Musk’s Twitter Has a Censorship Problem | Apartheid Emerald Saga
Twitter (X) yields to foreign government censorship requests more than the previous owners, while Musk misunderstands the term “free speech.”
Elon Musk is not a free speech absolutist. Worse, he doesn’t even understand what “freedom of speech” means. On the contrary, under Elon’s leadership, Twitter yields to foreign governments’ censorship requests more than under his predecessors.
A lot to take in? Deep breaths. Now, let us proceed.
I’ve seen many Elon Musk fans who don’t know about the blatant violations of freedom of speech or those who resort to flimsy excuses. Some won’t even listen to arguments.
So, if you’re in a Musk cult, you might want to take the blue pill now, wake up, and pretend all this never happened. Everyone else — you’re welcome to get redpilled.
This article is a part of the Saga of the Apartheid Emerald, where I delve into the critical issues of Twitter under Elon Musk: escalating foreign government censorship, the erosion of inconvenient free speech, and a very concerning neo-nazi problem. Be sure to read it before the platform goes bankrupt.
X enforces stricter government censorship than Twitter
Elon’s deeds speak louder than Elmo’s words, but his words are peculiar nonetheless. I know because I kept track.
On March 5, 2022, Musk said that his company would never block Russian news sources, “unless at gunpoint.” All news is propaganda, he says, but he’s too much of a “free speech absolutist” to censor anything.
You’ll never guess what happened next. Elon Musk started enforcing censorship upon government requests. Other countries’ governments.
On May 13, 2023, Twitter announced it would restrict access to accounts in Turkey one day before the presidential elections. These accounts included investigative journalist Cevheri Güven and Kurdish businessman Muhammed Yakut — both critics of the current government.
If not for Musk’s decision, Turkish citizens would’ve had unrestricted access to critical information. However, he chose to deprive the people of Turkey of their right to learn about the government’s actions on the eve of the election, but allowed the critique of the opposition to flow freely.
When cornered, Musk threw a temper tantrum, of course. He argued that censorship was the only way to keep Twitter working in Turkey. This is a blatant lie because the previous owners successfully defied Turkey’s ban.
How old Twitter dealt with Turkey’s censorship
The former Twitter executive Vijaya Gadde, whom Musk fired, challenged the same Turkish government (Erdoğan has been president for over 30 years) after the social network got banned. Twitter won in court 2 days later.
Some fights for freedom of speech are more brutal, but should that matter for a true freedom warrior? Wikipedia also fought Turkey in court and triumphed after two years.
Let’s summarize. Musk, the “free speech absolutist,” had succumbed to the foreign government’s censorship request when the previous boss fought the same government and easily won.
Why the government ban wouldn’t have been a problem
Let’s examine why blocking doesn’t work and why “free speech absolutists” shouldn’t have censored his social network without throwing a single punch.
We will look at Russia — a country Musk seems to adore. The Russian court banned Facebook and Instagram in March 2022, labeling Meta as an“extremist” organization. Roskomnadzor blocked access to the platforms on March 14.
Here’s the key question: Did Russians lose access to Instagram and Facebook? The answer is no. They used VPNs. I mean, VPN usage in Russia skyrocketed instantly.
Statista shows that the daily population reach of Instagram in Russia declined by 13% (from 33% to 20%) in a week after the ban. Again, the daily activity didn’t evaporate but declined slightly.
Despite the ban, Instagram remained the 7th most used social media platform in the 3rd quarter of 2022. In time, more users started using VPNs to bypass the government ban.
Instagram’s usage rose to Russia’s 3rd most-used social media platform in 2023. It’s topped only by Russian social networks Vkontakte (VK) and Odnoklassniki (OK), which were always widely popular.
Side note: According to the Digital 2021 report for the Russian Federation, FB wasn’t even in the top 20 most-used websites. Its national equivalents, VK and OK, were always the platforms of choice
As the Russian case shows, people would still use their favorite social media apps if they wanted to. Access to Twitter in Turkey wouldn’t be a problem, and it would’ve been a platform that didn’t bow down to autocracy. But then again, did Musk even want to resist? Looking into it.
Musk is not against censorship, but biased against some governments
Elon Musk hates censorship by the US. He even leaked the Twitter files threads — behind-the-scenes conversations of the previous owners with government officials. He highlighted the suppression of anti-woke news stories and public figures like Trump.
However, Musk’s X continues censoring SOME leaks. He suppresses the Distributed Denial of Secrets that was reporting police misconduct, the January 6 attack, and data of Russian government agencies after the invasion of Ukraine. Twitter also banned journalists for reporting about the leaks on far-right public figures (more about that later).
Outside of Turkey, Musk caved into the censorship requests of foreign authoritative government of India.
Twitter blocked links to a BBC documentary about Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi about his role in mass killings. The fact that Musk called himself a “fan of Modi” doesn’t make this situation any better.
Funnily enough, Twitter was more resistant to India’s censorship before Musk. That’s right — the social media platform became more obedient. Reports found that under Elon, X approves about 83% of censorship requests and at least 98.8% of content takedown requests.
You may wonder, what happened to the “free speech absolutist” who would not succumb to foreign governments “at gunpoint”? Maybe he chose the words purposefully. He didn’t say anything about threats with Turkish Chakram or Indian Khanda. Or Russian bottles (you don’t want to know what they do with those).
Elmo came up with another bullshit excuse.
“The rules in India for what can appear on social media are quite strict, and we can’t go beyond the laws of a country.” — this is a thing Musk said.
This was quite a revealing quote. I thought that Elmo was a liar before it. But then I found Mush’s definition of “free speech.” I now believe he is an anti-intellectual.
The “government-approved speech” absolutist
Elon doesn’t just doesn’t violate free speech; he doesn’t understand it. In his explanation, he basically confuses “freedom of speech” with “freedom to say what governments allow you to say.” Let’s call it a “government-approved speech” or “legal speech.”
Freedom of speech is a universal principle that allows articulating opinions and ideas without repercussions. The US’s First Amendment has a clear definition of the freedom of speech, but let’s focus on international law.
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) defines free speech as “the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
Side note: India and Turkey have formally adopted the UDHR. They are active members of the United Nations General Assembly (which developed the declaration).
The thing Musk refers to is not freedom of speech. He refers to what certain governments permit you to express, which can infringe upon rights guaranteed by the UDHR.
If the state violates this principle, citizens and organizations may seek redress through local courts and international human rights mechanisms. As mentioned, previous Twitter executives have gone to court to beat Turkey’s ban. That’s what Musk didn’t do.
If we were to go with Musk’s definition, then nearly all totalitarian dictatorships that ever existed had no problems with the freedom of speech.
I feel strange for having to explain the basic terminology but the amount of likes under that post is extremely concerning.
Here are a few examples of countries without freedom of speech: Belarus and Russia (whose news channels Musk doesn’t want to censor). According to Freedom House, the Russian Federation has extremely low ratings for civil liberties and political rights. Belarus is not far behind!
Russian constitution allows for freedom of expression, but Russia has enacted laws that punish citizens for stating anti-government opinions or critiquing the government. For example, an artist got 7 years in prison for “replacing supermarket pricing labels with anti-war messages.”
Belarus has jailed many citizens for any critique of the government or its leader. Musicians received many years in penal colonies for such harsh crimes as “Insulting the President of the Republic of Belarus.”
Side note: Imagine a law like this in the US, where ridiculing your leaders is a national tradition.
Again, these countries have laws that enforce these sentences. Surprise, but all countries have laws that restrict freedoms. According to Musk, these dictatorship laws and criminal sentences do not infringe upon citizens’ freedom of speech.
Let’s not start talking about how the constitution (fundamental law) of countries like Turkey and Russia guarantee more freedom than they actually have and how dictatorship laws can contradict the constitution.
North Korea, Syria, and Nazi Germany had no problems with “free speech,” didn’t you know? The restrictions they had were implemented according to the laws that these authoritarian dictatorships have enacted, so saying anything that breaks the law would be “contrary to the will of the people.”
So, when someone tells you that Elmo is pro-free speech, you will know that he views freedom of expression in America, North Korea, and Iran equally.
If you didn’t question Elon’s intelligence before, now’s a perfect time to start. He either can’t lie to save his life, or he really thinks like that, or both. Or could it be that he just supports authoritarianism?
Does Elon support ALL foreign restrictions on freedom of speech?
No, Elmo does not support restrictions on freedom of speech in some cases. For example, when it’s the US allies.
And I don't need to resort to whataboutism to prove my point. Instead, I will show how Musk ignores his own principles.
In a famous disinformation blog, an openly pro-Russian blogger-slash-fired TV host mentioned that an American pick-up artist Gonzalo Lira (Coach Red Pill) was arrested in Ukraine for “criticizing President Zelensky.” Of course, that statement disregards reality.
We already know Musk knows that countries have laws that could restrict the freedom of expression. It’s logical to assume that he won’t have a problem with a country at war having a few extra legal restrictions.
Side note: According to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the exercise of the freedom of expression can have conditions, restrictions, or penalties as prescribed by law, if they are necessary in the interest of national security, territorial integrity, for the protection of health and morals, among other things. Ukraine is a democratic society with an above-average democracy index (an achievement given the state of an international armed conflict since 2014 and a full-scale war since 2022). It is currently defending itself against an authoritarian dictatorship of Russia. Russia annexes territories, terrorizes the occupied population, and publicly denies Ukraine’s right to exist.
After russia’s 2022 military invasion, Ukraine enacted Article 436–2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (justification, recognition as lawful, denial of Russia’s armed aggression against Ukraine, glorification of its participants). You can see where I’m going, right?
While in Ukraine, Lira frequently broke the laws of Ukraine by justifying the Russian invasion, denying Russian missile strikes and war crimes (all of them, including Bucha), and glorifying the invaders.
On his Telegram channel (I will not provide a link to this hellscape), he enjoyed publishing videos and pictures of dead Ukrainian soldiers, tried exposing the faces of Ukrainian military soldiers, and threatened to doxx Western journalists.
Given all Gonzalo did, the Ukrainian government was extremely lenient.
- Lira was breaking the criminal law continuously over many months despite warnings (both online and offline).
- He was arrested and placed in the pre-trial detention center.
- Gonzalo was later released on bail and placed under house arrest. He immediately violated the terms of his bail and fled to another region of Ukraine.
- While filming himself talking at length about the inhumane tortures enacted on him by Ukrainian prisoners (no evidence provided), Lira revealed that he’s gonna attempt to cross the Ukraine border in violation of the bail. He got himself arrested again.
So, was Musk consistent with his previous positions that “free speech” should match government laws? Did he defend Ukraine’s rule of law, as going beyond the Ukrainian regulations would be “contrary to the will of the Ukrainian people”?
No, he accused Ukraine of imprisoning the Lira for censorship and demanded an explanation. Why, oh why does your country punish people who break your laws during martial law? Well, maybe it’s only OK if you’re a totalitarian dictatorship.
But wait! Maybe Musk just cares for American citizens around the globe and his heart can’t take the pain of seeing “journalists” imprisoned by foreign governments?
No, Musk is totally OK with the Russian Federation imprisoning US citizens. He never said a word about Russia arresting the American journalist Evan Gershkovich of The Wall Street Journal. And that’s despite the US State Department recognizing the journalists were wrongly detained. But why would the American government have more authority over Musk than the Russian one, right?
Elon cares little about journalistic freedom overall. For example, he didn’t utter a word about the mass arrests of journalists in Russia. That’s on them for breaking the law, I guess! It’s not free speech if you don’t follow the laws of the authoritarian state engaging in a genocidal war.
Musk’s free speech abortionist arc
You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
I have provided ample evidence that Elon Musk does not respect freedom of speech (nor can he comprehend it) and censors his platform when certain countries ask him.
To deny the facts is to play dumb, and I hate when people do that. So, I’m very sorry, but if you disagree with me without ample counterarguments — not petty excuses — it will rustle my jimmies. I may call you names in response.
What causes this reckless, childish, and self-contradictory behavior? Could it be that the reports of ketamine abuse, use of illegal drugs, or cheap aluminum purchases from Russia oligarchs are at least partly true? Only time will tell, only time will tell.
I know one thing. Things will get worse in the subsequent chapters of the Apartheid Emerald Saga about Twitter’s assault on free speech and the rise of the literal Hitler fans on the platform.
Organic Ukrainist (Kashadoo), or Georgii, is a seasoned technical copywriter and ex-prosecutor from Ukraine. When not working, he usually writes nonsense on Twitter or plays traditional video games in a VR headset (they’re prettier that way). His soul wants to speak about the important stuff — the russo-Ukrainian war, Western perceptions of Ukraine and Russia, and the significance of the movie “Tetsuo” for our civilization.
