zlacker

[parent] [thread] 7 comments
1. memish+(OP)[view] [source] 2022-12-16 15:18:53
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+O6 >>BugsJu+Wj >>random+po
2. skinny+O6[view] [source] 2022-12-16 15:50:59
>>memish+(OP)
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”.

3. BugsJu+Wj[view] [source] 2022-12-16 16:45:28
>>memish+(OP)
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.

4. random+po[view] [source] 2022-12-16 17:02:35
>>memish+(OP)
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+Xp >>smsm42+Oj2
◧◩
5. memish+Xp[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 17:08:17
>>random+po
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.

◧◩
6. smsm42+Oj2[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-17 03:49:32
>>random+po
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+FL7
◧◩◪
7. ipytho+FL7[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-18 23:17:35
>>smsm42+Oj2
What “privacy protections” are there on ads-b data?
replies(1): >>smsm42+DEf
◧◩◪◨
8. smsm42+DEf[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-21 01:46:36
>>ipytho+FL7
https://nbaa.org/aircraft-operations/security/privacy/privac...
[go to top]