8 ms·

This is complete idiocy. Celebrities and billionaires don't get special speech rights. There are very good reasons all aircraft are tracked publicly. If Elmo's

This is complete idiocy. Celebrities and billionaires don't get special speech rights. There are very good reasons all aircraft are tracked publicly. If Elmo's plane ever goes down or gets hijacked he might appreciate why. According to Twitter's new "policy" any person who takes a picture of someone in front of the Eiffel tower or any recognizable place can be accused of doxxing and banned.

_JoRo 4y ago
I doubt the policy covers one-offs like this - I'm guessing it's more for continuous tracking.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- nickthegreek 4y ago
  You can read the policy. This example is in fact an actionable offense if they decide they want to enforce it.
robomartin 4y ago
> This is complete idiocy. I think calling someone an idiot is against HN policy...but, what do I know, I am obviously an idiot. That said. OK, well, let's publish everyone's travel plans. Name, flight, seat, from/to, etc. Make the system 100% open to for anyone to see who is travelling, where and when. You know, so folks profiting from breaking into homes while people are travelling can be more efficient in their scheduling. In our neighborhood we've had a few cases of homes being burglarized when people travelled out of town and posted about it on Facebook. Lots of people are not aware that they might be posting to the entire universe. Those wonderful pictures of your vacation in Hawaii let smart crooks know you are not home in Los Angeles. I am 100% certain everyone would be against their personal, family and business travel itineraries being posted in a publicly accessible website or database in real time. Understandably so. Why, then, is it to that this is OK for those who might be obvious targets of violence and other potentially negative outcomes? One argument I saw in this thread is about not creating special rules for a small group of people. Fine with that. Let's publish everyone's travel plans then. Or, on the other hand, have the common sense to understand that personal safety is important to everyone and move to make posting such information illegal and protect everyone, no matter their station in life. I get it that on HN there exist a subgroup of people who are millionaire/billionaire haters. Good for you! Enjoy the hatred. That group aside, once common sense enters the room, it is generally clear that privacy is good for everyone, regardless of who they might be. As much as I dislike politicians, this should also extend to them. Yes, of course, their travel details should be released and made available for all to review. However, this can be done well after the fact. Safety first. For everyone.
- femiagbabiaka 4y ago
  Surely you can see that there's a difference between a billionaire who can hire private security and the common person? A billionaire's house cannot be broken into because that house is in a gated community with private security. Even at the airport, a chartered car with a personal driver and security is likely coming to meet Elon. This is the definition of concern trolling on Elon's part, and you're carrying water for his bad faith arguments in favor of restricting the republishing of information that is free and open to the public by design. I don't think you even really understand the implications of what you're saying.
  - robomartin 4y ago
    I hope you are joking. The husband of the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, the third person in line for the presidency of the United States, was brutally attacked in his own home with a hammer. A billionaire cannot possibly buy better security and resources than the US Secret Service and local police combined. I don't understand hatred based on financial standing. However, I do not think this is the real motivation in Musk's case. I can see people hating on Musk these days because he is uncovering just how deep and wide one political party has reached in the United States in order to control the media and messaging. Something that Putin and totalitarian regimes have done for ages in other nations has been achieved in the US by brainwashing people at universities and then asking them to restrict or reshape the message in favor of that ideology. Anyone who does not think this is revolting and should not exist in the US should take a moment to imagine a scenario where the same level of indoctrination and control would be had by the other party. This would be just as revolting and just as undesirable. Universities should not be centers of indoctrination. Political parties should not have any control on what the public can and cannot hear. That's a formula for progress, not one where one or the other party can exercise ideological control. > I don't think you even really understand the implications of what you're saying. I don't think you have taken a single minute to explain what you think the implications might be. Interestingly enough, I am arguing in favor of privacy/security for all. You seem to be saying that someone with money does not deserve it. Why?
    - 4y ago

_JoRo 4y ago

I doubt the policy covers one-offs like this - I'm guessing it's more for continuous tracking.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nickthegreek 4y ago
You can read the policy. This example is in fact an actionable offense if they decide they want to enforce it.

robomartin 4y ago

> This is complete idiocy. I think calling someone an idiot is against HN policy...but, what do I know, I am obviously an idiot. That said. OK, well, let's publish everyone's travel plans. Name, flight, seat, from/to, etc. Make the system 100% open to for anyone to see who is travelling, where and when. You know, so folks profiting from breaking into homes while people are travelling can be more efficient in their scheduling. In our neighborhood we've had a few cases of homes being burglarized when people travelled out of town and posted about it on Facebook. Lots of people are not aware that they might be posting to the entire universe. Those wonderful pictures of your vacation in Hawaii let smart crooks know you are not home in Los Angeles. I am 100% certain everyone would be against their personal, family and business travel itineraries being posted in a publicly accessible website or database in real time. Understandably so. Why, then, is it to that this is OK for those who might be obvious targets of violence and other potentially negative outcomes? One argument I saw in this thread is about not creating special rules for a small group of people. Fine with that. Let's publish everyone's travel plans then. Or, on the other hand, have the common sense to understand that personal safety is important to everyone and move to make posting such information illegal and protect everyone, no matter their station in life. I get it that on HN there exist a subgroup of people who are millionaire/billionaire haters. Good for you! Enjoy the hatred. That group aside, once common sense enters the room, it is generally clear that privacy is good for everyone, regardless of who they might be. As much as I dislike politicians, this should also extend to them. Yes, of course, their travel details should be released and made available for all to review. However, this can be done well after the fact. Safety first. For everyone.

femiagbabiaka 4y ago
Surely you can see that there's a difference between a billionaire who can hire private security and the common person? A billionaire's house cannot be broken into because that house is in a gated community with private security. Even at the airport, a chartered car with a personal driver and security is likely coming to meet Elon. This is the definition of concern trolling on Elon's part, and you're carrying water for his bad faith arguments in favor of restricting the republishing of information that is free and open to the public by design. I don't think you even really understand the implications of what you're saying.
- robomartin 4y ago
  I hope you are joking. The husband of the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, the third person in line for the presidency of the United States, was brutally attacked in his own home with a hammer. A billionaire cannot possibly buy better security and resources than the US Secret Service and local police combined. I don't understand hatred based on financial standing. However, I do not think this is the real motivation in Musk's case. I can see people hating on Musk these days because he is uncovering just how deep and wide one political party has reached in the United States in order to control the media and messaging. Something that Putin and totalitarian regimes have done for ages in other nations has been achieved in the US by brainwashing people at universities and then asking them to restrict or reshape the message in favor of that ideology. Anyone who does not think this is revolting and should not exist in the US should take a moment to imagine a scenario where the same level of indoctrination and control would be had by the other party. This would be just as revolting and just as undesirable. Universities should not be centers of indoctrination. Political parties should not have any control on what the public can and cannot hear. That's a formula for progress, not one where one or the other party can exercise ideological control. > I don't think you even really understand the implications of what you're saying. I don't think you have taken a single minute to explain what you think the implications might be. Interestingly enough, I am arguing in favor of privacy/security for all. You seem to be saying that someone with money does not deserve it. Why?
  - 4y ago