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
No, he banned a bunch of journalists for doing their jobs.

>>jacque+qn
The article states that given reason was "journalists had revealed private information about his family"

Your comment erroneously claims the reason was "for doing their jobs".

I'd recommend reading dang's comment since you have a lot of inflammatory comments in this thread.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34010908

>>trap_g+xQ
I don't think it's difficult to become inflammatory when people are twisting themselves into pretzels trying to paint what Twitter/Elon did as justified. You're not arguing in good faith and I see that as far more harmful for HN.