6 ms·

Amplifying/republishing public data can lead to an increased security risk, whether you like Musk or not. This idea is widely acknowledged, with key example be

by fleddr 4y ago

Amplifying/republishing public data can lead to an increased security risk, whether you like Musk or not. This idea is widely acknowledged, with key example being the EU's "right to be forgotten". Which upon request removes personal information from search results, whilst it typically does not remove said info from the underlying individual websites. The very principle here is that a republication (search result) very much can be a security/privacy risk.

dmix 4y ago
It still feels dirty to do it secretly There should be a banner on the account or tweets with a justification or at a minimum an explanation for shadowbanning. Otherwise it's easy to abuse.
- lazide 4y ago
  Why would he care if he abuses it?
ModernMech 4y ago
Sure I guess. But the line Musk himself drew was that he wouldn’t ban this or any account unless it was doing something illegal. It’s clearly not. So according to free speech absolutists like Musk, the banning of this account is a violation of the 1st amendment rights of the poster. (I don’t agree with that, but I spent weeks arguing with Musk supporters about this very fact. Now all of a sudden they are saying “it’s his right to do whatever he wants with Twitter”, which I agree with. But then why did Musk buy Twitter in the first place? Well now we know: to do whatever he wanted with it, not to champion free speech rights! Which is exactly what people were worried about! It’s all so frustrating…)
- andsoitis 4y ago
  > it’s his right to do whatever he wants with Twitte The obvious response to anyone who says this is that the previous owners (and hence management appointed by said owners) similarly had that right… so why be upset about them - ha because their decisions didn’t align with you. Juts be careful, while Musk’s choices today might match your world view you should know that he only looks out for himself and will do whatever is his best interest and so the projection of being fundamentally pro speech is a mirage.
- fleddr 4y ago
  The thing is that people are cherrypicking quotes and dropping conclusions without any regard for the facts on the ground. Right now, you conclude that this was a personal vengeance by Musk himself. Whilst this conclusion isn't verified at all. We don't know why the suspension is there. It's in fact unlikely a personal action as Musk has reinstated some of his biggest enemies before. The "free speech absolutist" quote is bullshit. It's a random interview quote taken out of context, that never applied to running Twitter. You can be a free speech absolutist as a person whilst not applying this to Twitter. For the simple reason that you can't. It doesn't work with advertisers and is downright illegal in some jurisdictions, like the EU. Musk has readily admitted that and aims to "piss off both political extremes equally" whilst "elevating the silent 80%".
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    > It's in fact unlikely a personal action as Musk has reinstated some of his biggest enemies before. He's also refused to do so based on personal feelings. https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/21/tech/alex-jones-twitter-ban/ https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/21/tech/alex-jones-twitter-ban/ > Musk has readily admitted that and aims to "piss off both political extremes equally" whilst "elevating the silent 80%". Sure. He's also claimed "funding secured" to bring Tesla private before, which was found in court to be a lie. I'm not sure why you'd take his statements at face value.
    - fleddr 4y ago
      Funny you say that, as you yourself take an earlier quote about free speech at face value and then re-apply it wherever it is convenient and makes the narrative work. The next thing you do is to make him guilty by association. Something was done before (in a different context with different circumstances) hence that is evidence that this case is exactly the same. Which too is speculation and narrative. Eternal damnation is also a way to build narrative. It's all narrative and zero facts. I never said that I take his statement at face value. I said that I would refrain from judgement until the reason for the suspension is given. Which is very basic human courtesy.
      - 4y ago
asdajksah2123 4y ago
So Elon Musk understands the concept that certain kinds of speech can be dangerous because they increase the security risk to someone. Yet, he consciously chose to suppress the speech which very marginally increased the security risk for the richest man in the world, who can probably afford to hire every security firm in the world at the same time, but considers the act of Twitter not promoting such speech which targets marginalized people most of whom couldn't afford any private security, a huge affront to free speech.
- fleddr 4y ago
  "Yet, he consciously chose to suppress the speech" We don't know this. The reason for the suspension is not given. It may as well be part of the big bot purge. Other than that, I very much agree with you that Musk as well as any account with an enormous amount of followers should very carefully pick their words. Even opinions within the limits of free speech that you and I could express, have a way different effect when you have a 100M followers.
  - _djo_ 4y ago
    We don't know this. The reason for the suspension is not given. It may as well be part of the big bot purge. Why give Musk the benefit of the doubt in this way? The @elonjet account was a properly registered automated account going through the Twitter API, it should never be caught up in a bot purge of inauthentic accounts.
    - fleddr 4y ago
      I give everyone and everything the benefit of the doubt by principle. It's fine to be skeptical, but that's different from hysterically dropping to conclusions without knowing the first thing about context.
      - _djo_ 4y ago
        There is plenty of surrounding context here, you're just choosing to selectively ignore it.
2854736894 4y ago
That sounds rather farfetched. The "right to be forgotten" is mostly useful for politicians who want to censor scandals from votes doing a quick google search before deciding who to vote for. Someone who wanted to carry out an attack would be willing to spend 10 minutes extra to find the information, or they would never be able to follow through with their plans anyway.
- fleddr 4y ago
  It's not far-fetched at all. It has become increasingly common on social media where a post that does not directly call for violence, still triggers all kinds of real world harassment. Musk himself is guilty of this too. The right to be forgotten is not designed for high profile public figures, quite the opposite. Public figures in a way are always screwed from a privacy/reputation point of view. Instead, the right to be forgotten is to protect common people. Maybe as a teenager when drunk you posted something stupid on social media. Which shouldn't haunt you for the rest of your life. Maybe a nude photo got leaked. Maybe you made a mistake at work, and don't want to be unhirable for the rest of your life.
  - giaour 4y ago
    A key principle of the right to be forgotten is that no one should be perpetually burdened by a past they have shed. Hard to see how that applies to future flight plans for a private jet!
    - fleddr 4y ago
      The original point of discussion was whether republishing data that is already public can be harmful. My answer to that is 100% yes. You make people aware of data that they may not have been aware of before. Do this to a large audience and it only takes 1 to be triggered into a harmful idea.
      - giaour 4y ago
        You could make the same argument about news articles on current court proceedings, professional licensure records, or even Amber alerts, but you would almost certainly lose in court if you sought prior restraint of such speech. Restrictions on republishing data always have limiting principles (at least in US and EU law).
HillRat 4y ago
The only point of principle Musk is standing on is that this affected him personally, so it has to go (a principle that new Trust and Safety head Ella Irwin is evidently happy to go along with). And, of course, this is the guy who’s handing out internal e-mail and Slack logs, complete with PII, to do hit pieces on former employees, so let’s not pretend Musk cares a whit for privacy and safety for anyone other than himself.
giaour 4y ago
The right to be forgotten does not apply to current or future actions, so it feels like very much a stretch to use that as an informative example here. Republishing public flight data is closer in spirit to retweeting a public hearing announcement. Usually, at least one party to a hearing would prefer that it be secret, but that data is public for a reason

by fleddr 4y ago

dmix 4y ago

It still feels dirty to do it secretly There should be a banner on the account or tweets with a justification or at a minimum an explanation for shadowbanning. Otherwise it's easy to abuse.

lazide 4y ago
Why would he care if he abuses it?

ModernMech 4y ago

Sure I guess. But the line Musk himself drew was that he wouldn’t ban this or any account unless it was doing something illegal. It’s clearly not. So according to free speech absolutists like Musk, the banning of this account is a violation of the 1st amendment rights of the poster. (I don’t agree with that, but I spent weeks arguing with Musk supporters about this very fact. Now all of a sudden they are saying “it’s his right to do whatever he wants with Twitter”, which I agree with. But then why did Musk buy Twitter in the first place? Well now we know: to do whatever he wanted with it, not to champion free speech rights! Which is exactly what people were worried about! It’s all so frustrating…)

andsoitis 4y ago
> it’s his right to do whatever he wants with Twitte The obvious response to anyone who says this is that the previous owners (and hence management appointed by said owners) similarly had that right… so why be upset about them - ha because their decisions didn’t align with you. Juts be careful, while Musk’s choices today might match your world view you should know that he only looks out for himself and will do whatever is his best interest and so the projection of being fundamentally pro speech is a mirage.
fleddr 4y ago
The thing is that people are cherrypicking quotes and dropping conclusions without any regard for the facts on the ground. Right now, you conclude that this was a personal vengeance by Musk himself. Whilst this conclusion isn't verified at all. We don't know why the suspension is there. It's in fact unlikely a personal action as Musk has reinstated some of his biggest enemies before. The "free speech absolutist" quote is bullshit. It's a random interview quote taken out of context, that never applied to running Twitter. You can be a free speech absolutist as a person whilst not applying this to Twitter. For the simple reason that you can't. It doesn't work with advertisers and is downright illegal in some jurisdictions, like the EU. Musk has readily admitted that and aims to "piss off both political extremes equally" whilst "elevating the silent 80%".
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > It's in fact unlikely a personal action as Musk has reinstated some of his biggest enemies before. He's also refused to do so based on personal feelings. https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/21/tech/alex-jones-twitter-ban/ https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/21/tech/alex-jones-twitter-ban/ > Musk has readily admitted that and aims to "piss off both political extremes equally" whilst "elevating the silent 80%". Sure. He's also claimed "funding secured" to bring Tesla private before, which was found in court to be a lie. I'm not sure why you'd take his statements at face value.
  - fleddr 4y ago
    Funny you say that, as you yourself take an earlier quote about free speech at face value and then re-apply it wherever it is convenient and makes the narrative work. The next thing you do is to make him guilty by association. Something was done before (in a different context with different circumstances) hence that is evidence that this case is exactly the same. Which too is speculation and narrative. Eternal damnation is also a way to build narrative. It's all narrative and zero facts. I never said that I take his statement at face value. I said that I would refrain from judgement until the reason for the suspension is given. Which is very basic human courtesy.
    - 4y ago

asdajksah2123 4y ago

So Elon Musk understands the concept that certain kinds of speech can be dangerous because they increase the security risk to someone. Yet, he consciously chose to suppress the speech which very marginally increased the security risk for the richest man in the world, who can probably afford to hire every security firm in the world at the same time, but considers the act of Twitter not promoting such speech which targets marginalized people most of whom couldn't afford any private security, a huge affront to free speech.

fleddr 4y ago
"Yet, he consciously chose to suppress the speech" We don't know this. The reason for the suspension is not given. It may as well be part of the big bot purge. Other than that, I very much agree with you that Musk as well as any account with an enormous amount of followers should very carefully pick their words. Even opinions within the limits of free speech that you and I could express, have a way different effect when you have a 100M followers.
- _djo_ 4y ago
  We don't know this. The reason for the suspension is not given. It may as well be part of the big bot purge. Why give Musk the benefit of the doubt in this way? The @elonjet account was a properly registered automated account going through the Twitter API, it should never be caught up in a bot purge of inauthentic accounts.
  - fleddr 4y ago
    I give everyone and everything the benefit of the doubt by principle. It's fine to be skeptical, but that's different from hysterically dropping to conclusions without knowing the first thing about context.
    - _djo_ 4y ago
      There is plenty of surrounding context here, you're just choosing to selectively ignore it.

2854736894 4y ago

That sounds rather farfetched. The "right to be forgotten" is mostly useful for politicians who want to censor scandals from votes doing a quick google search before deciding who to vote for. Someone who wanted to carry out an attack would be willing to spend 10 minutes extra to find the information, or they would never be able to follow through with their plans anyway.

fleddr 4y ago
It's not far-fetched at all. It has become increasingly common on social media where a post that does not directly call for violence, still triggers all kinds of real world harassment. Musk himself is guilty of this too. The right to be forgotten is not designed for high profile public figures, quite the opposite. Public figures in a way are always screwed from a privacy/reputation point of view. Instead, the right to be forgotten is to protect common people. Maybe as a teenager when drunk you posted something stupid on social media. Which shouldn't haunt you for the rest of your life. Maybe a nude photo got leaked. Maybe you made a mistake at work, and don't want to be unhirable for the rest of your life.
- giaour 4y ago
  A key principle of the right to be forgotten is that no one should be perpetually burdened by a past they have shed. Hard to see how that applies to future flight plans for a private jet!
  - fleddr 4y ago
    The original point of discussion was whether republishing data that is already public can be harmful. My answer to that is 100% yes. You make people aware of data that they may not have been aware of before. Do this to a large audience and it only takes 1 to be triggered into a harmful idea.
    - giaour 4y ago
      You could make the same argument about news articles on current court proceedings, professional licensure records, or even Amber alerts, but you would almost certainly lose in court if you sought prior restraint of such speech. Restrictions on republishing data always have limiting principles (at least in US and EU law).

HillRat 4y ago

The only point of principle Musk is standing on is that this affected him personally, so it has to go (a principle that new Trust and Safety head Ella Irwin is evidently happy to go along with). And, of course, this is the guy who’s handing out internal e-mail and Slack logs, complete with PII, to do hit pieces on former employees, so let’s not pretend Musk cares a whit for privacy and safety for anyone other than himself.

giaour 4y ago

The right to be forgotten does not apply to current or future actions, so it feels like very much a stretch to use that as an informative example here. Republishing public flight data is closer in spirit to retweeting a public hearing announcement. Usually, at least one party to a hearing would prefer that it be secret, but that data is public for a reason