It'll be interesting to see if the people who've been lauding musk for his supposedly pro free speech attitudes will reckon with what's been happening in actuality, or if they'll just accept this as "freedom for me but not for thee".
And the rule change was quite clear that linking to the jet tracking was prohibited.
That all said, he's gone too far here. And it's an unwinnable fight anyway.
I'm actually okay with bans, suspensions and all the rest. But only if there is the following
- A redemptive path back
- Due process
- Transparency
- Fair application of the rules.
While I'm sad Elon has taken this turn I still don't think Twitter is any worse off. They did this before just to a different group. At least they appear to be making progress on removing child exploitation.
I don't know if the platform can survive the disruption and unpredictably that Musk has introduced but from a moral standing, removing child exploitation wins a lot of points with me.
When a cult leader fails to deliver, or otherwise issues a prediction that never materializes, the cult member usually grow stronger in the cult’s convictions. This is kind of a counterintuitive psychological phenomena but it has been demonstrated quite a few times. There may be something of a cognitive dissonance driving this. It is that after you see your cult leader fail, you can either dismiss all your prior believes, or change your version of reality to match the cult’s altered dogma. It seems as if doing the latter is easier for most people, so this is in turn what most people do.
Calling it "Hunter Biden's laptop" ignores the fact that it was hacked information provided by a foreign adversary to sow division and influence an election. That is not comparable to sharing publicly available information about aircraft movements.
That being said, I also think the extent to which they went to bury and remove the real photos and videos of Hunter Biden smoking crack was a huge overreach. They tried to paint it as a conspiracy theory that had no factual basis — that's biased censorship.
On top of that, in case of this particular account, Musk specifically said that it would be allowed on the platform per his understanding of free speech.
I can find any reputable news sources saying positive things about Twitter and child exploration.
Every single one of these claims is false. Hunter Biden gave his laptop to a repair shop, the repair shop shared its contents with the New York Post and the FBI. At no point was any foreign agent involved, at no point was anything "hacked"
From what I can gather and infer, a couple of days ago Musk's son got off the jet and into a car, then that car was attacked by a stalker looking for Musk himself. Musk believes that the stalker got the information from the ElonJet Twitter account.
Hopefully this makes more people aware of just how much power social media companies have, and have always had, over the public discourse and that results in the institution of legal and/or technical measures that limit that power across the board. I'm not optimistic though, given how much of the public attention right now seems to be focused on admonishing Elon personally rather than on the overall system that makes this kind of censorship possible.
Elon changed the TOS to obfuscate from it being a personal and vengeful decision.
You're right, Rudy Giuliani is clearly a credible figure and his account of how he happened to come across Hunter Biden's laptop is sensible and not-suspicous in the least.
Hey, quick question completely unrelated to this, was Trump pro or anti Putin? Did Julian Assange leak information in good faith or did he co-ordinate with Republicans to release only information that made Democrats look bad, in the 2016 election? Who provided Assange that information?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-assange-idUSKBN20...
It was neither of those things.
If there was anything substantive about ElonJet, it would have been the statistics on jet fuel consumption, because that makes a statement about hypocrisy. They could have posted that without revealing locations, which crosses the line to singling out an individual for the purpose of harassment.
Residents of the commune later committed suicide by drinking a flavored beverage laced with potassium cyanide; some were forced to drink it, some (such as small children) drank it unknowingly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_the_Kool-Aid
I have a longstanding interest in social psychology and the way a cult generally arranges to control people is to cut them off financially, socially, etc. This is the same way that abusive husbands typically treat their abused wives. One study sought to identify character traits that made abused women more likely to kill their abusive husband and could not do so. Instead, they found that the women who murdered their abusive husbands were the most isolated, the most abused, the most painted into a corner. In short, they were women who found themselves with no other way out.
I suppose if you work for the man or are enthralled by his billions or some such, that's going to hold sway for some people. But I have trouble comparing his Twitter debacle to what cults do.
Anyway, just rambling on. Not actually interested in discussing this Twitter mess that I am mostly trying to avoid discussing in spite of the entire world seeming to discuss nothing else.
But if you have some citations to back up your social psychology related statement, I would be interested in seeing those as it's an area of interest of mine.
I am aware. My point is that there is a precedent for this behaviour and neither Trump nor Republicans are credible.
> As for the provenance of the laptop: Hunter Biden never denied giving the laptop to the repair shop. And the repair shop gave the laptop and all its contents to the FBI, who would presumably have found any foreign involvment, if it existed, in their investigation of the matter.
Let me be clear: I have no doubt in the veracity of any of the information or materials leaked. I distinctly recall seeing posts on /pol/ containing videos of Hunter smoking crack and banging hookers (that have since been scrubbed from the Internet), and people allegedly attempting to hack his iCloud account.
However, the I do not find the story and chain-of-custody of his laptop credible. I have been looking further since your prior comment and I cannot find anything that unambiguously confirms its provenance.
On the flip side, I also do not find a lack of official condemnation or attribution to Russia to be sufficient in disproving it. Joe Biden and the Democrats were clearly trying to kill the story and scrub any mention of it, so acknowledging it only gives it legitimacy.
Happy to ammend my comment if you can point me to something that proves otherwise, though. Jeffrey Epstein was discovered in part because a woman stumbled across his black book on the sidewalk — sometimes unlikely coincidences happen.
As Twitter’s policy has been, when they banned people for posting videos with visible house numbers because they doxxed the people in them.
What do you think this system is?
Anyone that actually wanted to use this data to harm Musk would have no trouble simply using the exact same original data.
This is directly contrary to the reporting in Twitter Files by Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss, and Michael Shellenberger whose journalistic integrity and credentials exceed yours and mine combined by orders of magnitude:
"On Jan 7, senior Twitter execs:
- create justifications to ban Trump
- seek a change of policy for Trump alone, distinct from other political leaders
- express no concern for the free speech or democracy implications of a ban"
https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/16017204550055116...
And the only doxxing related to LibsOfTikTok was Taylor Lorenz doxxing LibsOfTikTok, to the point that Lorenz showed up at LibsOfTikTok's house in person herself. She didn't just doxx her, she went to her house in person. There are pictures.
edit: Rate limited for telling a truth that HN dislikes again...
Here's my reply to the below:
>If they then publish your home address? Sure.
She did publish her home address, after showing up there. Some tweets containing it are apparently still up, as she complained about it to Musk in a thread about the journalists being suspended (for 7 days it turns out).
She claimed the identity of the account was of public interest on CNN here: https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/15182845369660456...
But then showed up at relatives' houses of LibsOfTikTok too: https://thepostmillennial.com/libs-of-tik-tok-exposes-taylor...
Do you mean to tell me that the relatives of that account were of public interest after exposing the account as an American woman?
It was a deliberate doxxing, by Taylor Lorenz aimed at LibsOfTikTok on purpose.
The degree to which Musk is upset by this makes me wonder if there isn't something more to it than just 'personal safety' concerns fed by paranoia. It may well be that the location of his plane tells a story that he does not want exposed. Because frankly the amount of goodwill that he's burning over this makes no sense at all.
Anecdotally, I did see the @ElonJet account, and have still never seen the source of the data.
1. A small number of large tech companies have collectively managed to gain a huge amount of control over what information millions of people are allowed to see.
2. There are nearly no legal restrictions on how they're allowed to exercise that control.
I'm not sure precisely what the solution to that should be, but the problem only exists as long as both 1 and 2 remain true, so you could theoretically approach the problem from either of those angles, or both.
(Edit: may have been just the original author and at least one other:
> The New York Post published images and PDF copies of the alleged emails, but their authenticity and origin have not been determined.[23] According to an investigation by The New York Times, editors at the New York Post "pressed staff members to add their bylines to the story", and at least one refused, in addition to the original author, reportedly because of a lack of confidence in its credibility. Of the two writers eventually credited on the article, the second did not know her name was attached to it until after The Post published it.[24] In its opening sentence, the New York Post story misleadingly asserted "the elder Biden pressured government officials in Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who was investigating" Burisma, despite the fact that Shokin had not pursued an investigation into Burisma's founder. )
See the terrorist attacks against Drag Queens.
This fits with my general knowledge of how such things work. TLDR: Those with the most skin in the game were the most likely to try to save face and double-down on their stated beliefs. Those who had lost less had an easier time going "Whoops! I was wrong!" and getting on with their lives:
Some of the believers took significant actions that indicated a high degree of commitment to the prophecy. Some left or lost their jobs, neglected or ended their studies, ended relationships and friendships with non-believers, gave away money and / or disposed of possessions to prepare for their departure on a flying saucer, which they believed would rescue them and others in advance of the flood.
As anticipated by the research team, the prophesied date passed with no sign of the predicted flood, causing a dissonance between the group's commitment to the prophecy and the unfolding reality. Different members of the group reacted in different ways. Many of those with the highest levels of belief, commitment and social support became more committed to their beliefs, began to court publicity in a way they had not before, and developed various rationalisations for the absence of the flood. Some others, with less prior conviction and commitment, and / or less access to ongoing group support, were less able to sustain or increase their previous levels of belief and involvement, and several left the group.
This is not inconsistent with what we know about the process by which people are radicalized and become members of extremist political groups and the like. Part of the process is that it becomes increasingly difficult to get respect, make meaningful social contacts etc with people outside the group. Once you pass some point of extremism, outsiders become openly hostile and their reactions give you no good path back from your position.
Being seen as "crazy" or "wrong" or "stupid" is too much to bear. Better to reject the entire world -- knowing it won't be nice to you at this point -- than to admit "Okay, maybe that wasn't the most rational thing to do."
So...cancel culture? Criticize the current #thing and get cut off financially and socially.
That would make #thing a cult, no?
So you'd be okay with banning misinformation about COVID and the COVID vaccine? Misinformation and agitprop had very real consequences in the real world.
And I’m saying this as someone who thinks the decision to publish LOTT’s real name was borderline, despite the fact that LOTT decided to use her real name for her domain registration.
Obviously there are times when the rich and famous know that their location is public. At those times they generally have good security.
As for whether or not their should be legal restrictions on what publishers can publish... take your best shot at suggesting some legal rules. I think there would be holes that you could drive a truck through that would upset you regardless of your own views.
Not everyone needs a global megaphone. And nobody intrinisicly deserves one.
"Members of the British Royal Family en route to Balmoral castle to see Queen Elizabeth after news of her failing health, very sad." - https://www.reddit.com/r/ADSB/comments/x91yli/members_of_the...
You conveniently misinterpreted or even left our crucial pieces of the so called “twitter files” including that the policies of shadow banning and such were already mentioned and known.
Some of the employees were literally asking for reasons to KEEP certain right wing accounts on twitter.
They listened to violations of revenge porn AND TOS violations of Hunter Biden’s dick. The right wing really seems obsessed with seeing it because the links that were all mentioned in the docs were all of his dick LOL
LibsofTikTok causing harassment to children’s hospitals and they still weren’t even banned. No they weren’t promoted in the algorithm but there’s no right to be amplified.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/09/02/lgbtq-t...
Is the claim that Twitter changed their ToS in order to justify banning Trump? If so, can you share the before and after texts? I assume the Internet Archive would have snapshots.
Or is the point, literally, that people at Twitter discussed whether a change of policy was a good idea in the context of the Jan 6 insurrection? In which case, like...wouldn't you sort of expect them to have conversations about the fitness of the ToS to an unprecedented situation? That sounds like doing their jobs competently, no?
Even Air Force One shows up on ADSBexchange when it's in the air. https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=adfdf8
Nice strawman!
It's a question of safety of provably true information in this case.
I'm not sure how they can prove much here. All I've seen is an activist in the space supporting him. Specifically https://twitter.com/elizableu
I could be wrong.
~~Donald J. Trump was not directly involved in the breaking of the laptop story.~~ (edit: my bad) "Republicans" is a group containing tens of millions of people (though I am not aware of the repair shop owner's party affiliation, if any?)
Elon Musk @elonmusk "I simply mean that which matches the law.
I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law.
If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect.
Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people."
(Besides the fact that Elon literally doxxed his former employee trying to insinuate he is a pedo)
Or can you give other examples of disparity between free speech rule applications for themselves and people they don't like?
Hmm, yes, that's why nobody can go to InfoWars anymore, right? They're banned from Facebook and YouTube, so I guess it's impossible to hear anything they have to say.
What's this? infowars.com still loads? It has videos on it? Impossible, the leftist lizard demons banned it
Wake me up when port 443 requires written consent from Zucc to operate.
The assertion that posting a 'live location' create dangerous real world consequences is completely absurd. We know plenty about the dead humans COVID misinformation left in its wake.
You are okay with censorship here because you agree with it. Full stop.
>It's a question of safety of provably true information in this case.
Okay, prove the lack of safety.
It's here: https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=a835af
The source code for the bot: https://github.com/Jxck-S/plane-notify
ADSBexchange (and FlightRadar and several other orgs) are just tracking the public broadcasts each plane makes every second with its location, altitude, airspeed, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_Dependent_Surveillan...
Posting public information publicly isn't doxxing and until you give up that falsehood, there isn't really anywhere the conversation can go.
Of course a free speech "absolutist" like Musk is a complete hypocrite for not allowing doxxing in the first place.
I have no strong opinion about how doxxing relates to free speech, but desire to hide your private life is understandable, and I don't see any benefit for the society from realtime doxxing.
If Musk hadn't been making a big deal about supporting free speech for the last several months there wouldn't be a problem with him banning all these accounts. It's his platform he can do what he wants. dang can ban me at any time here, it's kind of his party in many ways. But dang isn't running around claiming to support all forms of legal speech, he's made a point he's trying to enforce his and the team's ideas of community guidelines.
The data comes from https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=a835af. You'll see no passenger list there.
Sometimes it is.
For example, name plate on the mailbox is publicly available, but posting the address with full name online constitutes doxxing.
> a free speech "absolutist" like Musk is a complete hypocrite
One guy once said, who never changes his/her opinion, is a moron.
Do you really believe that Rudy Guiliani, a man acting as Trump's lackey for numerous things, received bombshell information and publicized it without Trump having any knowledge or involvement?
Michael Cohen testified under oauth that Trump knew about leaked DNC emails in advance of the 2016 election. Fast-forward to ~2019 and Trump had already personally tried to pressure Ukraine into providing damaging information about Joe Biden. There is very little plausible deniability here.
> "Republicans" is a group containing tens of millions of people (though I am not aware of the repair shop owner's party affiliation, if any?)
I am obviously not referring to a collective conspiracy of between hundreds of millions of American citizens. I meant the Republican Party.
Musk will continue to censor speech he doesn't like arbitrarily and use Twitter to promote right-wing extremists who will then hurt real people in the real world.
One of the groups that formed out of it is still active today more than 150 years later.
Anything he dislikes, if he filters through the lens of his children, he's willing to ban, apparently.
He can ban away, but he's just proving his free speech stance is meaningless. He'll just ban whatever he doesn't like regardless of if it's legal or not. Which is fine, but don't hold him up as some defender of free speech.
In line with what I have noted elsewhere:
Many followers had given up their possessions in expectation of Christ's return...
There were also the instances of violence: a Millerite church was burned in Ithaca, New York, and two were vandalized in Dansville and Scottsville. In Loraine, Illinois, a mob attacked the Millerite congregation with clubs and knives, while a group in Toronto was tarred and feathered. Shots were fired at another Canadian group meeting in a private house.
Perhaps we shouldn't give people so much hell for simply being wrong?
I wasn't sure if Musk was going to deliver it, but I tried to remain open-minded. I did think previous Twitter management leaned left with some admittedly difficult moderation decisions, but obviously I'm finding out that Musk is even less supportive of true free speech.
Ironically this banning of Mastodon links is the #1 thing pushing me to start exploring Mastodon or other platforms.
You might be referring to JM Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind."
The question is what facts are changing? Here, it looks like the only difference is that something bad happened to HIM.
There are a few people with less money than Mush who have bodyguards.
Somebody described his Twitter purchase as "fragile narcissist buys criticism factory", so I think he has wedged himself into a situation that his ego makes both intolerable and inescapable. If he had somebody in his life to talk sense into him ("honey, put down your phone and come to bed"), I'd expect him to walk away and consider it rationally. But here I could imagine him continuing to spiral for quite a while.
To me, it's tragic in the way that Rudy Giuliani or Kanye West is: too much success can create the conditions for a long, lonely downward slide.
> I meant the Republican Party.
Which contains many thousands of people, many of whom do not get along. It's a minor miracle that it is still holding together at all!
That's okay, I had to go back and re-check the details of the story multiple times.
Based on your other comments, I think we're probably share a similar view about it. All I'm saying is that, while the validity of the content itself unimpeachable, the story about how it was uncovered is highly suspicious.
> Which contains many thousands of people, many of whom do not get along. It's a minor miracle that it is still holding together at all!
Of course, but they demonstrably put up a rather unified front against the Democrats; Catholics and Protestants hated each other, yet put aside their differences to vote for common interests.
Aren't the GOP currently spearheading an investigation into Hunter Biden's laptop?
https://twitter.com/housegop/status/1593253229747265545
https://i.redd.it/4yfum3kpzy0a1.jpg (I'm too lazy to find the actual tweet)
Not exactly a citation, but none of the predictions or claims of the original QAnon poster have come true or been proven. Yet the Q movement is still around, and for some of them their beliefs are getting stranger.
During the NY Post story, on Twitter you weren't allowed to link to "hacked" material (though this was probably not well enforced).[2]
Twitter changed that policy and reverted the account freezes[3] so that it was fine to link to "hacked" material as long as you weren't directly affiliated with the entity that produced the "hacked" material. [4]
[1] https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hacked-materi...
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20200603215859/https://help.twit...
[3] https://variety.com/2020/digital/news/twitter-ceo-nypost-blo...
[4] https://web.archive.org/web/20210301054617/https://help.twit...
That may have been poorly phrased on my part. My intent was to put the focus on the listener rather than the speaker, since Google search (for example) doesn't control what people say, but it can control what people see. Censorship at that level is just as much of an issue as it is at the level of social media. "Freedom of speech" and "freedom to listen" are really the same thing. I prefer the term "the free exchange of ideas" since that includes both speech and listening, is agnostic to the medium (listening, reading etc.), and conveniently excludes things like CSAM and spam, since those aren't ideas.
I'd also argue you can't "just go somewhere else" to find content you aren't even aware exists in the first place, so I think the phrasing "allowed to see" makes more sense than you give it credit for once you consider the chilling effect of widespread censorship.
It makes sense to me, considering how damaging and embarrassing the content was. If they confirm it, they lose plausible deniability in being able to claim it's fake.
For a large period of time there was a coordinated effort to purge everything from the Internet and paint anyone bringing it up as a conspiracy theorist. It's harder to get away with that if you call attention to the leak and confirm it's authenticity.
Perhaps the laptop truly belonged to Hunter Biden. Without a confirmation or proper chain of custody, it's hard to say either way. It's not implausible that an advanced threat actor, especially one backed by a nation-state, could create an elaborate laptop forgery to 'layer'[0] hacked material into a legitimate news story and avoid the hack itself taking centre-stage like in 2016 — of course, this is speculation on my part.
[0] https://www.moneylaundering.ca/public/law/3_stages_ML.php#:~...
That sounds like a big jump even beyond "they shouldn't be able to control what they publish." Are we now going to require Twitter actively promote everything too?
How many obligations would you impose on everyone else in service of this hypothetical listener who demands to be spoon fed all points of view in the world without effort? Is a library allowed to have a collection if they don't fully advertise it's breadth? Is a bookstore allowed to choose what to and to not put on their shelves? Am I allowed to tell you what I think without telling you how many possible other views there are? Any of those are just as "chilling" as "twitter.com" not having all the content that "elonsjet.com" or "jacobin.com" or "foxnews.com" would...
Twitter/FB/etc are HARDLY important enough, and way less powerful than past media, to start telling people they have to amplify what other people say.
This is not a new phenomenon, the only thing that changes is the terms used to signal the meaning.
A stranger should not be able to unplug your hard-drive and access your nudes.
I am not aware of any source for this claim except Elon himself.
> [Other comment:] days after. so by musk's own rules.. fine to post. wasn't real time.
Location of the jet was shared in real-time to my understanding, checking with the link given on https://grndcntrl.net/falconlanding/
> And again, no police report filed. You were dooped.
I see a video of the supposed stalker in a balaclava. I do think Musk took the opportunity to get rid of something he already disliked, but I don't yet believe he faked the attack if that's what you're implying.
> - create justifications to ban Trump
> - seek a change of policy for Trump alone, distinct from other political leaders
> - express no concern for the free speech or democracy implications of a ban"
Funnily enough this is literally exactly what Musk has done in the last 24 hours with regard to the @ElonJet account and the people reporting on it.
There is some irony now seeing those that didn't believe the banning of accounts arbitrarily was an issue under previous management decrying this move by Elon.
Our company had already stopped spending on Twitter ads back when the first (possibly false) reports about increased hatespeech on Twitter came out, where I was one of a few protesting the decision, since it seemed like giving in to the hysteria and just trying not to become the target of activist journalists. But now it's clear even to me that staying on Twitter is a brand safety issue.
And she's also Qanon or at least Qanon adjacent. Few days ago she tweeted that she did believe the world was run by a satanic pedo cult.
If 4chan had anywhere near the size/reach of Twitter or Facebook, I think it would either be more toxic or more restrictive in its moderation.
This is probably true, but it also describes Twitter prior to the takeover.
If anything is clear to me, it's that it seems impossible to have a completely neutral/fair public forum. Or perhaps it is possible, but people dislike the opposition so much they aren't interested in using it.
uhhhh, no. Doesn't seem like they're having a reckoning. Will check back with next shoe drop.
Edit: I see 2 on this comment. Good for them.
The information is provably true by going to the location and verifying that the person is there.
No, the irony is not that the site under both owners is trying to remove bad/harmful content (just defining it differently).
The irony is that Musk thought he wasn’t going to have to do it at all: “absolute free speech”, “public square”, “comedy is legal”, etc.
One of the banned journalists went on Mastodon and said (paraphrasing): “It’s his site and he can ban whoever he wants”
And to be fair, under both owners, accounts were banned for violating ToS policies. The policies are just different, but they’re still the rules you agree to when you use the site.
I just don’t think anyone thought “free speech” meant no parodying, no republishing public FAA info, etc.
That specific context you mention is VERY important:
Russia already did this.
The FBI specifically warned to TW that a leak like this had high chance of happening just at the time it did.
Twitter was right to be cautious.
Maybe didn't do everything consistently or perfectly, but I would far prefer them limiting the reach of Hunter dick pics and crack photos than letting a foreign government do so much damage again.
I think their main error was being slow as more background & info was uncovered.
We don't do ads on twitter (politics). but no brand I know would want to be associated with the crazy-ness and tons of negative press.
Maybe good opportunity for click arbitragers and bottom barrel DTC though! low competition!
twitter is already showing me taboola level ads lmfao
I just can't with hn anymore. came back to specifically read this thread.
at least reddit is fun and has shit posting.
a significant chunk of active commenters on hn have gone off the deep end. a stew of insane, mean, and flat out wrong comments that have nothing to do with tech or cool nerd stuff. and everything to do with mean-spirited (often right wing) politics
The thing is, deplatforming works. Banning far-right actors has drastically reduced the reach of their messages [1]. Personally, I see this as a Good Thing, simply because of the potential that spreading hate has to escalate to actual, real-world violence, from murders like in Charlottesville to an outright attempt at instigating a coup.
At every sudo prompt, we get the warning "With great power comes great responsibility" - for good reasons. It's the same with running a social network connecting literally billions of people... those operating them have great power by the sheer market size of their platforms, and a huge responsibility for just how much of the bad side of humanity can be empowered by them. Whatsapp, for example, was directly linked to dozens of murders and severe injuries after lies and propaganda led to lynch mobs [2][3][4].
[1] https://www.niemanlab.org/2021/06/deplatforming-works-this-n...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_WhatsApp_lynchings
[3] https://www.dailystar.co.uk/tech/news/chilling-whatsapp-chil...
Twitter only censored the oldest continually published newspaper in America during an election about the Hunter Biden laptop.
[1] https://twitter.com/jack/status/651003891153108997Be honest, and ask yourself if that had been Trump's son's laptop would Twitter, The Washington Post, and the others have done the same? I don't think so.
If I collate publicy available information and publish it continuously on any person, you are OK with that? If it happens to you?
Anyone intelligent enough to think it through knows it's a paradox, so anyone who truly does want free speech clearly hasn't actually thought it through. They exist, but nobody should take them seriously.
Less terroristy but still super shitty: https://www.vice.com/en/article/4axmy3/far-right-attacked-dr...
If Musk wants to demonstrate a newly sensitive attitude towards doxxing and its dangers, he’s welcome to ban Libs of TikTok.
They were "known" in the same sense that everybody already "knew" that the US government spies on us before Snowden leaked the details.
Twitter claimed that they didn't shadowban - in fact there's a tweet out there somewhere (I think I saw it shared in one of the Twitter Files threads itself) in which Jack Dorsey himself explicitly denies that Twitter shadowbans. To claim that the Files didn't reveal any new information is utterly disingenuous.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1603235998263123969?s=20...
Sure, if you presuppose that the people responsible for disclosing it are credible and honest.
I personally have some questions why a computer store owner would, faced with an abandoned laptop from a customer, decided to snoop through its contents and give it to Rudy Giuliani, of all people.
If you take the story at face value it's still a massive breach of privacy. You have to go out of your way to find this stuff; an ethical repair shop would go out of their way to avoid accidentally stumping across private information.
Even still, if you assume that he stumbled across extremely concerning information in a manner no fault of his own, why did he feel it necessary to leak videos of Hunter Biden smoking crack and having sex? Imagine how creepy it would be if a woman dropped her laptop off at a repair shop and the owner leaked her nudes?
The most charitable interpretation is that Hunter Biden dropped his laptop off at a computer repair shop, and the owner decided to snoop for compromising information and give it to his father's political rival, presumably for politically-motivated reasons.
> Be honest, and ask yourself if that had been Trump's son's laptop would Twitter, The Washington Post, and the others have done the same? I don't think so.
I agree.
I don't, so I assume I'm not that intelligent. Would you please explain to me how is it a paradox?
This, to me, clearly seems to be a small mistake with no material negative impact on the world. Shit happens.
Elon is consistently and repeatedly making far worse mistakes.
Wow, you have to reach back 25 years, and it's an absolutely terrible example because it has nothing to do with a constant publication of location to the general public. Instead paparazzi used their own private communications (paparazzi who saw her board in Sardinia told other paparazzi in France). And her death wasn't caused by someone who found out her location and wanted to do her harm.
"Safety claim by Elon" is also completely meaningless since he's literally the person who wanted this shut down.
So two really bad examples over 25 years is not evidence for your claim.
Finally, using public information to say the state or country Elon has recently flown to is a far cry from actually giving away his current location.
It's not just speech - it's speech with an intention to do harm. That's like saying going into a bank and saying "my partner there has a gun and he will start shooting unless you give me money" is also abusing free speech - it's not about speech, it's about actions in the real world.
> If you allow all speech, some speakers will use that tool to restrict others' speech, which means not all speech is actually allowed
Nobody uses speech on its own to restrict others' speech.
> "Free speech" is a paradox.
I'm not convinced, see above explanations.
I believe the car was followed from the jet (possibly after the car dropped off Musk, or collected Musk's son from Musk), which was at Los Angeles International Airport earlier that day.
The car itself doesn't have a live tracker, so it seems less likely that someone dressed up in all black balaclava/gloves would find it otherwise - if it's even a known car at all.
> days after
Days after what?
> that’s the price you pay for a private jet using public air space.
A stalker attacking the car containing your 2-year-old son is NOT just a price to pay.
Interesting how you moved on from “government involvement” when everyone realizes Biden campaign wasn’t the government and it was dick picks they were trying to remove.
Shadowban was literally talked about earlier this year. https://www.theverge.com/2022/4/5/23012046/twitter-prisoner-...
Sure, there are phonies. Therefore it is impossible to believe that anyone is genuine? No.
My statement of price to pay was public jet location information using public airspace. This is the case for everyone. It was done for years and there’s no evidence it was a factor in the incident here despite many trying to find an excuse after the fact.
Whether the information is real is orthogonal to how it was obtained. Conspiring with a hostile adversary to release damaging information about a political opponent is also political malfeasance.
The circumstances of how the information was obtained is incredibly suspect and that deserves scrutiny, even if the information is legitimate and actionable.
> The focus on crack smoking hookers getting clapped by Biden isn't as interesting when it comes to political malfeasance.
That's kind of my point: why was that stuff leaked and spread when there was actually damning evidence? To me, it seems like the point was to release as much damaging and embarrassing content as possible to harm Joe Biden.
I could be making a mistake but I don't believe this is true. Are we looking at the same plane (N628TS)? It seems to have been at Los Angeles International Airport the same day.
It's also not particularly public information (https://archive.vn/cB7Lh). Would you defend doxxing sites like Kiwi Farms, on the basis that they're correlating/archiving public information?
We haven't moved anywhere, because it's not speech that's illegal, it's the intention to do harm. You could perfectly well communicate your intentions to do harm with no speech at all, e.g. by pointing a gun to a bank teller without saying a word. If you use speech to offer to sell drugs to somebody, and a cop arrests you for it, that's not an issue of free speech, that's an issue of drug dealing.
The fact that you aren't allowed to commit crimes by using your speech doesn't make free speech itself a paradox - otherwise any use of the word "free" in the context of humans in society might as well be paradoxical. "We're not free to commit a murder, therefore individual freedom is a paradox" - that'd be quite a naive take on the matter.
In case of free speech as an ideal, it's still a bullshit argument. You cannot suppress speech with speech alone. Go on any anonymous internet forum and try to suppress someone's speech by e.g. threatening to doxx/harm them - you will be laughed at, because on the internet there is no real threat of harm. It's always the threat of harm that actually suppresses speech, not speech itself.
That fact that you use speech to deliver the threat doesn't in itself create a paradox.
In context of freedom of movement, that argument would be akin to "free movement is a paradox because you can suppress someone's movement by holding them down". Yes, you use free movement to walk up to a person, but it's not your movement that holds them down.
Because everybody has a point where they don't want free speech anymore. If I gathered your home address and told everyone you were a pedophile that needed to be killed, you'd probably be less stoked about free speech.
Musk is a right-wing extremist who will protect his own.
In this case it appears that you did not think.
Their entire argument is about the prevention of the exact sort of thing that Musk alleges happened to a car carrying his child - real world harm from online activity. So why exactly are they upset about this change in policy that while clearly motivated by self-interest rather than any principle, technically aligns with some of their goals? It's because they want to be able to doxx people they think deserve it. Because when they doxx it's journalism, but when their enemies doxx it's stochastic terrorism.