6 ms·

My attacks on you are consequence culture. Your attacks on me are stochastic terrorism. Me suppressing my personal information is protecting my physical safety

by 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.
    - smsm42 4y ago
      He may not know yet who the stalker is. Which would be a pre-requisite to pursue a legal action.
      - anigbrowl 4y ago
        Perhaps his security guys called 911, but so far LAPD says they have no record of the event. I'm wary of trying to draw any conclusions about the event absent some independent confirmation.
        smsm42 4y ago
        I'm not sure police would be eager to investigate "some guy followed me" type of complaint. Of course, if the complainer knows the right people, they would. But Musk is squarely in the "wrong people" corner with the powers that run LA now, I think, so not sure he'll get a lot of help from LAPD on this.
        anigbrowl 4y ago
        I think police take calls from pro security guards at least somewhat seriously, not least because a lot of cops do private security work on the side.
      - random314 4y ago
- NalNezumi 4y ago
  >while with most people nobody cares about them It only takes one lunatic to care about "nobody" and you can have a fatal outcome. The criminal registry is filled with lunatics such as domestic violence perpetrators or stalkers that found out personal information about a nobody and acted violently on it. You might be star stuck and a deep believer of Elon the new Saint, but the original comment is pointing out the hypocrisy and danger of one person deciding on whose information we can spread based on augmenting it in the framework of "free speech"; but then essentially boggling it down to naive notion like you stated: "nobodies" - who cares about them? It's about popularity and favoritism (free speech is the rhetoric)
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
somewhat_drunk 4y ago
Being canceled =/= being terrorized irl. Why does this even need to be said?
- ShredKazoo 4y ago
  In this particular case, there was an attempt at terrorizing Elon IRL. So why shouldn't attacks on him therefore count as "stochastic terrorism", insofar as "stochastic terrorism" is a meaningful concept?
  - toofy 4y ago
    as others are indicating, at least some of the problems here are: - he recognizes that it’s reasonable to take actions if an account *might* influence his real life. — he mocks others and declares they’re unreasonable when they ask twitter for help. - sometimes he even escalates the threats towards others, portrays them as hysterical and starts ranting about town-squares and woke cancel culture.
    - ShredKazoo 4y ago
      I agree that insofar as "stochastic terrorism" is a meaningful concept, Elon has probably also engaged in it.
  - dmix 4y ago
    That's a terrible premise to start a conversation on HN. Let's not use extreme concepts invented by ideologues + controversial figures being petty as the basis for thought experiments.
    - ShredKazoo 4y ago
      Stochastic terrorism may be an extreme concept invented by ideologues, but the fact remains that if you have a big platform and you criticize someone harshly, that might cause crazies in your audience to go after them. So as a society we should figure out what is and isn't acceptable behavior here, and invent rules to apply universally and impartially.
cauthon 4y ago
> My attacks on you are consequence culture. Your attacks on me are stochastic terrorism. Let's not group mean tweets and mass shootings under the same umbrella
- scott_w 4y ago
  I didn’t read it like that. I read “attacks” in the “verbal attacks” sense as opposed to physical.
  - knighthack 4y ago
    The idea that verbal attacks can be somehow synonymous to physical attacks is nonsensical. Like the term "verbal violence" - what a way to conflate meanings to a misleading extent.
- wahnfrieden 4y ago
  In other words you’re just repeating that sticks and stones may break bones but words will never hurt. Hardly a well established / obvious statement, and one that’s covered in early grade school discourse
- LudwigNagasena 4y ago
  You should tell that to people who invented the phrase "stochastic terrorism."
1MachineElf 4y ago
Hard to tell if this comment is left-wing rhetoric or right-wing satire.
- MaysonL 4y ago
  Perhaps left-wing satire of right-wing hypocrisy?
- jacquesm 4y ago
  Usually the comment history will tell you.

by memish 4y ago

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.
  - smsm42 4y ago
    He may not know yet who the stalker is. Which would be a pre-requisite to pursue a legal action.
    - anigbrowl 4y ago
      Perhaps his security guys called 911, but so far LAPD says they have no record of the event. I'm wary of trying to draw any conclusions about the event absent some independent confirmation.
      - smsm42 4y ago
        I'm not sure police would be eager to investigate "some guy followed me" type of complaint. Of course, if the complainer knows the right people, they would. But Musk is squarely in the "wrong people" corner with the powers that run LA now, I think, so not sure he'll get a lot of help from LAPD on this.
        anigbrowl 4y ago
        I think police take calls from pro security guards at least somewhat seriously, not least because a lot of cops do private security work on the side.
    - random314 4y ago
NalNezumi 4y ago
>while with most people nobody cares about them It only takes one lunatic to care about "nobody" and you can have a fatal outcome. The criminal registry is filled with lunatics such as domestic violence perpetrators or stalkers that found out personal information about a nobody and acted violently on it. You might be star stuck and a deep believer of Elon the new Saint, but the original comment is pointing out the hypocrisy and danger of one person deciding on whose information we can spread based on augmenting it in the framework of "free speech"; but then essentially boggling it down to naive notion like you stated: "nobodies" - who cares about them? It's about popularity and favoritism (free speech is the rhetoric)
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

somewhat_drunk 4y ago

Being canceled =/= being terrorized irl. Why does this even need to be said?

ShredKazoo 4y ago
In this particular case, there was an attempt at terrorizing Elon IRL. So why shouldn't attacks on him therefore count as "stochastic terrorism", insofar as "stochastic terrorism" is a meaningful concept?
- toofy 4y ago
  as others are indicating, at least some of the problems here are: - he recognizes that it’s reasonable to take actions if an account *might* influence his real life. — he mocks others and declares they’re unreasonable when they ask twitter for help. - sometimes he even escalates the threats towards others, portrays them as hysterical and starts ranting about town-squares and woke cancel culture.
  - ShredKazoo 4y ago
    I agree that insofar as "stochastic terrorism" is a meaningful concept, Elon has probably also engaged in it.
- dmix 4y ago
  That's a terrible premise to start a conversation on HN. Let's not use extreme concepts invented by ideologues + controversial figures being petty as the basis for thought experiments.
  - ShredKazoo 4y ago
    Stochastic terrorism may be an extreme concept invented by ideologues, but the fact remains that if you have a big platform and you criticize someone harshly, that might cause crazies in your audience to go after them. So as a society we should figure out what is and isn't acceptable behavior here, and invent rules to apply universally and impartially.

cauthon 4y ago

> My attacks on you are consequence culture. Your attacks on me are stochastic terrorism. Let's not group mean tweets and mass shootings under the same umbrella

scott_w 4y ago
I didn’t read it like that. I read “attacks” in the “verbal attacks” sense as opposed to physical.
- knighthack 4y ago
  The idea that verbal attacks can be somehow synonymous to physical attacks is nonsensical. Like the term "verbal violence" - what a way to conflate meanings to a misleading extent.
wahnfrieden 4y ago
In other words you’re just repeating that sticks and stones may break bones but words will never hurt. Hardly a well established / obvious statement, and one that’s covered in early grade school discourse
LudwigNagasena 4y ago
You should tell that to people who invented the phrase "stochastic terrorism."

1MachineElf 4y ago

Hard to tell if this comment is left-wing rhetoric or right-wing satire.

MaysonL 4y ago
Perhaps left-wing satire of right-wing hypocrisy?
jacquesm 4y ago
Usually the comment history will tell you.