Michael Schellenberger

Rank 39 of 47
|
Score -94
9/3/2025, 3:22:05 PM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
151d
13. Macron Attempts to Circumvent French Law

The apparent coordination between the NGOs, the hate speech bill, and Macron’s attempt to contact Dorsey could easily be seen as attempts to circumvent the law. Under French law, the state is barred from imposing preemptive censorship
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
151d
12. “Notably, the lawsuit was very strategically timed…”

On March 10, 2021, Colangelo wrote up a brief for Edgett to share with Dorsey on why they wanted the letter. “The lawsuit is one part of a larger effort in France to paint Twitter as a bad actor. Notably, the lawsuit was
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
151d
11. “We should be cognisant of the precedent we are setting here which could trigger more asks of this nature into the future.”

Twitter also agreed to send a letter from CEO Jack Dorsey to the NGOs, promising stronger action in the future.

The “plaintiffs in the UEJF hate
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
151d
10. “—we were planning to confidentially disclose some information sought by the NGOs to them in exchange for them dropping the suit”

The NGOs would not settle, despite Twitter’s efforts to cooperate. And so Twitter caved, offering to censor its platform — for all users — in
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
151d
9. Macron Leads Censorship Effort

The year 2016 marked an inflection point in the state’s crackdown on online speech. Events like Brexit, Trump’s victory, the Arab Spring, and France’s Yellow Vest movement, organized via social media, convinced elites that “information
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
151d
8. CONTEXT: France invented the Censorship Industrial Complex 53 years ago

From royal censors to revolutionary tribunals, Napoleonic decrees to Vichy oppression, France’s history has long been defined by the tug-of-war between censorship and free speech.

France’s 1972 Pleven

The statement involves a comparison between historical censorship and modern social media policies, raising concerns about free speech and online harassment. It critiques Twitter's handling of alleged harassment and suggests parallels with historical events, which can be seen as an attempt to highlight the importance of responsible platform management.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement aims to prevent harm by addressing online harassment, aligning with the principle of doing no harm. [+1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    It respects privacy by focusing on platform policies rather than individuals, but the comparison to Hitler may be seen as inflammatory. [-1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement attempts to promote understanding of the importance of responsible speech management, though the historical comparison may detract from empathy.
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in criticism of Twitter's policies, but the comparison to Hitler could be seen as an ad hominem attack, reducing constructive dialogue. [-1]
  5. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement uses its platform to discuss societal issues, aiming to improve online discourse. [+1]
  6. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    It upholds free speech by discussing censorship, but the extreme comparison may undermine responsible discourse.