Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twitter has re-suspended ElonJet account

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

551–560 of 1001 posts

Re: Twitter has re-suspended ElonJet account

#551

Post by anigbrowl »

Georgelemental wrote: post #389
asdajksah2123 wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blocking speech that may be harmful to a handful of millionaires and billionares = Common Sense. Not promoting speech that may be harmful to tens of thousands of already marginalized people = Woke Mind Virus

> speech that may be harmful to tens of thousands of already marginalized people What this means in practice is "speech that powerful, privileged, unaccountable people, who think they are worthy of controlling the thoughts of everyone else, deem to be 'harmful', based on their vague feelings and biases."

So if people who are marginalized go on Twitter to complain about it, their reports don't count? Perhaps some 'powerful, privileged, unaccountable' people do exploit this cause for their own selfish ends, but it seems to me that your argument is predicated on the idea that marginalized people are incapable of asserting any agency, and if they try to do so they must not really be marginalized. I think you should re-evaluate your premise here.

Re: Twitter has re-suspended ElonJet account

#552

Post by hackerlight »

nickv wrote: post #465

As a reminder, as Elon talks about personal safety, this is the man who posted personal information about a former employee of his on twitter that ended with him having to “move his entire family because of the death threats that showed up” https://www.entrepreneur.com/business-news/ex-twitter-employ...

And Musk did this after saying he "trusts" Yoel. Why did Musk backstab Yoel within two weeks after publicly praising him? Probably because Yoel resigned from his position at Twitter in the intermim. Musk really is that fragile and narcissistic.

Re: Twitter has re-suspended ElonJet account

#553

Post by jerojero »

osigurdson wrote: post #469
asdajksah2123 wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blocking speech that may be harmful to a handful of millionaires and billionares = Common Sense. Not promoting speech that may be harmful to tens of thousands of already marginalized people = Woke Mind Virus

Is there a distinction between speech and posting other's PII (Personally Identifiable Information)?

Well there was an issue with other account posting information about school teachers being groomers and pointing people to their names, pictures, etc.

That account is still online, well and doing it. As others have pointed out, as long as the people that are affected are not Elon Musk, then it seems like for Elon Musk it is mostly fine.

Re: Twitter has re-suspended ElonJet account

#554

Post by mlindner »

wahnfrieden wrote: post #550
mlindner wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those flights emit a couple of tons of CO2. Tesla has saved millions of tons of CO2 from being emitted. It's nicely illustrative of how little a jet flight is compared to all the car traffic emitting CO2 that's been eliminated.

You must offset those emissions saved with the emissions credits they generated for ice vehicle producers if you’re talking balances

Emissions credits don't just shift CO2 production. They make CO2 production more expensive and increase the effective cost of other vehicles, resulting in shifted buying away from CO2 vehicles toward EVs.

And that's indeed what happened. A huge amount of the luxury vehicle market shifted to the Model S. Model S sales went way up and other luxury brands had years of record low sales.

Also in general, people are buying EVs to replace their old cars, so every EV sale is a "not-ICEV" sale. It's going to be rare that someone buys a new EV and a new ICEV at the same time to replace their old ICEV.

Re: Twitter has re-suspended ElonJet account

#555

Post by mrhands556 »

hackerlight wrote: post #539
donatj wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it comes down to tangible harm vs intangible theoretical harm. Anyone can claim intangible harm from anything. Doxing someone is a real tangible harm with very likely dangerous outcomes. Having an opinion is not.

This is an imaginary dichotomy, though. The proponents of content moderation on social media argue that hate speech causes tangible harm. For example, there are many mass shooters that say that they got radicalized purely online, such as Dylan Roof. This is not intangible harm, it is tangible.

There will always be insane people in this world. Was Hitler and the nazis radicalized through the internet? Was Timothy McVeigh? Censoring people out of the fear semi casual relationships occurring between them and radicalization doesn’t work.

It’s not like people who apt to deeply believe radical ideas once their source becomes censored they just stop there. Human beings don’t work like that.

I don’t believe libsoftiktok is causing real world harm.

Re: Twitter has re-suspended ElonJet account

#556

Post by anigbrowl »

ShredKazoo wrote: post #450
theteapot wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doxxing is not free speech. The sensible majority of people understand that. It's only a vocal small minority of idiots and troublemakers that argue otherwise.

My preferred operationalization of free speech is "minimum intimidation". Slurs don't qualify for protection under this operationalization, because they intimidate the listener without providing any information content. Same goes for protesting a talk so loudly that the speaker is drowned out, or doxxing. If your speech serves only to intimidate others into silence, I don't think it should be protected. Curious to he…

Same goes for protesting a talk so loudly that the speaker is drowned out

By this standard the speech of people booing Musk in a stadium the other day was not protected and they could be subject to legal sanction. I doubt this was what you had in mind.

Re: Twitter has re-suspended ElonJet account

#557

Post by madars »

SXX wrote: post #120
hakanderyal wrote: post #96

Elon posted some info[0] that gives it some context: "Last night, car carrying lil X in LA was followed by crazy stalker (thinking it was me), who later blocked car from moving & climbed onto hood. Legal action is being taken against Sweeney & organizations who supported harm to my family." Make that what you will. [0]: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1603190155107794944

Are cars reporting real-time location to some online services? Good that cars dont do it unlike private jets! That would be terrible for privacy... /s

Sure. There are fleets of automated license plate readers, there are patents about tracking serial numbers broadcast by tire pressure sensors, etc. States sell their entire drivers license databases as well https://www.vice.com/en/article/43kxzq/dmvs-selling-data-pri...

Re: Twitter has re-suspended ElonJet account

#558

Post by anigbrowl »

komali2 wrote: post #491
ShredKazoo wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My preferred operationalization of free speech is "minimum intimidation". Slurs don't qualify for protection under this operationalization, because they intimidate the listener without providing any information content. Same goes for protesting a talk so loudly that the speaker is drowned out, or doxxing. If your speech serves only to intimidate others into silence, I don't think it should be protected. Curious to he…

Imo it's too simple a ruleset you've got here, though I get why we want to do this because in the end what we're all trying to do is find out how we could write down something enforceable, like a TOS or law. Those things can't be very vague... Sort of. Laws seem to allow for some discretion on the part of the justice system. Anyway to me it's similar to saying "violence is bad," yet we probably both believe people sh…

Hateful speech (slurs etc) are a form of attack, they're a form of violence. They don't have a place in civil society, civil society should not allow this sort of speech or behavior in it.

I agree with your first argument but not your second. Yes, it's a form of attack. But rather than saying it is simply never allowed (which could be used by politicians to punish criticism) I argue that that the freedom to attack goes both ways and that people should be allowed to exercise self-defense rather than the issue being ceded to some monopolistic higher authority.

Re: Twitter has re-suspended ElonJet account

#559

Post by kennywinker »

Meekro wrote: post #540
asdajksah2123 wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blocking speech that may be harmful to a handful of millionaires and billionares = Common Sense. Not promoting speech that may be harmful to tens of thousands of already marginalized people = Woke Mind Virus

"Don't publish someone's location in realtime (24 hour delay is required)" seems like a simple rule that can be enforced even-handedly against both sides. On the other hand, "don't do speech that causes harm" is so vague that it guarantees endless battles. If the New York Times writes an article criticizing someone, and then a crazy person shoots that someone, is the NYT now required to stop writing articles criticiz…

This is a weak comparison. There are some pretty big qualitative differences between a critical NYT article and LibsOfTikTok. And… frankly if the NYT was routinely publishing content that was getting people harassed and threatened? Yeah we should be asking them to change something in their content too.

Humans can tell the difference between news that sometimes has negative side effects, and singling out people for harassment. If humans can tell that difference, so can rules - society isn’t math, the rules don’t have to be equations.

Re: Twitter has re-suspended ElonJet account

#560

Post by bushbaba »

Meekro wrote: post #540
asdajksah2123 wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blocking speech that may be harmful to a handful of millionaires and billionares = Common Sense. Not promoting speech that may be harmful to tens of thousands of already marginalized people = Woke Mind Virus

"Don't publish someone's location in realtime (24 hour delay is required)" seems like a simple rule that can be enforced even-handedly against both sides. On the other hand, "don't do speech that causes harm" is so vague that it guarantees endless battles. If the New York Times writes an article criticizing someone, and then a crazy person shoots that someone, is the NYT now required to stop writing articles criticiz…

The jet’s location is public information though. Elon is broadcasting it (by FAA law)
Post reply on HN