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
Those journalists weren't reporting specific locations of his jet...they were reporting on a legit news story about it. Musk didn't like it so the journalists are now banned.

The dude is truly off his rocker now. The "rules" are whatever he makes up on the spot. He's self-destructing before our eyes...no longer the richest man in the world. Telsa stock tanking all because he can't STFU and acts like a spoiled 12 year old.

>>Goofba+uh
>Those journalists weren't reporting specific locations of his jet...they were reporting on a legit news story about it.

Come on now. They were linking directly to the tracker that Sweeney was banned for, not just reporting on the story about it.

It was a childish petulant doxxing on purpose and they got treated the same as Sweeney.

>>Natura+Gl
Maybe, but the last straw for me on that platform was preventing tweets from linking to arbitrary, non-doxxing Mastodon profiles (try it and see). I tested it to confirm and deactivated my account afterwards. Who would want to be on a social network like that?

>>revetk+6n
Why didn't you leave when they blocked tweets that linked to the Hunter Biden laptop story?

>>notinf+hv
Because it was a dubiously sourced story at the height of a highly chaotic election campaign. You can see how that might be something a platform would want to suppress, not because they’re Democrat sleeper agents - but because they don’t wanna be responsible for swaying the election because of fake news.

>>kennyw+RP
>Because it was a dubiously sourced story

Fake news.

>You can see how that might be something a platform would want to suppress, not because they’re Democrat sleeper agents

They suppressed it because they were very awake Democrat agents.

>but because they don’t wanna be responsible for swaying the election because of fake news.

No they wanted to deliberately sway the election, because of their partisan alliance. You can read the story here:

Part 1: Matt Taibbi: https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598822959866683394

Part 2: Bari Weiss: https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1601007575633305600

Part 3: Matt Taibbi: https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1601352083617505281

Part 4: Michael Shellenberger: https://twitter.com/shellenbergermd/status/16017204550055116...

Part 5: Bari Weiss: https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1602364197194432515

>>Natura+9T
> >Because it was a dubiously sourced story

> Fake news.

Same thing. But the Hunter Biden laptop story was not only fake news, it was completely irrelevant, because Hunter Biden wasn't running for office, and unlike Trump's children, Biden's children don't work for him. And yet the fake story was leveraged by political operatives to sway the election. After all the issues of fake news swaying the 2016 election, Twitter decided the responsible thing to do for them was not to be complicit in spreading fake news this time.

>>mcv+861
The part it contained about "10% for the big guy" (Joe Biden) was 100% newsworthy.

It wasn't fake news and deep down all the downvoters know it.

Suppressing it when it was known to be true was also a story.

>Twitter decided the responsible thing to do for them was not to be complicit in spreading fake news this time.

Actually they were at the forefront of spreading fake news as three actual journalists disclosed. Did you not even read the coverage? Because it sounds like you didn't. I even provided links to all of it above.

Let me know after reading it if your views have changed.