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
Twitter is allowed to be run by jerks who ban people for any reason they want.

The problem is that people like Musk have spent ages arguing that banning fascists is bad because free speech absolutism is an important value. It turns out that free speech absolutism was never actually a value they cared about - the only thing that matters is that their guy is the one choosing the bans. If people like Musk had instead argued that platforming fascists is actually good this whole time then the discussion today would be different, but because they didn't want to publicly support fascists they had to fall back on the free speech absolutism argument, which has shattered into a million pieces.

>>UncleM+A61
Makes you wonder: for what reason did they actually care about banning fascists, if not for philosophical free speech reasons?

>>Modern+8D1
It seems plainly obvious that Musk was radicalized into a far-right conservative by the one-two punch of transphobia (his kid came out as trans, Grimes left him for a trans woman, and he'd always been somewhat transphobic) and lost profits due to COVID policy. This put him in alignment with the most radical wing of social media - the anti-COVID measures and anti-trans community.

Combine this with a general support of conservative fiscal policy as a wealthy business-owner and the libertarian ideals of a gen-X nerd who came of age during "information wants to be free" and obviously suffering from a compulsive social media addiction (pot calling kettle black here), and it's no surprise he's completely bought into "free speech conservatism", where slander and hatred are placed on even footing with legitimate political argument.