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
It's not a good rule. It was implemented for the sole reason of preventing people from saying where Elon Musk's private jet is, even though that is publicly available information by law.

>>JohnTH+rg
And it was forseeable. People were joking that Musk was paying $40B to buy Twitter simply to just down the ElonJet account.

>>SamBam+Ij
Which is hilarious because as I recall the account admin asked for something like $50k to shut it down…

>>kennyw+fP
And that would've caused an avalanche of copycat accounts, each going after their own 50K.

>>huhten+WU
You can't stop the signal, but you can slowly dampen it

Of course Musk could have simply flown commercial and bypassed the entire "problem".