4 ms·

As one of those people: yeah, this is pretty terrible. I don't think being allowed to share the exact location of individual private jets is nearly as important

As one of those people: yeah, this is pretty terrible. I don't think being allowed to share the exact location of individual private jets is nearly as important for the public discourse as some of the other stories Twitter has censored in the past (pre-Elon), but this still represents a significant departure from what Musk was promising before the buyout (that basically anything legal to say would be allowed). I'd much rather he have erred on that side of things. Hopefully this makes more people aware of just how much power social media companies have, and have always had, over the public discourse and that results in the institution of legal and/or technical measures that limit that power across the board. I'm not optimistic though, given how much of the public attention right now seems to be focused on admonishing Elon personally rather than on the overall system that makes this kind of censorship possible.

hndamien 4y ago
What would you think about sharing Prince Harry's live location?
- SamBam 4y ago
  If the data were gathered from already public information, I wouldn't have a problem with it. How is synthesizing data that's already public (indeed, required by law to be public) a problem? Anyone that actually wanted to use this data to harm Musk would have no trouble simply using the exact same original data.
  - hndamien 4y ago
    Based on the evidence (safety claim by Elon, death of Diana) it appears that promoting and publicising it makes it accessible to a wider audience that does have an effect on real world consequences. I presume this is also why marketing works on a platform that enhances the reach and distribution of a particular piece of information. Anecdotally, I did see the @ElonJet account, and have still never seen the source of the data.
    - cmh89 4y ago
      > that promoting and publicising it makes it accessible to a wider audience that does have an effect on real world consequences. So you'd be okay with banning misinformation about COVID and the COVID vaccine? Misinformation and agitprop had very real consequences in the real world.
      - hndamien 4y ago
        The test of the truth of a live location is trivial. The test of truth of COVID information is not. In the case are spreading something that is provably untrue eg. 1 + 1 = 3, even in that case, you should just rebut and explain why it is untrue. Nice strawman! It's a question of safety of provably true information in this case.
        cmh89 4y ago
        >The test of the truth of a live location is trivial. The test of truth of COVID information is not. The assertion that posting a 'live location' create dangerous real world consequences is completely absurd. We know plenty about the dead humans COVID misinformation left in its wake. You are okay with censorship here because you agree with it. Full stop. >It's a question of safety of provably true information in this case. Okay, prove the lack of safety.
        hndamien 4y ago
        > It's a question of safety of provably true information in this case. The information is provably true by going to the location and verifying that the person is there.
      - bumbledraven 4y ago
        Yeah, misinformation and agitprop have very real consequences, but Twitter still shouldn't ban, e.g., Anthony Fauci (if he had an account) or CNN, no matter how much misinformation or agitprop they spread. That stuff should be addressed with replies, community notes, and other commentary.
- lastofthemojito 4y ago
  Like broadcasting his mother's funeral on live television? Ban the BBC! Obviously there are times when the rich and famous know that their location is public. At those times they generally have good security.
  - egberts1 4y ago
    One is a public setting, the other is inside a private airplane.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      Flying in public airspace, using public ATC, and broadcasting its location, speed, and altitude publicly via radio. Even Air Force One shows up on ADSBexchange when it's in the air. https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=adfdf8 https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=adfdf8
      - egberts1 4y ago
        Agreed, but posting passenger manifest that isn’t available wasn’t a good idea.
        ceejayoz 4y ago
        No one was posting passenger manifests of Elon's jets.
        egberts1 4y ago
        @elonjet
        ceejayoz 4y ago
        Again, the account didn't post passenger manifests. It posted publicly available ADS-B data, automatically. You can review the source, if you like: https://github.com/Jxck-S/plane-notify https://github.com/Jxck-S/plane-notify The data comes from https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=a835af https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=a835af. You'll see no passenger list there.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  Happens all the time. The Royal jets have ADS-B just like everything else. "Members of the British Royal Family en route to Balmoral castle to see Queen Elizabeth after news of her failing health, very sad." - https://www.reddit.com/r/ADSB/comments/x91yli/members_of_the_british_royal_family_en_route_to/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ADSB/comments/x91yli/members_of_the... https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=407d90 https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=407d90
  - hndamien 4y ago
    The question was "What would you think..." not "What if...". In this case it appears that you did not think.
absrd 4y ago
> rather than on the overall system that makes this kind of censorship possible What do you think this system is?
- Ajedi32 4y ago
  Basically: 1. A small number of large tech companies have collectively managed to gain a huge amount of control over what information millions of people are allowed to see. 2. There are nearly no legal restrictions on how they're allowed to exercise that control. I'm not sure precisely what the solution to that should be, but the problem only exists as long as both 1 and 2 remain true, so you could theoretically approach the problem from either of those angles, or both.
  - majormajor 4y ago
    These companies have less power than a small amount of media companies had in the past, if anything. Where were you going to go for TV news in 1950 outside of the major networks? And unless Chrome/Safari/etc build content-based blocking "allowed to see" is an ENORMOUS stretch. "A small number of publishers have large reach and exercise certain controls over their media" is more accurate. As for whether or not their should be legal restrictions on what publishers can publish... take your best shot at suggesting some legal rules. I think there would be holes that you could drive a truck through that would upset you regardless of your own views. Not everyone needs a global megaphone. And nobody intrinisicly deserves one.
    - mbreese 4y ago
      Go back even further and you’d have real media power — the newspapers of the 1890s. The time of Hearst vs Pulitzer was quite a time for newspapers and showed the power of publishers.
    - Ajedi32 4y ago
      > "allowed to see" is an ENORMOUS stretch That may have been poorly phrased on my part. My intent was to put the focus on the listener rather than the speaker, since Google search (for example) doesn't control what people say, but it can control what people see. Censorship at that level is just as much of an issue as it is at the level of social media. "Freedom of speech" and "freedom to listen" are really the same thing. I prefer the term "the free exchange of ideas" since that includes both speech and listening, is agnostic to the medium (listening, reading etc.), and conveniently excludes things like CSAM and spam, since those aren't ideas. I'd also argue you can't "just go somewhere else" to find content you aren't even aware exists in the first place, so I think the phrasing "allowed to see" makes more sense than you give it credit for once you consider the chilling effect of widespread censorship.

hndamien 4y ago

What would you think about sharing Prince Harry's live location?

SamBam 4y ago
If the data were gathered from already public information, I wouldn't have a problem with it. How is synthesizing data that's already public (indeed, required by law to be public) a problem? Anyone that actually wanted to use this data to harm Musk would have no trouble simply using the exact same original data.
- hndamien 4y ago
  Based on the evidence (safety claim by Elon, death of Diana) it appears that promoting and publicising it makes it accessible to a wider audience that does have an effect on real world consequences. I presume this is also why marketing works on a platform that enhances the reach and distribution of a particular piece of information. Anecdotally, I did see the @ElonJet account, and have still never seen the source of the data.
  - cmh89 4y ago
    > that promoting and publicising it makes it accessible to a wider audience that does have an effect on real world consequences. So you'd be okay with banning misinformation about COVID and the COVID vaccine? Misinformation and agitprop had very real consequences in the real world.
    - hndamien 4y ago
      The test of the truth of a live location is trivial. The test of truth of COVID information is not. In the case are spreading something that is provably untrue eg. 1 + 1 = 3, even in that case, you should just rebut and explain why it is untrue. Nice strawman! It's a question of safety of provably true information in this case.
      - cmh89 4y ago
        >The test of the truth of a live location is trivial. The test of truth of COVID information is not. The assertion that posting a 'live location' create dangerous real world consequences is completely absurd. We know plenty about the dead humans COVID misinformation left in its wake. You are okay with censorship here because you agree with it. Full stop. >It's a question of safety of provably true information in this case. Okay, prove the lack of safety.
        hndamien 4y ago
        > It's a question of safety of provably true information in this case. The information is provably true by going to the location and verifying that the person is there.
    - bumbledraven 4y ago
      Yeah, misinformation and agitprop have very real consequences, but Twitter still shouldn't ban, e.g., Anthony Fauci (if he had an account) or CNN, no matter how much misinformation or agitprop they spread. That stuff should be addressed with replies, community notes, and other commentary.
lastofthemojito 4y ago
Like broadcasting his mother's funeral on live television? Ban the BBC! Obviously there are times when the rich and famous know that their location is public. At those times they generally have good security.
- egberts1 4y ago
  One is a public setting, the other is inside a private airplane.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    Flying in public airspace, using public ATC, and broadcasting its location, speed, and altitude publicly via radio. Even Air Force One shows up on ADSBexchange when it's in the air. https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=adfdf8 https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=adfdf8
    - egberts1 4y ago
      Agreed, but posting passenger manifest that isn’t available wasn’t a good idea.
      - ceejayoz 4y ago
        No one was posting passenger manifests of Elon's jets.
        egberts1 4y ago
        @elonjet
        ceejayoz 4y ago
        Again, the account didn't post passenger manifests. It posted publicly available ADS-B data, automatically. You can review the source, if you like: https://github.com/Jxck-S/plane-notify https://github.com/Jxck-S/plane-notify The data comes from https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=a835af https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=a835af. You'll see no passenger list there.
ceejayoz 4y ago
Happens all the time. The Royal jets have ADS-B just like everything else. "Members of the British Royal Family en route to Balmoral castle to see Queen Elizabeth after news of her failing health, very sad." - https://www.reddit.com/r/ADSB/comments/x91yli/members_of_the_british_royal_family_en_route_to/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ADSB/comments/x91yli/members_of_the... https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=407d90 https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=407d90
- hndamien 4y ago
  The question was "What would you think..." not "What if...". In this case it appears that you did not think.

absrd 4y ago

> rather than on the overall system that makes this kind of censorship possible What do you think this system is?

Ajedi32 4y ago
Basically: 1. A small number of large tech companies have collectively managed to gain a huge amount of control over what information millions of people are allowed to see. 2. There are nearly no legal restrictions on how they're allowed to exercise that control. I'm not sure precisely what the solution to that should be, but the problem only exists as long as both 1 and 2 remain true, so you could theoretically approach the problem from either of those angles, or both.
- majormajor 4y ago
  These companies have less power than a small amount of media companies had in the past, if anything. Where were you going to go for TV news in 1950 outside of the major networks? And unless Chrome/Safari/etc build content-based blocking "allowed to see" is an ENORMOUS stretch. "A small number of publishers have large reach and exercise certain controls over their media" is more accurate. As for whether or not their should be legal restrictions on what publishers can publish... take your best shot at suggesting some legal rules. I think there would be holes that you could drive a truck through that would upset you regardless of your own views. Not everyone needs a global megaphone. And nobody intrinisicly deserves one.
  - mbreese 4y ago
    Go back even further and you’d have real media power — the newspapers of the 1890s. The time of Hearst vs Pulitzer was quite a time for newspapers and showed the power of publishers.
  - Ajedi32 4y ago
    > "allowed to see" is an ENORMOUS stretch That may have been poorly phrased on my part. My intent was to put the focus on the listener rather than the speaker, since Google search (for example) doesn't control what people say, but it can control what people see. Censorship at that level is just as much of an issue as it is at the level of social media. "Freedom of speech" and "freedom to listen" are really the same thing. I prefer the term "the free exchange of ideas" since that includes both speech and listening, is agnostic to the medium (listening, reading etc.), and conveniently excludes things like CSAM and spam, since those aren't ideas. I'd also argue you can't "just go somewhere else" to find content you aren't even aware exists in the first place, so I think the phrasing "allowed to see" makes more sense than you give it credit for once you consider the chilling effect of widespread censorship.