4 ms·

>The owner of the @ElonJet Twitter handle says a Twitter employee told him his account was given limited visibility “to a severe degree." Then you would expect

>The owner of the @ElonJet Twitter handle says a Twitter employee told him his account was given limited visibility “to a severe degree." Then you would expect e.g. his likes to go down significantly, right? He would start not showing up in people's feeds and engagement would dwindle to a halt. From briefly looking through the history to the beginning of November I see no clear trend of reduced engagement. It seems quite consistent. Afterall it is an account about the plane of a billionaire, not exactly the most breathtaking content on the site. I see no evidence that he has "severely" less engagement then before Musk took over. >Back in January, Sweeney told The New York Times Musk personally reached out to him over DMs asking him to remove the bot in exchange for $5,000. Sweeney counter offered, saying he would consider deactivating the account for $50,000 or even an internship at one of Musk’s companies. This also seems bizarre. Does Musk really care about $45.000? Is that the kind of money a billionaire wouldn't spend to make some nuisance go away? Seems ridicolous to be honest.

SamReidHughes 4y ago
Anybody with a modicum of self-respect wouldn't accept that counter-offer. The $5K offer was a gift, and publicizing a person's flights is sick behavior.
- constantcrying 4y ago
  Civilian flights have their data published. If I am flying my plane is publically tracked too.
- TapWaterBandit 4y ago
  Yea, I'm genuinely curious if the people criticising Musk here are also in favour of doxxing people and then publishing the info online? Cause that's effectively what this is. I'm not sure where I stand on this but I can see why someone of Musk's public stature would be concerned about this. Hell, I am a literal nobody and of someone did this or something similar to me I'd be paranoid as all hell.
  - constantcrying 4y ago
    >doxxing people and then publishing the info online? His problem if he uses a means of transportation which, in real time, updates its location. The information is public anyway and it applies to everyone. I really don't see how this is wrong.
  - nickthegreek 4y ago
    There is no doxxing. All this information is publicly available to everyone.
    - qu4z-2 4y ago
      Almost all doxxing consists of collecting a bunch of technically public information in one place. We still discourage it.
      - nickthegreek 4y ago
        This isn't collecting data from a bunch of places. Its mirroring data from 1 place to another.
  - thatswrong0 4y ago
    When you're one of the richest people in the world, and you're using your power to influence public opinion, having your already publicly available travel information posted online is not at all equivalent to doxxing. Jesus.
    - papito 4y ago
      There are accounts that track Russian diplomats and military brass planes, for example. They turn off transponders if they don't want to be tracked. But the point is, it poses no safety risk to the rich and powerful. It's just a curious thing for the public at worst. If someone was a mark, the perps are not going to use frigging Twitter and go directly to the public source of this data instead.
  - MrJohz 4y ago
- thatswrong0 4y ago
  Sick behavior? In what way? It's publicly available information.
  - loa_in_ 4y ago
    "They were so focused on whether they could, that they never stopped to think whether they should" Putting someone's life in a spotlight without their consent is not much different from being an annoying paparazzi
    - thatswrong0 4y ago
      Paparazzi invade into peoples lives and don’t allow them any sense of normalcy in either public or private. They capture intimate moments, draw focus to people’s bodies, and stir up media frenzies about mundane aspects of being human. Posting ADS—B data is not anything close to resembling that. Elon Musk claims to have “started” Tesla in the name of sustainability and yet personally is responsible for dumping more carbon in the atmosphere than god knows how much compared to the average person. Pointing out this hypocrisy with publicly available data is not a bad thing, and is nothing like the paparazzi. > Putting someone's life in a spotlight without their consent Elon Musk acquired Twitter supposedly in the name of free speech. He then chose to post borderline transphobic thoughts on Twitter because he knew it would stir the pot amongst his ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY MILLION Twitter followers. He then chose to go on stage at the end of Dave Chapelle's set in front of a _lot_ of people, and was booed by a large percentage of said people. When someone decided to post a video of this on Twitter, that persons account was banned. Does that sound like someone who doesn't want to have their life put in the spotlight? Or does it sound like an attention seeking hypocrite who is using his money and power to try to silence people who question his extremely questionable actions? There are millions of good hills to die on. I have no idea why one would choose to willingly throw themselves onto a mountainous pyre of bullshit. The rich and powerful do not need bootlickers to defend their shitty actions. And I say this as someone who until recently thought he has caught a bit too much flak for some of his immature antics.
  - SamReidHughes 4y ago
    Then why did he ask for $50K to stop doing it?
AdamJacobMuller 4y ago
It's also entirely possible he realized that it would quickly become whack-a-mole. Someone can trivially spin up a copycat, especially if it's known (or even suspected) that the former account got a payout. There would also be lots of extra visibility on it if the account disappeared, I'm sure there would be articles worse than this one waxing poetic about how obviously twitter did it to oppose their new overlord musk, and if not, how obviously musk strong-armed the account owner into shutting it down, and if not, how musk using his exorbitant wealth to hide information is egregious. I'm sure it just became easier to ignore it and mitigate the actual issues it created (if any) in other ways.
- constantcrying 4y ago
  >It's also entirely possible he realized that it would quickly become whack-a-mole. Why offer the 5k then? Of course it is a stupid idea, the flight data is public anyway. But why would $45k change Musks mind about the matter?
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
    (FWIW, I agree with your conclusion.) > But why would $45k change Musks mind about the matter? One reason might be pride. I could conceive of somebody believing that they've offered something that is "fair" and being insulted when their fair offer is rejected (and especially more so when they're also told that the offer was 10% of "fair"). Anyway, to your point, there's lots of reasons Musk would never even consider making the offer in the first place, so it's a rather dubious claim.
pannSun 4y ago
Now ask yourself why other alleged shadowbans, pre-Musk, weren't so credulously (or at all) reported on. I guess they weren't "newsworthy".
- rhaway84773 4y ago
  They were reported on. The difference is that pre Musk this was a known practice used by Twitter. But Musk has bought Twitter insisting that he won’t be “censoring”. Yet he is continuing the practices he decried but limiting them to people he personally doesn’t like.
  - whatshisface 4y ago
    Musk buying twitter is a big improvement because now that it is owned by someone that is an acceptable target, the public is finally learning about what social media companies do as an unintentional byproduct of the media lobbing shots at him.
    - midoridensha 4y ago
      I think this should also be a good lesson in why we can't rely too much on any one company's service or assume it'll always be there. All it takes is one big change in management and suddenly the whole thing goes to hell or becomes untenable for some reason. I was never a Twitter user myself, but many people who were long-time users are now having to find someplace else to go.

SamReidHughes 4y ago

Anybody with a modicum of self-respect wouldn't accept that counter-offer. The $5K offer was a gift, and publicizing a person's flights is sick behavior.

constantcrying 4y ago
Civilian flights have their data published. If I am flying my plane is publically tracked too.
TapWaterBandit 4y ago
Yea, I'm genuinely curious if the people criticising Musk here are also in favour of doxxing people and then publishing the info online? Cause that's effectively what this is. I'm not sure where I stand on this but I can see why someone of Musk's public stature would be concerned about this. Hell, I am a literal nobody and of someone did this or something similar to me I'd be paranoid as all hell.
- constantcrying 4y ago
  >doxxing people and then publishing the info online? His problem if he uses a means of transportation which, in real time, updates its location. The information is public anyway and it applies to everyone. I really don't see how this is wrong.
- nickthegreek 4y ago
  There is no doxxing. All this information is publicly available to everyone.
  - qu4z-2 4y ago
    Almost all doxxing consists of collecting a bunch of technically public information in one place. We still discourage it.
    - nickthegreek 4y ago
      This isn't collecting data from a bunch of places. Its mirroring data from 1 place to another.
- thatswrong0 4y ago
  When you're one of the richest people in the world, and you're using your power to influence public opinion, having your already publicly available travel information posted online is not at all equivalent to doxxing. Jesus.
  - papito 4y ago
    There are accounts that track Russian diplomats and military brass planes, for example. They turn off transponders if they don't want to be tracked. But the point is, it poses no safety risk to the rich and powerful. It's just a curious thing for the public at worst. If someone was a mark, the perps are not going to use frigging Twitter and go directly to the public source of this data instead.
- MrJohz 4y ago
thatswrong0 4y ago
Sick behavior? In what way? It's publicly available information.
- loa_in_ 4y ago
  "They were so focused on whether they could, that they never stopped to think whether they should" Putting someone's life in a spotlight without their consent is not much different from being an annoying paparazzi
  - thatswrong0 4y ago
    Paparazzi invade into peoples lives and don’t allow them any sense of normalcy in either public or private. They capture intimate moments, draw focus to people’s bodies, and stir up media frenzies about mundane aspects of being human. Posting ADS—B data is not anything close to resembling that. Elon Musk claims to have “started” Tesla in the name of sustainability and yet personally is responsible for dumping more carbon in the atmosphere than god knows how much compared to the average person. Pointing out this hypocrisy with publicly available data is not a bad thing, and is nothing like the paparazzi. > Putting someone's life in a spotlight without their consent Elon Musk acquired Twitter supposedly in the name of free speech. He then chose to post borderline transphobic thoughts on Twitter because he knew it would stir the pot amongst his ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY MILLION Twitter followers. He then chose to go on stage at the end of Dave Chapelle's set in front of a _lot_ of people, and was booed by a large percentage of said people. When someone decided to post a video of this on Twitter, that persons account was banned. Does that sound like someone who doesn't want to have their life put in the spotlight? Or does it sound like an attention seeking hypocrite who is using his money and power to try to silence people who question his extremely questionable actions? There are millions of good hills to die on. I have no idea why one would choose to willingly throw themselves onto a mountainous pyre of bullshit. The rich and powerful do not need bootlickers to defend their shitty actions. And I say this as someone who until recently thought he has caught a bit too much flak for some of his immature antics.
- SamReidHughes 4y ago
  Then why did he ask for $50K to stop doing it?

AdamJacobMuller 4y ago

It's also entirely possible he realized that it would quickly become whack-a-mole. Someone can trivially spin up a copycat, especially if it's known (or even suspected) that the former account got a payout. There would also be lots of extra visibility on it if the account disappeared, I'm sure there would be articles worse than this one waxing poetic about how obviously twitter did it to oppose their new overlord musk, and if not, how obviously musk strong-armed the account owner into shutting it down, and if not, how musk using his exorbitant wealth to hide information is egregious. I'm sure it just became easier to ignore it and mitigate the actual issues it created (if any) in other ways.

constantcrying 4y ago
>It's also entirely possible he realized that it would quickly become whack-a-mole. Why offer the 5k then? Of course it is a stupid idea, the flight data is public anyway. But why would $45k change Musks mind about the matter?
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
  (FWIW, I agree with your conclusion.) > But why would $45k change Musks mind about the matter? One reason might be pride. I could conceive of somebody believing that they've offered something that is "fair" and being insulted when their fair offer is rejected (and especially more so when they're also told that the offer was 10% of "fair"). Anyway, to your point, there's lots of reasons Musk would never even consider making the offer in the first place, so it's a rather dubious claim.

pannSun 4y ago

Now ask yourself why other alleged shadowbans, pre-Musk, weren't so credulously (or at all) reported on. I guess they weren't "newsworthy".

rhaway84773 4y ago
They were reported on. The difference is that pre Musk this was a known practice used by Twitter. But Musk has bought Twitter insisting that he won’t be “censoring”. Yet he is continuing the practices he decried but limiting them to people he personally doesn’t like.
- whatshisface 4y ago
  Musk buying twitter is a big improvement because now that it is owned by someone that is an acceptable target, the public is finally learning about what social media companies do as an unintentional byproduct of the media lobbing shots at him.
  - midoridensha 4y ago
    I think this should also be a good lesson in why we can't rely too much on any one company's service or assume it'll always be there. All it takes is one big change in management and suddenly the whole thing goes to hell or becomes untenable for some reason. I was never a Twitter user myself, but many people who were long-time users are now having to find someplace else to go.