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
What is everyone up in arms for? This is a private company, so he can do whatever he wants.

That is what everyone has been saying for years. I mean, it turns out they were wrong and Twitter was actually colluding with government agencies to bypass the first amendment. But censorship and targeted suspensions were defended tooth and nail by internet commenters.

Is this a problem now only because people you like are targeted? Surely people wouldn't be so shortsighted?

>>calcul+iF
By some internet commenters. Personally I found Twitters bans distasteful. Even if they could do it.

I also find Musk's bans distasteful. Even if he can do it.

Oh, and he's revealed himself to obviously be full of shit. As is anyone cheering him on in the name of free speech. But I guess principles only last until they get in the way of petty tribalism.