zlacker

>>prawn+(OP)
It's interesting that many are debating the value of this 'rule', when this action is blatant abuse of his powers to silence his critics. He has now a lengthy and growing history of this type of behavior, so it was 100% foreseeable. He could just come out and say that its his twitter and he can do what he wants, but no, because he also wants to be seen as a 'defender of free speech'. He acts like a-hole, but then expects unquestioning adoration.

>>Eddy_V+Xv1
> It's interesting that many are debating the value of this 'rule', when this action is blatant abuse of his powers to silence his critics.

I think it’s you that’s missing the point here. It’s only abuse of power if the rule against doxxing is invalid. So it does come down to the rule and whether or not doxxing is acceptable. If we decide that doxxing is acceptable and posting anybody’s real-time location data is acceptable (without their consent), then he is abusing powers. If that is your conclusion, then you don’t have the right to complain should it happen to you. If you believe the opposite, that doxxing is unacceptable, then the rule should apply equally to everybody. Critics and journalists do not get a free pass to break the rules.

>>eric_c+uE1
> If we decide that doxxing is acceptable and posting anybody’s real-time location data is acceptable (without their consent), then he is abusing powers. If that is your conclusion, then you don’t have the right to complain should it happen to you.

This really does not follow. We already have plenty of exceptions for what is appropriate when reporting on public versus private figures in other aspects of life. As Musk himself has demonstrated, "absolutism" of any sort is a difficult view to hold when one's feet are put to the fire, and nuance is actually important.

Even if you think that reporting on Elon's plane (or in the case here, the "reporting on the reporting" on Elon's plane) should be forbidden, I would suggest that this development is still difficult to defend. This is a reversal in policy that Elon made because it was about him personally.

Are you sure Elon will continue to agree with you on who/what to censor in the future?

>>Jeremy+lM1
> Are you sure Elon will continue to agree with you on who/what to censor in the future?

I am 100% sure that I WON’T agree and that Twitter is inherently flawed pre-Elon and post-Elon.

The only point I was making is that within the context of this flawed system, given a rule is broken, it should not matter who the rule breaker is. “Silence opponents” narrative is only true if the people being silenced are being treated unequally. If they are, then the narrative is true.