3 ms·
Owner of Twitter makes changes to policy that everyone kind of agrees with but they are still angry at him for doing it.
by erlich 4y ago
Owner of Twitter makes changes to policy that everyone kind of agrees with but they are still angry at him for doing it.
- Ztynovovk 4y ago“Everyone kind of agrees with” That’s a broad claim yeah? Data to support that claim?
- SpicyLemonZest 4y agoWould you be okay with Elon Musk publicly posting the real-time location of your favorite politicians, or journalists who are critical of him, or other tech executives he has a beef with? I've yet to meet anyone who says yes, and I really don't think it'd even be a question if not for Musk's hypocrisy on the issue. I'm not sure how I'd go about finding "data" for this - it's one of those things that's so niche and so widely understood to be bad behavior, nobody bothers to write opinion polls about it.
- heavyset_go 4y agoIf they're public figures, sure.
- falcolas 4y agoPublic figures have always had fewer privacy rights than regular citizens. See paparazzi. You can also often find out where politicians and journalists by calling their offices. It's not private data. So, yes. I would be OK with it. So long as, like with the flight tracker bots, it's not included with an incitement to violence.
- pessimizer 4y ago> On March 14, 2006, Gawker launched Gawker Stalker Maps, a mashup of the site's Gawker Stalker feature and Google Maps. After this, Gawker Stalker—originally a weekly roundup of celebrity sightings in New York City submitted by Gawker readers—was frequently updated, and the sightings are displayed on a map. The feature sparked criticism from celebrities and publicists for encouraging stalking. Actor and director George Clooney's representative Stan Rosenfeld described Gawker Stalker as "a dangerous thing". Jessica Coen said that the map is harmless, that Gawker readers are "for the most part, a very educated, well-meaning bunch", and that "if there is someone really intending to do a celebrity harm, there are much better ways to go about doing that than looking at the Gawker Stalker". > On April 6, 2007, Emily Gould appeared on an edition of Larry King Live hosted by talk show host Jimmy Kimmel during a panel discussion titled "Paparazzi: Do They Go Too Far?" and was asked about the Gawker Stalker. Kimmel accused the site of potentially assisting real stalkers, adding that Gould and her website could ultimately be responsible for someone's death. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#Gawker_Stalker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#Gawker_Stalker
- falcolas 4y agoWhat point are you trying to make, out of curiosity? This piece provides opinions for, opinions against, and a very IANAL take on the legality of public data for public figures existing.
- erlich 4y agoIt's a strange hypocrisy of society. They enjoy celeb sightings and tracking people, just so long as it doesn't happen to them.
- Ztynovovk 4y agoHow about framing it as a personal opinion then? Don’t speak for everyone. It’s publicly available information to begin with. What exactly is the issue?
- erlich 4y agoIt's not a personal opinion thing. It's one of those things that you really could ask everyone and they would agree. It's hard to even think of a reason why someone would oppose it for themselves.
- Ztynovovk 4y agoLike I said. You keep saying ‘everyone would.’ How about just saying ‘In my opinion I think* everyone would.’ Not hard to do. I’m part of everyone and don’t agree so your claim is initially false.
- ModernMech 4y ago> hard to even think of a reason why someone would oppose it for themselves. One group who may be against such a measure on philosophical grounds would be so-called “free speech absolutists” who evangelize the value of unfettered speech. Censoring content of any kind should be reprehensible to anyone who claims to belong to such a group.
- erlich 4y agoI don't know anyone who would want their live location tracked without their permission. If you do, I am very interested to know why!
- optionalsquid 4y agoIt seems to me that it can only be a matter of time before regular, every-day news reporting gets actioned based on these terms. They are that broad.
- erlich 4y agoTrue. Like if media is waiting outside a courthouse or something. "We are down at the courthouse waiting for so and so...". But if someone was tracking me, I would absolutely want a clear policy to have it taken down. I don't know anyone who would disagree with this. I think its good though because there is an inherent fascination in people to want to know where people are (like celebrities) and to watch where they go. And a lot of this information could be collected by social media posts if someone really wanted to. Like an SBF tracker for instance...would be interesting to get a notification when he gets transferred to prison and to the courthouse. But if you happened to be in SBF's situation, you would prefer your privacy. I think its a big thing. People are looking at it as just one small thing that he does for himself, but the right to privacy of location is a big deal. And mainly because everyone would prefer to be in control of their privacy. And also, posting pictures on social media, or someone seeing you in the street, is public, but shouldn't give someone the right to repost this with live GPS coords. Except if someone is like "I'll be signing books, come down and meet me" which is giving permission, which is allowed by the rules. Sigh. Privacy is a good thing! But now its politicized, so people for it turn against it.
- DiNovi 4y agothis policy makes saying something like “the president will address congress at 8pm from the rose garden” or “elon is at the chapelle show” bannable. it it not something most people should agree with
- erlich 4y ago> "the president will address congress at 8pm from the rose garden” "you can’t share the following types of private information, without the permission of the person who it belongs to". Permission is given. > “elon is at the chapelle show” This is an interesting one. Should celebrity sightings be allowed. And what is the difference between going on stage, and be attending a show. > it is not something most people should agree with I mean personally though - you would right? The only thing I can see people disagree on is an exception for famous people. But I don't know anyone who would say: "this policy is bad because I want people to be able to track me...even if I don't give them permission".
- DiNovi 4y agoit makes going live on the street and asking a stranger a question bannable too. you’re also posting some rule’s that weren’t present at the time of my reply, which implies to me you’re actually just arguing in bad faith and you’re really just one of those elon nerds
- erlich 4y ago> you’re also posting some rule’s that weren’t present at the time of my reply A lot of the time in online discussions there is always grey area. You can never be 100% right. Except for the precious few, like this one. And it is even better when the person accuses you of arguing in bad faith, and using an ad-hominem attack, at the same time they are completely wrong. Click the link in the OP. It's literally a diff of the rule change - which you didn't read. LMAO. It's ironic how it turns out it is you who is not arguing in good faith. You are but one of many though so don't beat yourself up too much about it.
- thebradbain 4y agoThis would technically also ban videos posted of Musk taken live of him getting boo’d en masse at Dave Chapelle’s comedy show, if you read the whole text literally.
- standardUser 4y agoCan you explain why you think "everyone kind of agrees" with this?
- erlich 4y agoI don't think anyone would be happy with someone re-posting their live location on the internet. Like I cannot think of a single person who would like this. Maybe you do? If so, I would really be interested to know why.
- standardUser 4y agoFrom my perspective (not a celebrity or public figure) I don't want to feel like I can't say that I saw so-and-so at a mall or something. It's stifling. It also dramatically violates the entire "free speech" thing Musk has been barking about.
- nickthegreek 4y agoThat’s only a fraction of what this ToS Language bans.
- erlich 4y agoCheck the diff from the link. This is the only sentence that is added: > live location information, including information shared on Twitter directly or links to 3rd-party URL(s) of travel routes, actual physical location, or other identifying information that would reveal a person’s location, regardless if this information is publicly available; Would you like someone to share that information about you or not. That's as simple as it is.
- nickthegreek 4y agoAre you saying you don’t see how this bans a lot of reporting? Do you not see how that language bans you from posting a photo you take in the public that includes other people? The language is wide open for selective enforcement. Selective enforcement is exactly the type of moderation that Elon rallied against. So when there is a change to the Terms of Service, one would hope that thought and care would go into it while also upholding the mission that he laid out.
- rurp 4y agoMore like Elon "Free Speech Absolutist" Musk once again banning speech that makes him feel bad.