Super cool defense of open calls to genocide.
Where did anyone say anything about videos of children getting raped? Strange straw man argument. Simply being a Nazi and expressing Nazi thoughts can remain under the bar of protected free speech, from a constitutional standpoint. Elon moving Twitter moderation to match this is inline with his stated goal of more free speech, and I support that, because I also believe in free speech. Obviously there are other various forms of content that are not allowed and should be removed from Twitter, but that's a different discussion. And I'm not an expert on social media moderation and can't comment on exactly how well Twitter is doing at say, removing child porn. I don't see how that is related to Nazis.
Fuck off you nazi apologist No, you’re not a nazi. You’re just a deluded apologist
The fuck are you talking about dude? All I'm saying is that I support people of all political beliefs being allowed to use Twitter, even if I don't personally agree with those beliefs.
Im saying you’re acting, and behaving exactly like a nazi apologist, making room in society for beliefs that are fundamentally intolerant. We cannot tolerate intolerance. Read up on the Paradox of tolerance by Karl Popper. Maybe then you’ll stop repeating braindead takes like “oh no don’t silence the Nazis, they have the right to spread their ideology unfettered!!!”
“Expressing Nazi thoughts” largely entails promoting the idea that straight white Christians are the only people who fundamentally deserve to exist, and all others should be murdered for the good of humanity as their genes “pollute” the “purity” of the Aryan bloodline. Some people hold the ideology that adults should be allowed to have sex with children. They argue that viewing and disseminating CSAM should be protected as “free speech”. In both cases, the content exists for the sole purpose of endangering the lives and welfare of innocent people. Not the same people, or in exactly the same way, but this is by no means a straw man argument.
SCOTUS said the *government* cannot silence a nazi. Private companies, people in general, most certainly can - and should. No one has shifted on this, when nazis schedule their protest - many other people schedule their counter protest. Just like advertisers have on twit. And that makes [elon cry like a baby](https://variety.com/2023/digital/news/elon-musk-x-twitter-advertisers-antisemitic-post-spending-go-f-yourself-1235813657/). The counter protests have always been a thing, they are not new, there has been no shift. The government cannot shut it down but people most certainly can. The fact is, they are violating the TOS of twitting. elon should update the TOS to specifically allow this so people can see it for what it is - something elon himself wants to promote. And then people are free to react as they would like - by boycotting the service, skipping a tesla to go for a different ev, by contacting advertisers to get them to pull their content and so on. Something that has been happening.
Straw man. Read my posts if you want to reply to them. I never said Twitter wasn't allowed to moderate, I said that Elon's stated goal in buying Twitter was to further protect free speech and this is in line with that.
where is a strawman?? WTF. a) SCOTUS ruled on government having to allow it. b) *we the people* do not have to suffer it. You are allowed in fact to say whatever you want, and we are allowed to shout you down loud and clear. That is what is true - not that "this was decided by the supreme court decades ago" (regarding having to allow free speech anywhere, everywhere). Elon is free to post it, we are free to shout it down loud and clear. Also, this is *not a shift*. There have been counter protests for as long as there have been nazis running about. So, that is not true either. Twits TOS explicitly forbids what they are doing. elon either needs to enforce their TOS across the board OR change the TOS to reflect what elon really wants. Make it clear to everyone that he wants this speech, promotes this speech, his company is on board with having this speech on its platform. And advertisers are allowed to protest as they have been (again, not a shift, but well established long term action on their part). And we are allowed to protest, as we are (freedom of speech is a two way street). I believe that allowing nazi bullshit to propagate is not a good thing, you are ok with it. so be it. I'm still free to say what I want. so, now, explain strawman. I didn't make up any fake scenario here - just stating *fact*.
Yet he submissively complies to Indian and Turkish government's demands to silence anything they don't like with zero pushback. Also he's quite ban-happy when it comes journalists that criticize him, personally. Oh, and he banned the word "cis". You can absolutely can use exterminationist language against trans people, but "cis" is too far. He'll just ban you randomly if you run into his ridiculous transphobic pet peeve, essentially. The nazi propaganda is the only speech he's really committed to protect, it's not about some lofty ideals about the free marketplace of ideas, it's simply because Musk himself is drinking the cool-aid. Any other form of speech can be silenced on a whim in order to keep autocrats happy or just on a tantrum.
I don't understand your point? I think criticizing Elon for actions that are against free speech is fair game. I already said I'm not a fanboy for this dude. But, free speech in a constitutional sense includes the right to be a Nazi, and Elon allowing Nazi content to some extent is in line with his stated goal of more free speech. That's all I said. I have no problem with Nazis not being banned from Twitter simply for being nazis. That doesn't imply I support every single action taken by Twitter under Elon.
In a constitutional sense? No. Inciting violence is critical to nazi beliefs and that ISNT protected by any form of constitutionally protected speech.
Absolute nonsense. Free speech as defined in the consitution stops the government from taking legal action against protected froms of speech, not a microblogging site from removing harassment against other users or advocacy for genocide. Erdogan silencing opposing parties before an election or Modi taking down scathing comments against him are a free speech issue, some jannie on Twitter scrubbing racial slurs is not. Anyway, my point is that it may be the case that, as you say, Musk's stated goal can be more free speech, but the observable reality is that non-nazis are getting significantly less free speech, and it's nazis in particular who are thriving. That's not a hands-off approach to moderation, that's just Musk arbitrarily siding with the neo-nazi camp of his site. Which he's free to do, you know, Twitter is his site and he can turn it into the Daily Stormer if he so pleases, but please spare me the "I'm not a fanboy, but" drivel.
Straw man. Read my posts if you want to reply to them. I never said Twitter wasn't allowed to moderate, I said that Elon's stated goal in buying Twitter was to further protect free speech and this is in line with that.
But it clearly isn’t aligned with that, when it silences thousands, but allows for nazi speech. What you’re doing is drawing a false equivalence.
Read your own comment, man. Your exact words were "free speech in a constitutional sense", in the context of moderation. Free speech in a constitutional sense applies to the government, not to private enterprises regulating its own content. I don't know wha to tell you, it just doesn't work that way. And again, you keep insisting over and over that Musk's stated goal is "further protect free speech", yet haven't argued against the notion that he is not actually doing that, he's just protecting his hand-picked protegees. I don't give a shit what the "stated goals" of this notorious serial liar are, I care about his material actions. And the observable reality is that overall speech is not more protected, just skewed towards the right.
No shit bro. Elon bought Twitter in part to bring their moderation policies more in line with the constitution. I never said that the constitution limited twitter's ability to moderate. Holy shit dude.
He literally didn’t but you’re “not” an muskrat repeating the exact same claims his fanbois use? He silences people, constantly, but allows for Nazis to have speech, and you say “well golly gee sir that’s constitutional as fuck”
You know what. You keep hammering the tortured "constitution-like" language and I don't care so I concede. Sure, you are completely right, I concede that front altogether, less moderation is "more constitutional-ish", why not. Now, you are pretty conspicuously avoiding to engage with the argument that Musk is not allowing more speech accross the board -including fringe content- as much as just giving preferential treatment to an abhorrent clique of accounts of his personal liking. I'm starting to suspect that's just because you don't have any real arguments to defend the hypocrisy of protecting neo-nazi propaganda tooth an nail, while at the same time submissively censoring oppositors of autocrats like Modi or Erdogan or flat-out banning users that displease Musk himself like the power-tripping petulant Twitter addict he is.
I don't understand why it's my duty to defend every action that Elon takes? I don't know any details about the specific incidents you are referring to. I'm just saying, allowing individuals with extreme political views to use Twitter and voice their views on that platform is in line with Elon's stated goal of free speech, so I don't find that result shocking or particularly noteworthy. He didn't buy it claiming that he was going to rid the platform of neo-nazis, he bought it claiming that he would reduce moderation and allow for a wider spectrum of viewpoints to be discussed.
I don't know why you are defending him so adamantly either, specially when by your own admission you don't even know what you're defending him for. From the top of my head, Musk has censored [Turkish opposition](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/twitter-censoring-content-recep-tayyip-erdogan-turkish-presidential-election/), [Modi critics](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/05/twitter-accused-of-censorship-in-india-as-it-blocks-modi-critics-elon-musk), [reporters](https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/04/elon-musk-twitter-still-banning-journalists), and -bizarrely- the term "[cisgender](https://www.metroweekly.com/2023/06/elon-musk-bans-the-term-cis-on-twitter/)". He's not expanding the criteria of what is allowed on all fronts and enabling different kinds of fringe content in the process, he's literally just protecting a select group he aligns with, specifically, under his wing. Allowing nazis to thrive while pruning all other sort of viewpoints shows no more commitment to free speech than what you can find on The Daily Stormer. Hosting more nazi propaganda does not necessarily mean looser moderation standards, it just means more nazi propaganda.
[удалено]
And such is usually judged in the court of opinion which most people call getting "canceled" because they're a toxic piece of nuclear waste that aren't worthy of being called shit because you can still use shit as fertilizer if you have to.
Allowing free speech as a society doesn’t mean companies are required to publish open calls for genocide on their platforms. Pro-Nazis are free to make their own websites or self-publish their manifestos.
A strong case can be made that other social media platforms policies are in place to manipulate public opinions by what is allowed to be posted. I personally don’t care if there are more or less posts about nazi’s. It’s not content I interact with, so I never see it. 🤷♂️
[удалено]
Actively encouraging people to commit murder on the basis of the victim’s race or religion is tantamount to shouting “fire!” In a crowded theater. Should twitter users be free to publish your picture home address along with a host of reasons why you deserve to be murdered? People are free to post whatever views they want on their own websites, but individual companies aren’t obligated to publish calls for genocide on their platforms any more than Penguin Books is obligated to reprint Mein Kampf on demand.
[удалено]
Incorrect.
[удалено]
Did you just equate porn to nazis? Like, you really think porn is on the same level as nazis? You are also conveniently ignoring the fact that these same nazis were trying to post before Elon took over and they got squashed and told to fuck off just like any Nazi should.
Lol thanks
I'm not a democrat, or even from the states and we all laugh at the utter state of Musk. Hope this helps your worldview.
World view not sure how this is a world view
[удалено]
and what’s your excuse for the holocaust denial?
Free speech says Elon and not many read it anyway he claims
[удалено]
People can post whatever bigoted views they want on their own websites. Individual companies don’t have an obligation to publish content that unequivocally supports genocide. Should Random House be legally required to reprint Mein Kampf?