15 ms·

Blocking speech that may be harmful to a handful of millionaires and billionares = Common Sense. Not promoting speech that may be harmful to tens of thousands

Blocking speech that may be harmful to a handful of millionaires and billionares = Common Sense. Not promoting speech that may be harmful to tens of thousands of already marginalized people = Woke Mind Virus

77pt77 4y ago
It always boils down to >It's different when I do it!
PathOfEclipse 4y ago
VirusNewbie 4y ago
Direction threats have always been against the law, what you claim is “harming already marginalized groups” is not at all the same thing, and not against the law. Unless you mean specifically targeting people, in which case, twitter and other places don’t allow this.
donatj 4y ago
I think it comes down to tangible harm vs intangible theoretical harm. Anyone can claim intangible harm from anything. Doxing someone is a real tangible harm with very likely dangerous outcomes. Having an opinion is not.
- kentm 4y ago
  If you consider doxing as a real tangible harm then what about vulnerable groups coming under harm due to being singled out? LibsOfTikTok made claims about Boston Children’s Hospital that caused tangible harm and yet they were unbanned. You might say that LibsOfTikTok didn’t cause the harm, that the responsibility was on the people perpetrating the bomb threats, but the same logic applies to ElonJet and this “stalker” incident.
  - asiangirl2445 4y ago
    - kentm 4y ago
      ElonJet also just reposted public info. I’m saying that there’s a double standard being applied by Elon and within this Hacker News thread.
    - throwntoday 4y ago
      [flagged]
  - Georgelemental 4y ago
    > You might say that LibsOfTikTok didn’t cause the harm, that the responsibility was on the people perpetrating the bomb threats, but the same logic applies to ElonJet and this “stalker” incident. Correct on both counts. Neither account should be banned or punished
    - kentm 4y ago
      I like that response; its a point of view with proper consistency. Twitter is also a private so another view is that you can ban them both and it’s also consistent and within Musks rights. Of course it’s also within Musks rights to ban one and not the other, just because. But he’s also taken a very public position on free speech wrt Twitter so I think it’s reasonable to point out when those standards are applied inconsistently, and also challenge people who are trying to draw arbitrary lines to defend him.
  - donatj 4y ago
    From my limited understanding of the whole LibsOfTikTok / Children's hospital thing, what they had posted was false and thus libel and thus illegal speech which is not allowed on the platform? That seems unrelated.
    - ShredKazoo 4y ago
- aeternum 4y ago
  Knowing the location of your plane is theoretical harm. If someone actually attacks you based upon that location, now it is tangible harm. It's too easy to conflate the two.
  - masklinn 4y ago
    Knowing the location of your plane is legal requirement as well.
  - romwell 4y ago
    >Knowing the location of your plane is theoretical harm. It's not even theoretical harm. It's not harm. You are not entitled to privacy when owning and operating a jet in public airspace.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  This is an imaginary dichotomy, though. The proponents of content moderation on social media argue that hate speech causes tangible harm. For example, there are many mass shooters that say that they got radicalized purely online, such as Dylan Roof. This is not intangible harm, it is tangible.
  - mrhands556 4y ago
    There will always be insane people in this world. Was Hitler and the nazis radicalized through the internet? Was Timothy McVeigh? Censoring people out of the fear semi casual relationships occurring between them and radicalization doesn’t work. It’s not like people who apt to deeply believe radical ideas once their source becomes censored they just stop there. Human beings don’t work like that. I don’t believe libsoftiktok is causing real world harm.
    - hackerlight 4y ago
      > Was Hitler and the nazis radicalized through the internet? They radicalized millions of people via their speech, which is the correct level of abstraction. Whether it was offline or online speech is a distinction without a difference. > There will always be insane people in this world. Mono-causal explanations are factually wrong. The Dylan Roofs of the world clearly have severe mental health problems, combined with being radicalized online by other people's speech. It's the union of all these factors that causes the observed outcome. > I don’t believe libsoftiktok is causing real world harm. Well, it's harder to make a case for libsoftiktok than places like 4chan. I think it's reasonable to say that 4chan et al. have literally caused people to die via mass shootings.
  - bnralt 4y ago
    Sure, but where is the line drawn? A lot of political rhetoric across the board is pretty extreme. The guy who shot up a Republican Congressional baseball game at baseball practice was into a lot of anti-GOP and anti-Trump stuff[1]: > He had also joined several anti-GOP Facebook groups, including “Terminate The Republican Party;” “The Road to Hell Is Paved With Republicans;” and “Join The Resistance Worldwide!!” I'm all for people toning things down. But the entire online ecosystem seems to be full of various factions warring against each other with extreme rhetoric. Even the discussion of extreme rhetoric is filled with extreme rhetoric ("These people are going to get someone killed!"), which can (and is) used to justify all sorts of bad things. [1] https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/14/homepage2/james-hodgkinson-profile/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/14/homepage2/james-hodgkinson-pr...
memish 4y ago
My attacks on you are consequence culture. Your attacks on me are stochastic terrorism. Me suppressing my personal information is protecting my physical safety. You suppressing your personal information is an unacceptable breach of free expression. Me revealing your personal information is transparency in the public interest. You revealing my personal information is doxxing and puts my life in danger. @pmarca
- fsckboy 4y ago
  some people's personal information, if broadcast, puts them in danger like Salman Rushdie, while with most people nobody cares about them. what's your snappy hypocrisy koan for that? Salman Rushdie's exercise of free speech but not revealing where he was made him some kind of huge hypocrite? some people's personal information is in the public interest, like Al Gore's electric bill or how often he and John Kerry fly to climate conferences, and POTUS's also, yet the secret service keeps his travel plans obscure to protect him. many attacks may be consequent, and many are not; much of life is stochastic. so I don't get your point. I think Musk is sincerely trying to make twitter more free speechy than the previous administration, and I think he's sincerely grappling with issues at the margins. I don't think this silly twitter bot's POV is no longer being heard.
  - dghlsakjg 4y ago
    The counterargument is that elonjet is only tweeting information that is already very public. Elons Jet, by law, must openly broadcast, over the radio waves, location and route while operating. There is a legal right to publish that information. If he doesn’t want people to know his location, he can avoid traveling on the one private jet linked to him. But that’s not what he’s doing. His child being followed by someone wanting to meet him has literally nothing to do with the location of his jet. This is an emotional reaction to a situation that only affects him.
    - FireBeyond 4y ago
      And given the massive negative PR some of his decisions have garnered lately, and his thin skin about them (just today he claimed that the booing at the Dave Chappelle show is because "people weren't letting him speak"), I take this vague claim which has only tangential relevance to the stalking with a grain of salt. "Pursuing legal action against Sweeney"? Not criminal action against the stalker? No video, not with all the cameras? Proof that alleged stalker got the information from that Twitter account, and not FlightRadar24, or even the FAA? Yeah, I would be unsurprised if it turned out that this was all just horse manure to try to provide cover for his decision.
Georgelemental 4y ago
> speech that may be harmful to tens of thousands of already marginalized people What this means in practice is "speech that powerful, privileged, unaccountable people, who think they are worthy of controlling the thoughts of everyone else, deem to be 'harmful', based on their vague feelings and biases."
- dullcrisp 4y ago
  Exactly. If you be less racist, you’re just giving the globalist elites what they want.
  - Georgelemental 4y ago
    I don't trust anyone else to decide on my behalf what speech is "racist." Let me think for myself!
    - dullcrisp 4y ago
      Please do.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  So if people who are marginalized go on Twitter to complain about it, their reports don't count? Perhaps some 'powerful, privileged, unaccountable' people do exploit this cause for their own selfish ends, but it seems to me that your argument is predicated on the idea that marginalized people are incapable of asserting any agency, and if they try to do so they must not really be marginalized. I think you should re-evaluate your premise here.
cat_plus_plus 4y ago
That's motte and bailey on "harmful". Nobody is banning people for saying Musk is a moron, nobody is advocating for "There is a <slur> walking on so and so street right now" tweets. Criticizing people vs revealing their precise current location to everyone on Internet are very different things.
- UncleMeat 4y ago
  > nobody is advocating for "There is a <slur> walking on so and so street right now" tweets. A few months ago Elon was. Remember when everything that isn't illegal was going to be allowed on Twitter?
- Kye 4y ago
  This is public information. His own plane reports it. Anyone can buy a receiver to pick up the transponder, and websites exist to collect that data from people who do. All this Twitter account does is report that for one plane in that database. Anyone, including stalkers, can make a script to watch it.
  - kjksf 4y ago
    Plot twist: Elon applied for and obtained privacy protection from FAA so it was no longer public information. The owner of @ElonJet account de-anonymized the info and bragged about it on Twitter. Now Elon is suing him and people who helped him to obtain that no-longer-public information. See https://twitter.com/scottwww/status/1490553502640140288 https://twitter.com/scottwww/status/1490553502640140288
    - akiselev 4y ago
      Plot twist: Google “site:faa.gov elon musk registration” First result: https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/Search/NNumberResult?NNumberTxt=628TS https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/Search/NNumberResul... It’s owned by FALCON LANDING LLC located at 1 Rocket Rd. I mean… come on.
      - 4y ago
ShredKazoo 4y ago
Elon said: >Any account doxxing real-time location info of anyone will be suspended, as it is a physical safety violation. This includes posting links to sites with real-time location info. From https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1603181423787380737 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1603181423787380737 You can see Twitter's full policy here: https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/personal-information https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/personal-info... A hypothetical account that broadcasted the location of marginalized people in real time would not be allowed, is my understanding. I think it would be good if we could get past the "your team vs my team" thing and talk about the best set of speech principles overall.
- chris11 4y ago
  Trust and Safety is an extraordinarily difficult problem to handle at scale. Ideally guidelines should be public and applied consistently. That's a high standard. Elon came in saying he was pro free speech, even saying ElonJet wouldn't be banned. But he fired moderation teams and replaced them by personally making individual decisions. Twitter can't get consistent application of public guidelines from that.
  - ShredKazoo 4y ago
    >Trust and Safety is an extraordinarily difficult problem to handle at scale. Ideally guidelines should be public and applied consistently. That's a high standard. Agreed. >Elon came in saying he was pro free speech, even saying ElonJet wouldn't be banned. But he fired moderation teams and replaced them by personally making individual decisions. Twitter can't get consistent application of public guidelines from that. I agree, but the previous admin was not even trying to meet the "public and applied consistently" standard (see Twitter Files). So I'm hopeful that there will still be improvement in the long run. Hopefully this is a teachable moment for Elon.
- MrJohz 4y ago
  The difference is that the information we're talking about here is already completely public information, repackaged in a different format. It would be more like an account that tweets the nearest homeless shelter to you - open information, packaged differently. Where it might become more problematic would be if the account included inciting language with the information ("here is a homeless shelter, go and mob it"; "Elon's about to land in CDG, who wants to stage a riot"). But I think it's clear that that's not what this account is doing - it's just giving information out that already exists. And for what it's worth, it's not just Musk who gets this treatment. Most British political events of the last few years have involved journalists excitedly gathering around flightradar24 and watching some poor minister's plane as they make their way back to London to get fired, hand in their resignation, etc. That's essentially the same thing that this Twitter feed is doing (albeit usually more focused on the event rather than 24/7 tracking of one vehicle), but it's not considered a security risk because it honestly isn't. I mean, when the Queen died, Huw Edwards did the same thing for the Princes' plane, and he'll probably win a BAFTA for it... In all fairness, I have some sympathy towards Musk, as it sounds like he's dealing with the shock of his child being stalked. That's going to evoke a strong emotional reaction, and I can completely understand why he'd want to shut this sort of thing down. But that doesn't make it useful (the information is still public, and anyone motivated enough to track Musk down IRL doesn't need Twitter to find it), nor does it change the hypocrisy of the situation. It seems like he's just lashing out at the wrong person, and making decisions over things that he can control.
Natsu 4y ago
Elon is claiming this is the new standard going forward: "[Elon] added that any account revealing people's real-time locations will be suspended "as it is a physical safety violation"."
- themitigating 4y ago
  So he made a rule so he could ban someone that was (supposedly) affecting him.
- alphabettsy 4y ago
  Does this include paparazzi or celeb sighting photos?
  - butlerm 4y ago
    If it is in real time then presumably yes. Perhaps with exceptions for previously announced or expected attendance at certain public events like award shows and the like.
- 1MachineElf 4y ago
  I wonder how he'll react when he learns about smartphone "Location Services"
  - Natsu 4y ago
    I wasn't aware of those being on Twitter, but they're absolutely horrible for privacy.
osigurdson 4y ago
Is there a distinction between speech and posting other's PII (Personally Identifiable Information)?
- jerojero 4y ago
  Well there was an issue with other account posting information about school teachers being groomers and pointing people to their names, pictures, etc. That account is still online, well and doing it. As others have pointed out, as long as the people that are affected are not Elon Musk, then it seems like for Elon Musk it is mostly fine.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
cokeandpepsi 4y ago
- SyzygistSix 4y ago
  His parents belonged to an anti-Apartheid party.
Meekro 4y ago
"Don't publish someone's location in realtime (24 hour delay is required)" seems like a simple rule that can be enforced even-handedly against both sides. On the other hand, "don't do speech that causes harm" is so vague that it guarantees endless battles. If the New York Times writes an article criticizing someone, and then a crazy person shoots that someone, is the NYT now required to stop writing articles criticizing people? If not, then why should LibsOfTikTok be required to stop criticizing liberals or children's hospitals that do gender-affirming surgery? U.S. case law sets the bar for incitement really high precisely so you don't have prosecutors trying to silence newspapers in the way I described above. Some people have argued that Twitter should adopt a lower bar in order to prevent harm, but I've never heard anyone describe a coherent principle that wouldn't also allow the NYT to be banned as I described above.
- RC_ITR 4y ago
  >"Don't publish someone's location in realtime (24 hour delay is required)" seems like a simple rule that can be enforced even-handedly against both sides. He posted a real-time photo of X at twitter HQ like two weeks ago. And then a picture of him getting his badge. Should Elon suspend his own account for doing that? Also what sides? Elon jet wasn’t political afaik.
  - donkeyd 4y ago
    > Elon jet wasn’t political afaik. In the current political climate, anything that isn't political but does something one side of the spectrum dislikes, automatically becomes political. Elon has turned quite extremely and vocally to the right. So people on the right will view ElonJet as an attack on the right. Unfortunately, that's just how it goes. These days you can't even write anything objectively anymore. You'll always end at a conclusion that one side will interpret as being against them and then attack you for it. Slight tangent, but it's especially visible in people who support stuff they're actually not in favor of, just because the perceived 'other side' dislikes it. I've seen people who live environmentally conscious support farmers in the Netherlands, just because the farmers were protesting the current government. Dutch farmers have a huge impact on the Dutch environment and supporting them is the opposite of being environmentally conscious. Yet, people think that the enemy of their enemy must be their friend and the other way around.
ssnistfajen 4y ago
The fact that Elon used "woke mind virus" at all has already shown he is neither centrist or independent.

77pt77 4y ago

It always boils down to >It's different when I do it!

PathOfEclipse 4y ago

VirusNewbie 4y ago

Direction threats have always been against the law, what you claim is “harming already marginalized groups” is not at all the same thing, and not against the law. Unless you mean specifically targeting people, in which case, twitter and other places don’t allow this.

donatj 4y ago

I think it comes down to tangible harm vs intangible theoretical harm. Anyone can claim intangible harm from anything. Doxing someone is a real tangible harm with very likely dangerous outcomes. Having an opinion is not.

kentm 4y ago
If you consider doxing as a real tangible harm then what about vulnerable groups coming under harm due to being singled out? LibsOfTikTok made claims about Boston Children’s Hospital that caused tangible harm and yet they were unbanned. You might say that LibsOfTikTok didn’t cause the harm, that the responsibility was on the people perpetrating the bomb threats, but the same logic applies to ElonJet and this “stalker” incident.
- asiangirl2445 4y ago
  - kentm 4y ago
    ElonJet also just reposted public info. I’m saying that there’s a double standard being applied by Elon and within this Hacker News thread.
  - throwntoday 4y ago
    [flagged]
- Georgelemental 4y ago
  > You might say that LibsOfTikTok didn’t cause the harm, that the responsibility was on the people perpetrating the bomb threats, but the same logic applies to ElonJet and this “stalker” incident. Correct on both counts. Neither account should be banned or punished
  - kentm 4y ago
    I like that response; its a point of view with proper consistency. Twitter is also a private so another view is that you can ban them both and it’s also consistent and within Musks rights. Of course it’s also within Musks rights to ban one and not the other, just because. But he’s also taken a very public position on free speech wrt Twitter so I think it’s reasonable to point out when those standards are applied inconsistently, and also challenge people who are trying to draw arbitrary lines to defend him.
- donatj 4y ago
  From my limited understanding of the whole LibsOfTikTok / Children's hospital thing, what they had posted was false and thus libel and thus illegal speech which is not allowed on the platform? That seems unrelated.
  - ShredKazoo 4y ago
aeternum 4y ago
Knowing the location of your plane is theoretical harm. If someone actually attacks you based upon that location, now it is tangible harm. It's too easy to conflate the two.
- masklinn 4y ago
  Knowing the location of your plane is legal requirement as well.
- romwell 4y ago
  >Knowing the location of your plane is theoretical harm. It's not even theoretical harm. It's not harm. You are not entitled to privacy when owning and operating a jet in public airspace.
hackerlight 4y ago
This is an imaginary dichotomy, though. The proponents of content moderation on social media argue that hate speech causes tangible harm. For example, there are many mass shooters that say that they got radicalized purely online, such as Dylan Roof. This is not intangible harm, it is tangible.
- mrhands556 4y ago
  There will always be insane people in this world. Was Hitler and the nazis radicalized through the internet? Was Timothy McVeigh? Censoring people out of the fear semi casual relationships occurring between them and radicalization doesn’t work. It’s not like people who apt to deeply believe radical ideas once their source becomes censored they just stop there. Human beings don’t work like that. I don’t believe libsoftiktok is causing real world harm.
  - hackerlight 4y ago
    > Was Hitler and the nazis radicalized through the internet? They radicalized millions of people via their speech, which is the correct level of abstraction. Whether it was offline or online speech is a distinction without a difference. > There will always be insane people in this world. Mono-causal explanations are factually wrong. The Dylan Roofs of the world clearly have severe mental health problems, combined with being radicalized online by other people's speech. It's the union of all these factors that causes the observed outcome. > I don’t believe libsoftiktok is causing real world harm. Well, it's harder to make a case for libsoftiktok than places like 4chan. I think it's reasonable to say that 4chan et al. have literally caused people to die via mass shootings.
- bnralt 4y ago
  Sure, but where is the line drawn? A lot of political rhetoric across the board is pretty extreme. The guy who shot up a Republican Congressional baseball game at baseball practice was into a lot of anti-GOP and anti-Trump stuff[1]: > He had also joined several anti-GOP Facebook groups, including “Terminate The Republican Party;” “The Road to Hell Is Paved With Republicans;” and “Join The Resistance Worldwide!!” I'm all for people toning things down. But the entire online ecosystem seems to be full of various factions warring against each other with extreme rhetoric. Even the discussion of extreme rhetoric is filled with extreme rhetoric ("These people are going to get someone killed!"), which can (and is) used to justify all sorts of bad things. [1] https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/14/homepage2/james-hodgkinson-profile/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/14/homepage2/james-hodgkinson-pr...

memish 4y ago

My attacks on you are consequence culture. Your attacks on me are stochastic terrorism. Me suppressing my personal information is protecting my physical safety. You suppressing your personal information is an unacceptable breach of free expression. Me revealing your personal information is transparency in the public interest. You revealing my personal information is doxxing and puts my life in danger. @pmarca

fsckboy 4y ago
some people's personal information, if broadcast, puts them in danger like Salman Rushdie, while with most people nobody cares about them. what's your snappy hypocrisy koan for that? Salman Rushdie's exercise of free speech but not revealing where he was made him some kind of huge hypocrite? some people's personal information is in the public interest, like Al Gore's electric bill or how often he and John Kerry fly to climate conferences, and POTUS's also, yet the secret service keeps his travel plans obscure to protect him. many attacks may be consequent, and many are not; much of life is stochastic. so I don't get your point. I think Musk is sincerely trying to make twitter more free speechy than the previous administration, and I think he's sincerely grappling with issues at the margins. I don't think this silly twitter bot's POV is no longer being heard.
- dghlsakjg 4y ago
  The counterargument is that elonjet is only tweeting information that is already very public. Elons Jet, by law, must openly broadcast, over the radio waves, location and route while operating. There is a legal right to publish that information. If he doesn’t want people to know his location, he can avoid traveling on the one private jet linked to him. But that’s not what he’s doing. His child being followed by someone wanting to meet him has literally nothing to do with the location of his jet. This is an emotional reaction to a situation that only affects him.
  - FireBeyond 4y ago
    And given the massive negative PR some of his decisions have garnered lately, and his thin skin about them (just today he claimed that the booing at the Dave Chappelle show is because "people weren't letting him speak"), I take this vague claim which has only tangential relevance to the stalking with a grain of salt. "Pursuing legal action against Sweeney"? Not criminal action against the stalker? No video, not with all the cameras? Proof that alleged stalker got the information from that Twitter account, and not FlightRadar24, or even the FAA? Yeah, I would be unsurprised if it turned out that this was all just horse manure to try to provide cover for his decision.

Georgelemental 4y ago

> speech that may be harmful to tens of thousands of already marginalized people What this means in practice is "speech that powerful, privileged, unaccountable people, who think they are worthy of controlling the thoughts of everyone else, deem to be 'harmful', based on their vague feelings and biases."

dullcrisp 4y ago
Exactly. If you be less racist, you’re just giving the globalist elites what they want.
- Georgelemental 4y ago
  I don't trust anyone else to decide on my behalf what speech is "racist." Let me think for myself!
  - dullcrisp 4y ago
    Please do.
anigbrowl 4y ago
So if people who are marginalized go on Twitter to complain about it, their reports don't count? Perhaps some 'powerful, privileged, unaccountable' people do exploit this cause for their own selfish ends, but it seems to me that your argument is predicated on the idea that marginalized people are incapable of asserting any agency, and if they try to do so they must not really be marginalized. I think you should re-evaluate your premise here.

cat_plus_plus 4y ago

That's motte and bailey on "harmful". Nobody is banning people for saying Musk is a moron, nobody is advocating for "There is a <slur> walking on so and so street right now" tweets. Criticizing people vs revealing their precise current location to everyone on Internet are very different things.

UncleMeat 4y ago
> nobody is advocating for "There is a <slur> walking on so and so street right now" tweets. A few months ago Elon was. Remember when everything that isn't illegal was going to be allowed on Twitter?
Kye 4y ago
This is public information. His own plane reports it. Anyone can buy a receiver to pick up the transponder, and websites exist to collect that data from people who do. All this Twitter account does is report that for one plane in that database. Anyone, including stalkers, can make a script to watch it.
- kjksf 4y ago
  Plot twist: Elon applied for and obtained privacy protection from FAA so it was no longer public information. The owner of @ElonJet account de-anonymized the info and bragged about it on Twitter. Now Elon is suing him and people who helped him to obtain that no-longer-public information. See https://twitter.com/scottwww/status/1490553502640140288 https://twitter.com/scottwww/status/1490553502640140288
  - akiselev 4y ago
    Plot twist: Google “site:faa.gov elon musk registration” First result: https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/Search/NNumberResult?NNumberTxt=628TS https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/Search/NNumberResul... It’s owned by FALCON LANDING LLC located at 1 Rocket Rd. I mean… come on.
    - 4y ago

ShredKazoo 4y ago

Elon said: >Any account doxxing real-time location info of anyone will be suspended, as it is a physical safety violation. This includes posting links to sites with real-time location info. From https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1603181423787380737 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1603181423787380737 You can see Twitter's full policy here: https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/personal-information https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/personal-info... A hypothetical account that broadcasted the location of marginalized people in real time would not be allowed, is my understanding. I think it would be good if we could get past the "your team vs my team" thing and talk about the best set of speech principles overall.

chris11 4y ago
Trust and Safety is an extraordinarily difficult problem to handle at scale. Ideally guidelines should be public and applied consistently. That's a high standard. Elon came in saying he was pro free speech, even saying ElonJet wouldn't be banned. But he fired moderation teams and replaced them by personally making individual decisions. Twitter can't get consistent application of public guidelines from that.
- ShredKazoo 4y ago
  >Trust and Safety is an extraordinarily difficult problem to handle at scale. Ideally guidelines should be public and applied consistently. That's a high standard. Agreed. >Elon came in saying he was pro free speech, even saying ElonJet wouldn't be banned. But he fired moderation teams and replaced them by personally making individual decisions. Twitter can't get consistent application of public guidelines from that. I agree, but the previous admin was not even trying to meet the "public and applied consistently" standard (see Twitter Files). So I'm hopeful that there will still be improvement in the long run. Hopefully this is a teachable moment for Elon.
MrJohz 4y ago
The difference is that the information we're talking about here is already completely public information, repackaged in a different format. It would be more like an account that tweets the nearest homeless shelter to you - open information, packaged differently. Where it might become more problematic would be if the account included inciting language with the information ("here is a homeless shelter, go and mob it"; "Elon's about to land in CDG, who wants to stage a riot"). But I think it's clear that that's not what this account is doing - it's just giving information out that already exists. And for what it's worth, it's not just Musk who gets this treatment. Most British political events of the last few years have involved journalists excitedly gathering around flightradar24 and watching some poor minister's plane as they make their way back to London to get fired, hand in their resignation, etc. That's essentially the same thing that this Twitter feed is doing (albeit usually more focused on the event rather than 24/7 tracking of one vehicle), but it's not considered a security risk because it honestly isn't. I mean, when the Queen died, Huw Edwards did the same thing for the Princes' plane, and he'll probably win a BAFTA for it... In all fairness, I have some sympathy towards Musk, as it sounds like he's dealing with the shock of his child being stalked. That's going to evoke a strong emotional reaction, and I can completely understand why he'd want to shut this sort of thing down. But that doesn't make it useful (the information is still public, and anyone motivated enough to track Musk down IRL doesn't need Twitter to find it), nor does it change the hypocrisy of the situation. It seems like he's just lashing out at the wrong person, and making decisions over things that he can control.

Natsu 4y ago

Elon is claiming this is the new standard going forward: "[Elon] added that any account revealing people's real-time locations will be suspended "as it is a physical safety violation"."

themitigating 4y ago
So he made a rule so he could ban someone that was (supposedly) affecting him.
alphabettsy 4y ago
Does this include paparazzi or celeb sighting photos?
- butlerm 4y ago
  If it is in real time then presumably yes. Perhaps with exceptions for previously announced or expected attendance at certain public events like award shows and the like.
1MachineElf 4y ago
I wonder how he'll react when he learns about smartphone "Location Services"
- Natsu 4y ago
  I wasn't aware of those being on Twitter, but they're absolutely horrible for privacy.

osigurdson 4y ago

Is there a distinction between speech and posting other's PII (Personally Identifiable Information)?

jerojero 4y ago
Well there was an issue with other account posting information about school teachers being groomers and pointing people to their names, pictures, etc. That account is still online, well and doing it. As others have pointed out, as long as the people that are affected are not Elon Musk, then it seems like for Elon Musk it is mostly fine.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

cokeandpepsi 4y ago

SyzygistSix 4y ago
His parents belonged to an anti-Apartheid party.

Meekro 4y ago

"Don't publish someone's location in realtime (24 hour delay is required)" seems like a simple rule that can be enforced even-handedly against both sides. On the other hand, "don't do speech that causes harm" is so vague that it guarantees endless battles. If the New York Times writes an article criticizing someone, and then a crazy person shoots that someone, is the NYT now required to stop writing articles criticizing people? If not, then why should LibsOfTikTok be required to stop criticizing liberals or children's hospitals that do gender-affirming surgery? U.S. case law sets the bar for incitement really high precisely so you don't have prosecutors trying to silence newspapers in the way I described above. Some people have argued that Twitter should adopt a lower bar in order to prevent harm, but I've never heard anyone describe a coherent principle that wouldn't also allow the NYT to be banned as I described above.

RC_ITR 4y ago
>"Don't publish someone's location in realtime (24 hour delay is required)" seems like a simple rule that can be enforced even-handedly against both sides. He posted a real-time photo of X at twitter HQ like two weeks ago. And then a picture of him getting his badge. Should Elon suspend his own account for doing that? Also what sides? Elon jet wasn’t political afaik.
- donkeyd 4y ago
  > Elon jet wasn’t political afaik. In the current political climate, anything that isn't political but does something one side of the spectrum dislikes, automatically becomes political. Elon has turned quite extremely and vocally to the right. So people on the right will view ElonJet as an attack on the right. Unfortunately, that's just how it goes. These days you can't even write anything objectively anymore. You'll always end at a conclusion that one side will interpret as being against them and then attack you for it. Slight tangent, but it's especially visible in people who support stuff they're actually not in favor of, just because the perceived 'other side' dislikes it. I've seen people who live environmentally conscious support farmers in the Netherlands, just because the farmers were protesting the current government. Dutch farmers have a huge impact on the Dutch environment and supporting them is the opposite of being environmentally conscious. Yet, people think that the enemy of their enemy must be their friend and the other way around.

ssnistfajen 4y ago

The fact that Elon used "woke mind virus" at all has already shown he is neither centrist or independent.