zlacker

>>prawn+(OP)
> Update: Musk just weighed in on the suspensions, characterizing them as intentional. “Same doxxing rules apply to “journalists” as to everyone else,” he tweeted in a reply.

> It’s worth noting that the policy these accounts violated, a prohibition against sharing “live location information,” is only 24 hours old.

It seems like a good rule, but in this case the application of the rule seems less impersonal than it could be

Let’s try to make a comment that creates less outrage than most…

This is why it would be interesting to post public information about politicians collected from the online spyware that tracks all of us. It would rapidly motivate new laws that at least somewhat improve privacy.

This always happens when rule makers are personally affected by a problem: the problem starts getting attention

>>barbar+Ae
Those journalists weren't reporting specific locations of his jet...they were reporting on a legit news story about it. Musk didn't like it so the journalists are now banned.

The dude is truly off his rocker now. The "rules" are whatever he makes up on the spot. He's self-destructing before our eyes...no longer the richest man in the world. Telsa stock tanking all because he can't STFU and acts like a spoiled 12 year old.

>>Goofba+uh
> Those journalists weren't reporting specific locations of his jet...they were reporting on a legit news story about it.

Do you have evidence of that? He claims they were reporting the location.

>>darawk+ou
How many times does this dude have to lie before people stop taking what he says at face value?

>>comte7+ED
I don't necessarily believe him without evidence. But i'm not going to believe anyone else who doesn't provide evidence either. It'd be great if people would just stop making things up all around.

>>darawk+WE
There’s nothing wrong with asking for evidence, but as we can see from your other comments, there is no way for anyone outside of Twitter to definitively prove what the accounts tweeted before they were banned.

A certain amount of skepticism is healthy, but allowing people to flood the water with BS allows them to get away with lying more often than not (people just throw their hands up and say “who knows!”). Ties go to the liar.

At a certain point you have to pay a repetitional penalty and Elon has spent more than his fair share from that account. If he’s going to claim something I’m not even going to entertain it until he proves proof.

>>comte7+FF
> There’s nothing wrong with asking for evidence, but as we can see from your other comments, there is no way for anyone outside of Twitter to definitively prove what the accounts tweeted before they were banned.

That's not entirely true, if someone had a copy of all of the recent tweets from one of the banned accounts, then it'd be relatively easy to check if any of them violated the new policy in any reasonable sense.

> A certain amount of skepticism is healthy, but allowing people to flood the water with BS allows them to get away with lying more often than not (people just throw their hands up and say “who knows!”). Ties go to the liar.

However, I agree with you completely here. What I disagree with was the original comment I was responding to simply declaring that he had banned them despite them not violating the policy. That statement may end up being true, and maybe that person has evidence for it, but if so they should provide it. And if they don't have evidence for it, they should say something much more like what you've said here.

I think Elon should provide evidence for his claims as well, and I'd make the same criticism of him. If you're going to ban high profile journalists who are critical of you en masse with a new rule you just enacted, you'd better publish receipts along with it, at the very least.