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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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...
The data comes from https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=a835af. You'll see no passenger list there.
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.
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.
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.
The information is provably true by going to the location and verifying that the person is there.
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...
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.
In this case it appears that you did not think.