Oh, just like when pre-Musk Twitter banned NY Post/journalists over a true story about Hunter Biden's laptop. I don't see how an anti-doxxing rule banning people tracking Elon Musk's whereabouts is worse.
> Oh, just like when pre-Musk Twitter banned NY Post/journalists over a true story about Hunter Biden's laptop. I don't see how an anti-doxxing rule banning people tracking Elon Musk's whereabouts is worse.
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.
He said in multiple tweets theres still rules particularly with direct harm to people. Idk why you would think doxxing and tracking someones location (which in this case they stalked his family) would be ok. I feel like this is just a talking point even though you and others know better but just dont like Musk. If thats the case just say it.
Good point. Except the people banned under Musk has been extremely low. The majority complaint is that a handful of people were suspended for less than a day for violating the existing and specific point of the Twitter TOS…
Compared to previously a national media outlet was actually banned for weeks for reporting a completely true story that the US Intelligence bureaucracy decided was in inconvenient to their desired results of an upcoming election.
Falsely equating this isn’t subtle and I don’t believe you are arguing in good faith. Ideologues everywhere.
Most of those banned have nothing at all to do with providing updates from the public database of jet flight plans.
The only common thread is that they report in Elon Musk. They have nothing to do with the stalking incident, just with annoying Musk by doing other journalism.
Further, if he was doing what you were saying, that's not a new rule. The new rule that Musk made as to bring back doxxers and targeted harassers like LibsOfTikTok, that had been putting innocent people at great bodily risk by inflaming people with falsehoods and then sending them after people in real life. Yet LibsOfTikTok is still on Twitter!!
Apples and oranges. I think the doxxing policy makes sense. It's absolutely not okay posting people's real-time locations, especially for famous figures who are already targets.
I don't hear anybody criticizing the policy. Because it is right. Instead people are attacking Elon's past promise, as it is the only thing they can attack.
So maybe "absolute" free speech is not a very good idea after all. What matters is good moderation.
‘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.”’
It’s because these journalists wrote articles that were critical of Musk. Not to mention that the publications where these articles were published have vastly stronger rules about things like doxxing than Twitter ever did (in part because they’re actually regulated).
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.
The readers should be asking “why?” instead of harping.
There was an incident involving Elon’s son X shortly after the airport pickup, and it involved a very threatening stalker wearing mask and black sock-puppets, on one hand is an outline of a gun underneath the hand-sock. He jumped on the hood of the car (a felony in California). The escort driver (bodygaurd?) started filming the stalker, captured and posted his DMV-mandated un-obscured but dealer-issued auto license plate for all to see.
One journalist started doxxing a live location of Elon’s child, which of course all who retweeted got the swift ban hammer.
And @elonjet tracker got suspended for posting live manifest instead of its usual flight path/plan.
And more who retweeted its FAA manifest (but flight plan is ok) got banned as well.
So, there’s more to the story than media are letting on and it is all plainly seen on Twitter.
> This time, it is clear that it applies and is enforced on everyone, journalist or not
This is a brand new rule, announced after the fact, and applied so far only to exactly one circumstance that happens to be personally related to the CEO. Arguing that this is a fair application of a well-considered policy is just ridiculous, sorry. For that matter, if Musk's wasn't actually in the air at the time of the bannings, it's not even clear that the stated policy was even applied correctly! All the journalists did was post links that allows you to find ElonsJet on Facebook, AFAICT. That's not "real time" info, is it?
Let me know when someone else gets banned for "doxxing" that involves something as simple as this. You know it's not going to happen, right? Posting a link to Kiwifarms should result in the same treatment, right?
> Update: Musk just weighed in on the suspensions, characterizing them as intentional. “Same doxxing rules apply to “journalists” as to everyone else,” he tweeted in a reply.
> It’s worth noting that the policy these accounts violated, a prohibition against sharing “live location information,” is only 24 hours old.
It seems like a good rule, but in this case the application of the rule seems less impersonal than it could be
Let’s try to make a comment that creates less outrage than most…
This is why it would be interesting to post public information about politicians collected from the online spyware that tracks all of us. It would rapidly motivate new laws that at least somewhat improve privacy.
This always happens when rule makers are personally affected by a problem: the problem starts getting attention
The new submissions are about Musk banning journalists that he claims to have doxxed him, i.e. shared links to the flight tracker for his jet. However, some journalists have already come out and said they never shared the link. So it does seem worthy of discussion beyond the general change in Twitter policy.
In the article update, it says that Elon commented on suspensions and it looks like the suspensions are for doxxing. If that's the case, it makes perfect sense to me. The doxxing has been rampant of Twitter, including by many of the journalists.
"so far, i’ve been able to confirm about half the accounts suspended posted links to the jet tracker thing in violation of the new doxx’ing policy. unclear just yet about the rest, but i think it’s safe to say the rule is for real."
How do you judge this rule by itself, on merit?
Would you have judged this rule differently, had Musk not be attached to it in any way?
The point being, you fail to separate actions and outcomes from the person. Since you already decided that he's an asshole and this narrative cannot be broken.
Had another person come up with this rule, then it would be seen as a cool, progressive anti-doxxing measure. Wonderful.
If you don't see an issue with this type of clouded thinking, then you've been fully indoctrinated in Twitter discourse.
Given that the rule didn’t exist when Elon originally banned @ElonJet?
I’d suggest that you care about the fact that Elon will ban anyone he wants banned, and make up a justification post-facto. If you don’t care who gets banned from Twitter, then I retract my suggestion.
It's better to stick to local rules than getting a clique in silicon valley to decide what they think should be acceptable to say. He said he wants more free speech, not to break the laws of foreign countries. If twitter was already doing just the minimum required by law, and Elon said he still wanted more free speech you'd have a point. But they go far beyond that!
This has nothing to do with elonjets btw and if that's the worst example you can come up with... you'd be just convincing those who think that Twitter's moderation policy is horrible. Because for them, a dude censoring people who track him (which won't happen anyways imo) is still insanely better than the current policy that they deem is used to supress entire ideas/events.
reply