How Musk can address the "disinformation" claims made by some and nations efforts to silence people. Imagine Galileo living today...

[shockedcanadian]

We have the G7 meeting in the near future to discuss how to address "disinformation". Not surprisingly, Canada is the main promoter of this meeting (others probably asking for it too) because, well, Canada has been full of shyte for 150 years and the internet and liberty is a REAL problem for the police state agents and their big donors.

I believe the censoring of people stifles creativity and human progress. One can imagine if Galileo were alive today, he would face threats of being cancelled, thrown in prison or worse in some corners, for simply stating a theory (which turned out to be fact, which was handed down by Copernicus but I digress)?

How is the suppression of opinion today different today than hundreds of years ago? Then, being accused of heresy for stating fact could lead to your death, today, it's death by 1000 cuts (the creepy Canadian way).

So, my opinion on how Musk should address this with concerned leaders who want to drag the West back rather than promote the ideals people died for forward. Tell these countries "you can appoint/employ as many fact checkers as you want, I will give them official blue check mark status, no extra charge for you, we will waive the $8 since you are cheap. They can address ANY tweets or opinion provided by others. Counter argue them, show evidence etc."

Nations and intelligence agencies are doing this unofficially anyways, so let's be above board with it. The U.S could employ 100s of such fact checkers, Canada probably two or three (if we take resources from the plain clothed police).

This would be my approach if I am Musk. Show the world, "we are going to be the Town Square of ideas, come here and freely debate with each other" He should promote this in the sciences, A.I, health and economic theories.

I'm done with Twitter thanks to the Creepy Ones, but there is hope for others if Musk handles this right. He can be the man who brings the world into the light and forces accountability rather than starting a new Dark Age.

 

[whitehall]

The "Bill of Rights" aka the 1st Ten Amendments to the Constitution only exist in the U.S.A. There is no real assumption of freedom of speech in Canada or anywhere else that can't be regulated or overcome by government regulation.

 

[shockedcanadian]

The "Bill of Rights" aka the 1st Ten Amendments to the Constitution only exist in the U.S.A. There is no real assumption of freedom of speech in Canada or anywhere else that can't be regulated or overcome by government regulation.

All the more reason to spread U.S principles and interests.

 

[Rigby5]

The "Bill of Rights" aka the 1st Ten Amendments to the Constitution only exist in the U.S.A. There is no real assumption of freedom of speech in Canada or anywhere else that can't be regulated or overcome by government regulation.

The whole point of the Founders in the US was that they were trying to understand, define, implement, and protect basic inherent individual rights.
So then their discoveries should be universal and apply everywhere.
Places that allow censorship of what they arbitrarily label as "disinformation" are wrong, evil, and an attempt to control what people can think.

If you go back to the basics, it was John Stuart Mill who said it best.

{...
When justifying the airing of opinion, particularly of unpopular opinion, interlocutors have often pointed to John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty for support. Mill’s classical liberal tome is regarded as one of the greatest defenses of individuality, free thought, and free speech ever written. Raised by the free market economist and utilitarian James Mill, and holding “eccentric” views of his own, particularly with regards to the institution of marriage and the Christian morality supporting it,1 Mill was well positioned to translate the principles of free market economics into the realm of ideas and their expression.

On Liberty is thus associated with the phrase “the marketplace of ideas,” a metaphor that compares competition of thought and expression in the public square with the competition of commodities in the market. As Mises noted in “Liberty and Property,” it was the market economy that led to the institution of democratic processes and also to the notion of liberty common today. Thus, we would expect that Mill’s On Liberty advocated the extension of market principles to the realm of ideation and its expression.

Although he has been credited with the notion of the marketplace of ideas, Mill did not coin the phrase. It was likely introduced by the US Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. in Abrams v. United States (1919). What’s more, there is little evidence that On Liberty advocated an unhampered marketplace of ideas, where ideas and expression vie in an agora of free and open competition. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary—that Mill preferred a kind of “affirmative action for unconventional opinions,”2 an artificial preference bestowed on “minority” views.
...}