981–990 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly, why would anyone really care where his jet goes unless you are him, his crew, or ATC? The only reason folks would be obsessed with this is for nefarious reasons or just out of a blatant disrespect for the privacy of another person. Only negative reasons.
Personally I find it a useful tool when people start talking about how Elon Musk is single-handedly fixing climate change…
I understand this move, but need to point out how hypocritical this is for Mr. Free Speech. Basically, his entire tenure so far has been "free speech for me and the accounts that were rightfully banned for violating the TOS!" in public, and then "we'll deboost anyone who doesn't pay me a subscription" and "let's selectively release internal comms in a misleading way to make normal company operation in good faith seem…
So we have a company headquartered in SF, and I think something like 98% of twitter's political donations went to democrats, and the employees acted as constant activists whenever the executives didn't take action against high level conservatives (I'll leave aside whether that action was justified or not). Also, if you read the twitter files, the enforcement was fairly lopsided. Look what happened to @libsoftiktok --…
Was there much interesting in there? I mostly remember it opening with the Dems having a direct line for reporting, with the examples shown of it being used being mostly nudes of Hunter&company, that i assume won't surprise anyone when being acted upon. Now there shouldn't be direct lines, but a fair report&enforcement system instead. But i somehow doubt that will get any better under musk...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re “flabbergasted”? This is publicly available information. What exactly is the safety threat with this twitter acct?
Publicly available information is... publicly available information. Singling out public information and publishing it to single out one person when there are safety and security implications is crossing the line distinctly into what we call doxxing. Just curious, how long have you been on the internet? Would you like an account like this to exist tracking everything you do?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's even more fascinating is how hot-button an issue Free Speech has become. Just look at some of the inflammatory replies to your comment that just mentions it. There's more going on with the semantics of the phrase being used to irrationally rile people up to outrage, rather than actually being about the definition of free speech.
About a decade ago, the extreme far right realized they could rephrase their violence as speech, which meant that removing calls to violence was now "censorship". This subtle semantic shift has happened so thoroughly that "free speech" is now a codeword for "we can drop dox on trans people and get away with it". Of course, this is absurd, because dropping dox on someone is one of the easiest way to censor them. Conve…
"Any account doxxing real-time location info of anyone will be suspended, as it is a physical safety violation. This includes posting links to sites with real-time location info.
Posting locations someone traveled to on a slightly delayed basis isn’t a safety problem, so is ok."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm flabbergasted by the overwhelming response that this account should be allowed "in the name of Free Speech". This isn't a free speech issue. This is a personal safety issue. It is a personal attack towards Musk. As high profile as he is, and the amount of controversy surrounding him, he certainly has a target on his back. I consider that account a form of Doxxing, and I can't think of any good reason it should be…
What is the actual risk? I suspect he's way more likely to get into a car crash. The information about his plane's location is already public. Posting it to twitter just makes it spread further. Also, a plane's location isn't very useful. Even doxxing someone's permanent address (not that elon has one) is a pretty minimal threat to their life. A plane's location is some of the less dangerous speech allowed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm flabbergasted by the overwhelming response that this account should be allowed "in the name of Free Speech". This isn't a free speech issue. This is a personal safety issue. It is a personal attack towards Musk. As high profile as he is, and the amount of controversy surrounding him, he certainly has a target on his back. I consider that account a form of Doxxing, and I can't think of any good reason it should be…
Why do you care so much, if he (supposedly) doesn't? https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1589414958508691456
I actually think this is reasonable. The account was broadcasting his live location at any given point in time and there's a strong argument it presented a legitimate safety risk given so many people's hatred towards him. It's also hard to say he's banning free speech against himself when it feels like half of twitter is anti-Elon sentiment these days.
The point is that Musk has been talking a lot about being a free speech absolutist. He even said this last month: > My commitment to free speech extends even to not banning the account following my plane, even though that is a direct personal safety risk And now he's banning accounts. That doesn't make sense for a free speech absolutist.
Was mostly just commenting that I think doxxing the live location of a prominent & controversial figure is a reasonable line to draw.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm guessing bankruptcy has always been the plan, but I never really understood why his financial backers would knowingly light a pile of money on fire. For oppressive governments, it seems easier to monitor & block activity on one major social media platform, rather than quashing twitter and dealing with the dozens of platforms that rise from the ashes. Maybe it's a megalomaniac dictator thing, and I will never unde…
> I'm guessing bankruptcy has always been the plan Why? What advantage would that bring to him? Honest question. With him overpaying for Twitter already (maybe not completely voluntary), bankruptcy looks like the fastest way to make the deal even worse.
Why would you say that?
He signed a binding agreement to buy Twitter at an agreed upon price.
Nobody forced him to sign that, ergo: he completely voluntarily signed a binding agreement on which he later wanted to renege.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
About a decade ago, the extreme far right realized they could rephrase their violence as speech, which meant that removing calls to violence was now "censorship". This subtle semantic shift has happened so thoroughly that "free speech" is now a codeword for "we can drop dox on trans people and get away with it". Of course, this is absurd, because dropping dox on someone is one of the easiest way to censor them. Conve…
It's actually the far left that characterizes speech as violence. Even silence has been called violence by the left. I don't want to defend any actions taken by the far right but I've never heard of anyone successfully defending violence as being a free speech issue. Could you provide some examples?
> extreme far right realized they could rephrase their violence as speech
And in your post that became:
> It's actually the far left that characterizes speech as violence.
"Rephrasing violence as speech" has approximately the meaning of "pretending violence is actually speech"; "characterizing speech as violence" has the meaning of "pretending speech is violence", ie, the exact opposite.
These two claims don't contradict eachother.