zlacker

[parent] [thread] 12 comments
1. nabla9+(OP)[view] [source] 2022-12-16 13:59:02
Most of HN completely miss the intent of conventional doxxing rules and widely accepted privacy laws in most countries.

- Public figures, like politicians, top businessmen, and so on don't get the same amount of privacy and protection as regular Joe. You can follow them and track them. If you have power and influence, you don't enjoy the same privacy protections as others. That's a really good principle to have.

- Elon Musk himself is know for punching down that violates this principle. His M.O is to point his crazy followers against regular Joes and then playing innocent. "It was not me".

replies(1): >>slibhb+62
2. slibhb+62[view] [source] 2022-12-16 14:12:40
>>nabla9+(OP)
It's funny how this debate has shifted. Now that Elon owns twitter, it's Elon haters bringing up the law whereas before they were talking about how twitter can do what they want as a private company.

For my money, there's absolutely nothing wrong with twitter disallowing "person trackers". Legality aside, whether it's Elon Musk or Nancy Pelosi, the subtext of these trackers is creepy and threatening and banning them from some platform is fine.

replies(4): >>aceazz+15 >>memish+3g >>skinny+fn >>nabla9+dY
◧◩
3. aceazz+15[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 14:27:58
>>slibhb+62
The debate hasn't shifted. Everyone is pointing out his blatant hypocrisy and lies since taking ownership. He's allowed to do whatever he wants with Twitter. And the rest of the world is allowed to call out his hypocrisy every time we see it.
◧◩
4. memish+3g[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 15:18:53
>>slibhb+62
Exactly, the hypocrisy knows no bounds.

They were defending Twitter's biased nontransparent censorship before only because it aligned with their bias. Now that it doesn't match their bias, they see the problem.

Finally, welcome to the club!

replies(3): >>skinny+Rm >>BugsJu+Zz >>random+sE
◧◩◪
5. skinny+Rm[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 15:50:59
>>memish+3g
Who is they? Not every one who is against current Twitter and Elon are hypocritical. Leftists in particular were against Twitter’s non transparency and in general are non-hypocritically against big tech.

The right in general on the other hand. They are on the side of business and capital but when big tech happens to ban and annoy both the left and right, the right whines about how bad big tech is and how it needs to be reigned in. Not all business of course, only which businesses they are against and consider “woke”.

◧◩
6. skinny+fn[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 15:52:55
>>slibhb+62
Twitter and Elon don’t care about “person trackers”. Elon cares about personally not being tracked. You think if someone launches a Chuck Schumer tracker that Elon is going to care about Twitter banning it? He will probably want it to stay up to troll the moderates while pretending they are on the left.

> before they were talking about how twitter can do what they want as a private company.

Who are this group of “Elon haters” who are being so inconsistent? Sure a lot of Democrats are in the hands of capital and are complete moderates. Same with many Republicans. Most people are on the side of capital the majority of the time. To blanket group everyone who is against current Twitter as Elon haters in one block is weird. Do you think leftists who despise Elon were sitting around saying they want Twitter to do whatever they want? Even progressives have been consistently against big business power. Twitter is a big business.

◧◩◪
7. BugsJu+Zz[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 16:45:28
>>memish+3g
I'm always surprised when a commenter is blinded to seemingly obvious differences.

Nobody else has joined the "absolute free speech but only until it targets me specifically" club. They're still pointing at it as a bad thing.

People are rightly pointing out that literally just a few days ago Elon's entire mantra, the story for why he paid tens of Billions of dollars to buy twitter, was him moaning about bans and loudly proclaiming to anyone who would listen that he wouldn't do bans because "free speech".

And yet all of a sudden, when that absolute free speech is directed at himself, his narrative flips on its head and ban ban ban ban ban.

Well, the consequence of free speech absolutism is that people will broadcast your location. Gosh. Who ever could have predicted that.

There's a general segment of the population who are incapable of understanding or caring about obvious consequences for anything that doesn't happen to them personally.

The inability to understand or care about obvious consequences until they happen to oneself is a normal characteristic of young children, still mentally undeveloped and shielded by the adults around them, but it's weird, unbecoming, and sad for a grown adult to still have this problem.

◧◩◪
8. random+sE[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 17:02:35
>>memish+3g
Banning Trump for trying to get Mike Pence murdered - utterly shameful.

Sharing already available flight tracker information - This is an assassination attempt.

replies(2): >>memish+0G >>smsm42+Rz2
◧◩◪◨
9. memish+0G[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 17:08:17
>>random+sE
I appreciate you pointing out that both sides are disingenuous about assassination attempts.

My attacks on you are consequence culture. Your attacks on me are stochastic terrorism.

◧◩
10. nabla9+dY[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 18:31:39
>>slibhb+62
It has not shifted. In this case both law and moral agree on the same thing.

Elon Musk does not and should not get similar privacy protection as Joe Doe. (under the law or sane moderation policy by any corporation)

◧◩◪◨
11. smsm42+Rz2[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-17 03:49:32
>>random+sE
That information wasn't "already available" - ElonJet was purposely and knowingly working around privacy protections, and they didn't hide it either. That's like guessing your password, getting into your emails and arguing "this information was already publicly available". Or installing a wiretap on your phone and saying "well, that information is publicly available". No, if you take specific action to override explicit privacy protections, it's not "publicly available". And the story didn't end with this information being just "available". It continued to a masked black bloc wearing person stalking his car and blocking it and climbing on it. Nobody was hurt, so far - but it's not just "information being available" anymore.
replies(1): >>ipytho+I18
◧◩◪◨⬒
12. ipytho+I18[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-18 23:17:35
>>smsm42+Rz2
What “privacy protections” are there on ads-b data?
replies(1): >>smsm42+GUf
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
13. smsm42+GUf[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-21 01:46:36
>>ipytho+I18
https://nbaa.org/aircraft-operations/security/privacy/privac...
[go to top]