The difference is that the information we're talking about here is already completely public information, repackaged in a different format. It would be more like an account that tweets the nearest homeless shelter to you - open information, packaged differently.
Where it might become more problematic would be if the account included inciting language with the information ("here is a homeless shelter, go and mob it"; "Elon's about to land in CDG, who wants to stage a riot"). But I think it's clear that that's not what this account is doing - it's just giving information out that already exists.
And for what it's worth, it's not just Musk who gets this treatment. Most British political events of the last few years have involved journalists excitedly gathering around flightradar24 and watching some poor minister's plane as they make their way back to London to get fired, hand in their resignation, etc. That's essentially the same thing that this Twitter feed is doing (albeit usually more focused on the event rather than 24/7 tracking of one vehicle), but it's not considered a security risk because it honestly isn't. I mean, when the Queen died, Huw Edwards did the same thing for the Princes' plane, and he'll probably win a BAFTA for it...
In all fairness, I have some sympathy towards Musk, as it sounds like he's dealing with the shock of his child being stalked. That's going to evoke a strong emotional reaction, and I can completely understand why he'd want to shut this sort of thing down. But that doesn't make it useful (the information is still public, and anyone motivated enough to track Musk down IRL doesn't need Twitter to find it), nor does it change the hypocrisy of the situation. It seems like he's just lashing out at the wrong person, and making decisions over things that he can control.
So because a Twitter is single purpose its bad? If the twitter account followed two peoples private jets would that be enough? Or does it need to be a whole sale repost of the entire flight tracking feed? Can the person parse ANY flight data from this type of a Twitter account? Where do you draw your arbitrary line here?
This entire premise is so very weak to me. Elon is famous and a public figure and it's his own choice that people have as much interest in him as they do. He does everything he can to be in the public eye. There are tons of plane tracking accounts or applications. There is even one that tracks AF1 which carries one of the most powerful and important people in the world.
And this isn't a location tracker. This account doesn't follow Elon around and Tweet where he's headed once he lands, how long he might be staying, where he went for lunch, etc. And Elon can use completely legal methods to reduce how much of this information is publicly available.
> Just because you can publish information like this doesn't mean it's ethical
And just because some actions MIGHT have negative outcomes doesn't mean they are unethical.
Elon has all the tools to avoid being tracked by a random flight tracking service. If he doesn't use those tools then he doesn't care that much about his privacy. He posts images of him sleeping in the Twitter HQ, which has a publicly listed address. We aren't talking about some powerless individual who is having big companies abuse their privacy.
Exactly. Pre-Elon Twitter was all about the need to censor information because of a supposed risk of danger. As the twitter files indicate, often this risk was not readily apparent. Accounts that track high profile people's travel plans is such an evident risk. If are not willing to apply your rule equally to everyone, you really are not in a position to be making these decisions.
The account was re-broadcasting publicly available information. Anyone who wanted to harm Musk would easily be able to find this information themselves without the twitter account.
I posted that deliberately without comment. I think it stands on its own as something people should reflect on when forming their opinion of the current situation, and thought that adding commentary would only muddy the perception of it.
I definitely did not intend it to be imagined with a troll face meme.
But since you asked my opinion, I’ll post it and people can judge it separately to the tweet.
I actually do agree with the idea that you shouldn’t post the whereabouts of people, even celebrities, if they’re not at public events - even if the information is technically public. That seems like a reasonable rule.
It’s the capriciousness and lack of concern for consistency - the seeming knee-jerk, ad hoc decision making - that is so frustrating. (And that many of the people defending it are the same people who perceived old Twitter to be capricious - but that’s another digression.)
I believe that rule-making (and enforcing) for something like Twitter requires more consistency, more deliberation, and more decorum than is currently being presented. I am afraid that this is not in Musk’s nature, and afraid about what the consequences of that will be.
I think the tweet I quoted, combined with knowledge of the current situation, is evidence for all of that.
Not that I think it should be banned (I don't think it should)
I think it's also obvious that this jet tracker doesn't exactly aid in the public discourse, it seems far closer to targeted harassment..
Again, I don't think anything should be banned outside of direct threats (I'm a free speech absolutist). But it does seem clear, even from that tweet by Musk, that that twitter account seemed to impact his personal safety.
That Musk 'changed his mind' on the one thing that he said would set Twitter apart from 'the rest' is where I have a problem: this is a matter of principle so dear that it should override his personal affairs because that is what he is on the record about. If Musk's principles only hold water as long as he isn't personally affected then I'm fine with that but then he should get off his high horse and stop pretending.
Twitter before Musk was not perfect, but it was perfectly usable (even if they got stuff wrong every now and then, and in those cases they usually - but not always - eventually corrected themselves). What is on display right now is capriciousness of an entirely different degree.
This account didn't track a flight of a plane but Elon Musks movement. That purpose of registration numbers (and ADS-B) is helping air traffic control and general safety. Not surveillance of personal movement. The same accounts for license plates of cars.
If Twitter want to do something useful they should reconsider their own standards regarding privacy in general.
‘Mr. Musk tweeted last month: “My commitment to free speech extends even to not banning the account following my plane, even though that is a direct personal safety risk.” On Wednesday, though, he equated the practice to doxxing, or the publishing of private information online with malicious intent, tweet-ing: “Real-time posting of someone else’s location violates doxxing policy, but delayed posting of locations are ok.”’
What is the actual risk? I suspect he's way more likely to get into a car crash.
The information about his plane's location is already public. Posting it to twitter just makes it spread further. Also, a plane's location isn't very useful. Even doxxing someone's permanent address (not that elon has one) is a pretty minimal threat to their life.
A plane's location is some of the less dangerous speech allowed.
Don't be silly. Musk just wants to ban their Twitter account if they start to post the information to his specific plane. As long as they post specifics about someone else's plane, their account will be considered in good standing.
Since it was an individual not linked to a website, it's an even easier decision for him.
That is entirely baseless. I'm fairly certain that whole affair was just some social media assistant offering money to someone for Musk to have slightly increased privacy and PR(since private jet use is really bad for the environment). They offered like $5k to take itf down which to Musk is literally like giving a homeless person a couple quarters. All flight traffic is public though. Banning a Twitter account would do nothing as all that information is already public record. You can track whoever you want on sites like Flightradar. I really doubt Musk cares that much at all, if he was ever actually even aware that the Twitter account existed.
I'm assuming that the OP is posting the question in good faith - Musk on the other hand has a track record of disclosing private information for fun/retaliation, whether or not it's legal for him to do so. "Assume good faith" doesn't mean you have to overlook everything about the situation when discussing the situation.
I'm not asserting that Musk would do anything illegal in this case, just that there's a reason the Twitter board may not want to give him private data. It's not obvious that he wouldn't disclose, either directly or implicitly, anything he's given.
No, I think it’s relevant because the banned account was not just “sharing public information”, but actively tracking Musk using a combination of online data and real word surveillance.
The fact that Musk previously said he wouldn’t ban the account, then changed his mind (apparently after a personal incident) just shows Musk changed his mind, is all.
It certainly demonstrates he didn’t think through his previous decision, suggesting it was a spontaneous comment and not a rigorous policy. Which is worrying, because publishers such as Twitter need to have a consistent and coherent moderation policy.
But it’s still relevant if we’re to decide which position we agree with, and whether Musk was “right” previously or now.
It's public information (ADB-S) and the account is exercising its freedom of speech. Elon said on twitter that "My commitment to free speech extends even to not banning the account following my plane, even though that is a direct personal safety risk" (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1589414958508691456)
I shouldn't have to, it's pretty obvious. But sure, if I were a crazy person hell bent on harming Elon, then that account gives me precise times and locations where I could find him and chase him down with a gun. Or hey, look. Elon landed back in Austin tonight, so I could probably find him at home, or leaving the airport soon. The Austin airport is not that big.
I honestly was unaware, but it has been pointed out to me that Elon even said as much in a tweet from 11/6. He explicitly said it's a direct threat to his personal safety. Sure, in the same tweet he said he would allow the account to continue, but I think that's a perfectly fine thing to change your mind on. I would never wish anyone's safety be put at risk for a dumb Doxxing account in the name of free speech
I'm flabbergasted by the overwhelming response that this account should be allowed "in the name of Free Speech". This isn't a free speech issue. This is a personal safety issue. It is a personal attack towards Musk. As high profile as he is, and the amount of controversy surrounding him, he certainly has a target on his back. I consider that account a form of Doxxing, and I can't think of any good reason it should be allowed to exist. It feels like everyone is so upset with Elon, that we all want to play this game of "Gotcha" with every move he makes. Doesn't seem like anyone is considering that account is a real safety/ security issue for him.
I know it's generally accepted that "the guy on the street" doesn't care about privacy, but honestly this seems a step too far even for such accepting souls. I guess Musk superfans may go for it, but everybody else? Just to use twitter? C'mon.
That's true. But if you were to for instance publish that address with a call to action or if you were to compile a list of addresses of politicians with a call to action you'd quickly end up on the wrong side of the law. That is doxing. Merely looking up someone's address used to be a matter of looking in the phone book. And people that did not want to be in the phone book had unlisted numbers.
So the bar for doxing is definitely a low one, but in this particular case it isn't met. I can see why Musk is irritated that that account exists, even more so because it didn't go away at the first request by someone as powerful as him, and that makes it personal. See the whole saga with that diver for a typical response. But that doesn't mean that the person manning that account is doing something illegal and that is the bar which Elon Musk himself set not all that long ago, and which is what makes this news.
If he had been a bit smarter about this he would have just said: "I'm irritated by you, this is my site and you're gone". That would be that. But now there are all these logical pretzels why this is illegal and all that other stuff that people - and Musk - do on twitter is not because 'free speech'. The two are incompatible, and he knows it.
Yes I wonder about this as well. Say Musk had good reasons to suspect some private information was at risk and Twitter kept denying anything was going on. No matter how minor the actual impact would be in the end, this would not paint Twitter in a favourable light especially in a legal battle where Musk claims Twitter held back vital information.
Where it might become more problematic would be if the account included inciting language with the information ("here is a homeless shelter, go and mob it"; "Elon's about to land in CDG, who wants to stage a riot"). But I think it's clear that that's not what this account is doing - it's just giving information out that already exists.
And for what it's worth, it's not just Musk who gets this treatment. Most British political events of the last few years have involved journalists excitedly gathering around flightradar24 and watching some poor minister's plane as they make their way back to London to get fired, hand in their resignation, etc. That's essentially the same thing that this Twitter feed is doing (albeit usually more focused on the event rather than 24/7 tracking of one vehicle), but it's not considered a security risk because it honestly isn't. I mean, when the Queen died, Huw Edwards did the same thing for the Princes' plane, and he'll probably win a BAFTA for it...
In all fairness, I have some sympathy towards Musk, as it sounds like he's dealing with the shock of his child being stalked. That's going to evoke a strong emotional reaction, and I can completely understand why he'd want to shut this sort of thing down. But that doesn't make it useful (the information is still public, and anyone motivated enough to track Musk down IRL doesn't need Twitter to find it), nor does it change the hypocrisy of the situation. It seems like he's just lashing out at the wrong person, and making decisions over things that he can control.
reply