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
Weirdly I'm almost on the other side of the whole doxxing issue.

We've established now that Elon really doesn't like it when people dox him, and all his right-leaning supporters are defending that.

Well, that's a precedent now for when minorities and vulnerable people who aren't billionaires are doxxed by right wing hate groups (e.g. Kiwifarms).

And radical free speech just got abruptly limited when it got personal.

The important point should be that the principle should be applied equally, particularly since groups like Kiwifarms are much worse than ElonJet.

>>lamont+Wq
Precedent only matters if the rules are applied consistently.

These only consistent rule on Twitter now is “don’t tweet shit that offends Elon”.

>>comte7+qE
Twitter is kind of gone at this point. But the lessons could live on after it.