Musk's new ridiculous act of defending freedom of expression

Social network X is taking New York State to court over a law that seeks to force these platforms to disclose what actions they take to prevent the spread of hate speech and calls to violence. According to the plaintiffs, the law is unconstitutional because it restricts freedom of expression, protected by the First Amendment. It's very revealing that Elon Musk is against even explaining what mechanisms he has in place to try to ensure that a sensitive app like his doesn't become (even more) a cesspool that threatens the health of social conversation. The answer, of course, is intuitive: the bare minimum is being done. If not nothing at all.

The richest man in the world's wealth is astronomical, considering that a few months ago he tried to silence a hate speech watchdog group that accused X of being permissive of anti-Semitism. The self-proclaimed absolutist of freedom of expression used and abused his fortune to try to silence a voice that questioned his very particular way of controlling which messages deserve dissemination on the network he governs like a monarch. The judge, incidentally, threw his case to the ground and hit him hard because he understood that this lawsuit sought to "punish those accused for their freedom of expression." The origin of the lack of responsibility of networks for content posted by third parties derives from the so-called Section 230, which in turn is based on the Good Samaritan doctrine: it is assumed that companies cannot preemptively review the avalanche of content, but they must provide themselves with mechanisms for action against it. But Musk is not even willing to accept this. He knows that his falsely democratic business model is based on the law of the jungle: whoever shouts the loudest, whoever has the most money, whoever shouts the loudest.