‘We do not agree with these actions’: Elon Musk’s past actions, government-directed posts on some accounts

‘We do not agree with these actions’: Elon Musk’s past actions, government-directed posts on some accounts

Elon Musk's
Elon Musk’s

Ex said that exact orders could not be issued due to legal restrictions.

Elon Musk-owned microblogging site Blocking of certain accounts and posts based on these orders is argued to violate freedom of expression.

The X government issued the directive in a statement issued at 1:04 p.m., emphasizing its stance on transparency. However, due to legal restrictions, they cannot disclose the exact nature of the executive orders.

As per the order, we will block these accounts and posts only in India; however, we do not agree with these measures and freedom of expression should be extended to these posts as well,” X wrote.

The statement said X is seeking action against specific accounts and posts under threat of significant penalties such as fines and imprisonment as per government guidelines. Although X follows the directive by restricting access to these accounts and posts in India, the dissent argues that freedom of expression should include questionable content.

Elon Musk's
Elon Musk’s

Musk has not yet issued any statement on this matter.

Earlier this month, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) had issued an emergency order for major social media platforms including Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, X and Snap. There is a proposal to freeze 177 accounts and related links related to the farmers’ strike. This action is part of maintaining ‘public order’.

Also read: Elon Musk says Vladimir Putin will be killed if he backs out of Ukraine war

The platform has taken steps to notify users affected by these actions in accordance with its policies. Additionally, legal proceedings have been initiated to challenge government orders, citing concerns about accountability and arbitrariness of the orders and lack of transparency.

Meanwhile, a US judge has ordered additional testimony in the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation into its $44 billion acquisition of Twitter. The order, announced earlier this month by U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Peeler, formalizes an earlier temporary ruling in December that supported the SEC’s position.

Leave a Comment