5 ms·

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?
- jacquesm 4y ago
  Mostly because he could and because apparently stopping it is worth $50K to him. That the counterparty doesn't agree does not in any way oblige him, nor does it reflect bad on him that he set his price different.

"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?

jacquesm 4y ago
Mostly because he could and because apparently stopping it is worth $50K to him. That the counterparty doesn't agree does not in any way oblige him, nor does it reflect bad on him that he set his price different.