16 ms·

Even with the knowledge that the doxxing is leading to stalkers endangering not just the wealthy target but also his young child, you would fund the doxxer? Th

Even with the knowledge that the doxxing is leading to stalkers endangering not just the wealthy target but also his young child, you would fund the doxxer? That’s pretty monstrous. If there is a kidnapping or murder down the line, your money will have helped enable it.

saagarjha 4y ago
Please respond in good faith.
- AlchemistCamp 4y ago
  I am. I meant exactly what I wrote. Donating to a doxxer with the knowledge that their work has already played a role in leading a stalker to the target’s young child is monstrous. Full stop.
  - ncallaway 4y ago
    Do you have any evidence at all that there exists any sort of connection between the flight tracking and the incident with the car? To my knowledge most cars don’t have tail numbers, and don’t register their flight plan with the FAA, so I don’t really understand the connection you’re drawing.
  - saagarjha 4y ago
    Responding in good faith does not just mean that you stand by what you write. It also means that you respond taking the person you're replying to at face value, without omitting important context or exaggerating the situation. Claiming that the other party is "monstrous" and saying that they'll have blood on their hands is in no way appropriate here, especially considering that: * The discussion is in a thread about SLAPP, with the point of contention being that Elon is suing to intimidate rather than for damages * Elon has, in the past, implicitly and explicitly demonstrated approval of such activities * It is unclear whether the information led to the attack That, plus that fact that the money is not going to run the account directly, but pay for legal fees in the court case. There's a lot of discussion here on all these topics. Ignoring them completely and jumping immediately to a conclusion that lets you call someone a horrible person is not reasonable or responding in good faith. You can make your point and disagree without lowering the quality of discussion.
    - simondotau 4y ago
      You are not responding in good faith yourself. There is a clear and obvious distinction between calling a stance monstrous and calling a person monstrous. The GP did the former and I don’t think it was ambiguous — but even if it was, it is in bad faith to assume the worst interpretation.
      - saagarjha 4y ago
        Point taken, but a misstep rather than with intent on my part. I stand by the rest of my comment.
        simondotau 4y ago
        Yet again you are not responding in good faith. You defend your own admitted bad faith as a “misstep” but the other person’s alleged bad faith as “with intent”. Surely this is textbook bad faith.
        saagarjha 4y ago
        I don't think so. The comment I responded to showed up in a thread of more than a 1000 others talking about the very things I mentioned. If you don't assign any intent here it's just someone cruising over the entire context of this conversation, picking a side (without any supporting evidence for why they chose their interpretation, mind you), and then using it justify making a fairly extreme comment. And then they extend it even further into "you know this could also lead to a murder so now your actions support killing children". If any of {"the information is public/protected under the First Amendment", "Elon is suing to harass this person", "Elon is just straight up lying about the incident", "the attack has nothing to do with the account", "this is something Elon actually said he supports in the past"} are true the point being made changes dramatically. I don't think any of them have been settled at all. I'm sure 'AlchemistCamp has opinions on them as do I but in situations like these it's generally appropriate to make comments taking this uncertainty into account. Like, it could even be a curious comment, "it seems like this person's account is actively harming Elon's family, why would you possibly want to send money to fund it?", but as it stands right now it just jumps immediately into making the conversation worse. On the flip side, I feel the problems in my comment, which I freely accept (…though not as bad faith), do not actually significantly alter its meaning. Nor do I think it ignores surrounding context like the comment I replied to did. My point was "I think your comment is bad because you jumped to a conclusion which let you dunk on this person's actions" and I wrote "I think your comment is bad because you jumped to a conclusion which let you dunk on this person" and I feel that this is something a reasonable person could end up doing, even if it's obviously not correct. Perhaps I'm missing what led you to focus on that part in particular, rather than the rest of the comment, where I feel the meat of it lies?
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    > with the knowledge that their work has already played a role in leading a stalker to the target’s young child Objection, Your Honor, assumes facts not in evidence. This knowledge doesn't exist. It's asserted without evidence.
ncallaway 4y ago
I don’t agree with your characterization of the situation. I disagree with all of your factual assumptions, so I then disagree with your moral conclusion. You can call me monstrous if you want. I frankly don’t care about your opinion of me at all. I’m happy to discuss my moral framework with you if you want, but we’re so far apart on the factual basis that I don’t think it’d be worth the time.
- AlchemistCamp 4y ago
  I don’t want to comment on you as a person, but I definitely would call the act deeply immoral. Tracking the movements of wealthy targets in real time has zero value in terms of political freedoms. It’s primarily of use to kidnappers and other criminals. There’s no getting around the fact that it’s a security risk.
  - ncallaway 4y ago
    > Tracking the movements of wealthy targets in real time has zero value in terms of political freedoms I mentioned factual disagreement, and those still exist. Without conceding any of those, this is our moral and philosophical disagreement. I don’t think the power of the state should bar all speech that you personally decide has 0 political value. I think the first amendment rightly tolerates speech, even speech that many people strongly disagree with. I think the government should be extremely hesitant about telling people they can’t speak because their words have “zero political value”. And I would vigorously oppose a party who is attempting to use the government to punish someone for speaking. Look, if Elon Musk brings an action that alleges very clear defamation, or if he shows that Sweeney was actively inciting harassment I’d consider otherwise. But if the legal action is only for the actions publicly alleged (posting flight information), that’s simply protected speech by the first amendment. A lawsuit to suppress clearly protected speech is legal thuggery, and I would vigorously oppose that lawsuit. In much the same way I’ve donated to the ACLU who has stood up for the rights of people I despise to speak.
    - AlchemistCamp 4y ago
      I definitely don’t agree with your political belief that automated location stalking broadcast on social media should be protected speech, or the belief that the US 1st amendment actually does protect it. I get where you’re coming from, though. Replace “Elon’s location data” with “Elon is horrible” or “we should tax billionaires at 99%” and I’d also support the right to broadcast it far and wide.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
salawat 4y ago
If making public info more public is legally dicey, then you'd better tell me why you're okay wit Clearview, LexisNexus, et al... And not this guy. Musk needs to go after the stalker. He deserves a good SLAPP'ing. Fuck billionaires trying to buy their way to immunity to the consequences of their own daft behavior.

saagarjha 4y ago

Please respond in good faith.

AlchemistCamp 4y ago
I am. I meant exactly what I wrote. Donating to a doxxer with the knowledge that their work has already played a role in leading a stalker to the target’s young child is monstrous. Full stop.
- ncallaway 4y ago
  Do you have any evidence at all that there exists any sort of connection between the flight tracking and the incident with the car? To my knowledge most cars don’t have tail numbers, and don’t register their flight plan with the FAA, so I don’t really understand the connection you’re drawing.
- saagarjha 4y ago
  Responding in good faith does not just mean that you stand by what you write. It also means that you respond taking the person you're replying to at face value, without omitting important context or exaggerating the situation. Claiming that the other party is "monstrous" and saying that they'll have blood on their hands is in no way appropriate here, especially considering that: * The discussion is in a thread about SLAPP, with the point of contention being that Elon is suing to intimidate rather than for damages * Elon has, in the past, implicitly and explicitly demonstrated approval of such activities * It is unclear whether the information led to the attack That, plus that fact that the money is not going to run the account directly, but pay for legal fees in the court case. There's a lot of discussion here on all these topics. Ignoring them completely and jumping immediately to a conclusion that lets you call someone a horrible person is not reasonable or responding in good faith. You can make your point and disagree without lowering the quality of discussion.
  - simondotau 4y ago
    You are not responding in good faith yourself. There is a clear and obvious distinction between calling a stance monstrous and calling a person monstrous. The GP did the former and I don’t think it was ambiguous — but even if it was, it is in bad faith to assume the worst interpretation.
    - saagarjha 4y ago
      Point taken, but a misstep rather than with intent on my part. I stand by the rest of my comment.
      - simondotau 4y ago
        Yet again you are not responding in good faith. You defend your own admitted bad faith as a “misstep” but the other person’s alleged bad faith as “with intent”. Surely this is textbook bad faith.
        saagarjha 4y ago
        I don't think so. The comment I responded to showed up in a thread of more than a 1000 others talking about the very things I mentioned. If you don't assign any intent here it's just someone cruising over the entire context of this conversation, picking a side (without any supporting evidence for why they chose their interpretation, mind you), and then using it justify making a fairly extreme comment. And then they extend it even further into "you know this could also lead to a murder so now your actions support killing children". If any of {"the information is public/protected under the First Amendment", "Elon is suing to harass this person", "Elon is just straight up lying about the incident", "the attack has nothing to do with the account", "this is something Elon actually said he supports in the past"} are true the point being made changes dramatically. I don't think any of them have been settled at all. I'm sure 'AlchemistCamp has opinions on them as do I but in situations like these it's generally appropriate to make comments taking this uncertainty into account. Like, it could even be a curious comment, "it seems like this person's account is actively harming Elon's family, why would you possibly want to send money to fund it?", but as it stands right now it just jumps immediately into making the conversation worse. On the flip side, I feel the problems in my comment, which I freely accept (…though not as bad faith), do not actually significantly alter its meaning. Nor do I think it ignores surrounding context like the comment I replied to did. My point was "I think your comment is bad because you jumped to a conclusion which let you dunk on this person's actions" and I wrote "I think your comment is bad because you jumped to a conclusion which let you dunk on this person" and I feel that this is something a reasonable person could end up doing, even if it's obviously not correct. Perhaps I'm missing what led you to focus on that part in particular, rather than the rest of the comment, where I feel the meat of it lies?
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > with the knowledge that their work has already played a role in leading a stalker to the target’s young child Objection, Your Honor, assumes facts not in evidence. This knowledge doesn't exist. It's asserted without evidence.

ncallaway 4y ago

I don’t agree with your characterization of the situation. I disagree with all of your factual assumptions, so I then disagree with your moral conclusion. You can call me monstrous if you want. I frankly don’t care about your opinion of me at all. I’m happy to discuss my moral framework with you if you want, but we’re so far apart on the factual basis that I don’t think it’d be worth the time.

AlchemistCamp 4y ago
I don’t want to comment on you as a person, but I definitely would call the act deeply immoral. Tracking the movements of wealthy targets in real time has zero value in terms of political freedoms. It’s primarily of use to kidnappers and other criminals. There’s no getting around the fact that it’s a security risk.
- ncallaway 4y ago
  > Tracking the movements of wealthy targets in real time has zero value in terms of political freedoms I mentioned factual disagreement, and those still exist. Without conceding any of those, this is our moral and philosophical disagreement. I don’t think the power of the state should bar all speech that you personally decide has 0 political value. I think the first amendment rightly tolerates speech, even speech that many people strongly disagree with. I think the government should be extremely hesitant about telling people they can’t speak because their words have “zero political value”. And I would vigorously oppose a party who is attempting to use the government to punish someone for speaking. Look, if Elon Musk brings an action that alleges very clear defamation, or if he shows that Sweeney was actively inciting harassment I’d consider otherwise. But if the legal action is only for the actions publicly alleged (posting flight information), that’s simply protected speech by the first amendment. A lawsuit to suppress clearly protected speech is legal thuggery, and I would vigorously oppose that lawsuit. In much the same way I’ve donated to the ACLU who has stood up for the rights of people I despise to speak.
  - AlchemistCamp 4y ago
    I definitely don’t agree with your political belief that automated location stalking broadcast on social media should be protected speech, or the belief that the US 1st amendment actually does protect it. I get where you’re coming from, though. Replace “Elon’s location data” with “Elon is horrible” or “we should tax billionaires at 99%” and I’d also support the right to broadcast it far and wide.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

salawat 4y ago

If making public info more public is legally dicey, then you'd better tell me why you're okay wit Clearview, LexisNexus, et al... And not this guy. Musk needs to go after the stalker. He deserves a good SLAPP'ing. Fuck billionaires trying to buy their way to immunity to the consequences of their own daft behavior.