Twitter has re-suspended ElonJet account

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Dec 15, 2022, 3:49 AM UTC

Thorentis wrote: post #289

djur wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's definitely hard to figure out the logic where it's OK to ban someone for posting plane data because it might be misused for dangerous while it's bad evil censorship to ban the President while he's actively trying to overturn the results of a lawful election.

Contesting the results of an election is entirely different to publishing location data with the intent to cause physical harm. Disputing election results is also part of the democratic process, even if you disagree with it, and should be encouraged. There is nothing in the public interesting concerned with stalking people.

Post by UncleMeat » Thu, Dec 15, 2022, 3:49 AM UTC

VectorLock wrote: post #239

hunterb123 wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

wait so you're saying doxing is on the same level as dissenting the government? one thing is broadcasting personal information about a citizen, one is protecting a citizens right to object to actions by their government. collecting public information is still doxxing. most doxxing involves only public information as it happens across the internet. edit: a downvote is not a rebuttal, sorry, try again.

When he is crowing with #TwitterFiles faux leaks about how an internal cabal were making policy decisions about banning people, then making an extra-policy decision banning something he didn't like (posting public information) and then trying to backport policy for it.. The whole thing rings a bit hollow.

Post by akiselev » Thu, Dec 15, 2022, 3:50 AM UTC

fallous wrote: post #342

saboot wrote: post #111

Is he afraid of a stalker following him in a plane? He uses this as an excuse, then discredits himself by going on to threaten legal action against Sweeney. Wants it both ways.

Knowing when/where a private plane lands makes it a lot easier to stalk the passengers of that plane. This is of course entirely separate from whether such info was used against Musk or his family, or whether such a possibility is sufficient grounds for attempting to silence those who make it easily accessible (it's still accessible thanks to ADS-B for anyone with basic technical skills and cares enough).

Post by pclmulqdq » Thu, Dec 15, 2022, 3:52 AM UTC

tpmx wrote: post #383

pclmulqdq wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bernard Arnault (the new richest person in the world, and head of LVMH group) gave up his personal private jet to avoid this kind of tracking. Elon Musk can too if he wants to avoid the scrutiny.

Instead opting to rent different private jets from a fleet.

Post by pgodzin » Thu, Dec 15, 2022, 3:53 AM UTC

ChrisCinelli wrote: post #392

pgodzin wrote: post #310

Many people have been trying to get the point across that legal, unlimited free speech can put people in harm's way. Elon is happy to say that he's willing to trade harm to those people for his free speech principles, but as soon as his family is the one facing the repercussions, he's happy to change policy and sue.

There are two sides to every coin. I am not taking a stance but lately I have notice more and more how regarding a few matters that I used to think were black and white, there are good arguments on both sides. Deciding on one vs another often comes to what is perceived the most pressing matter at the moment. The long term consequences are often not taken enough into consideration.