3 ms·

Meh. I think it's fine for them to take it, but they should have left a link up to his new account, and publicly thanked him for keeping an eye on this url for

Meh. I think it's fine for them to take it, but they should have left a link up to his new account, and publicly thanked him for keeping an eye on this url for so long. Maybe throw in a 16 year credit towards free service or something. This just seems like a super easy opportunity to make fans. It reminds me of how Microsoft messed up with Mike Rowe soft at first.

smcl 3y ago
[flagged]
- mlindner 3y ago
  Can we not keep spreading obvious propaganda about “child porn”? It’s completely and very obviously illegal to post such things. If anyone was posting it anywhere, on or off Twitter, they’re going to prison. Twitter deletes any such material, and always has, and reports people to the police. So there aren’t any known non-anonymous people out there publicly posting child porn to Twitter that lasts longer than an instant before it’s deleted, banned and reported to the police.
  - extr 3y ago
    Sorry, but this did happen very recently (though context is important). A huge account, Dom Lucre, posted CSAM, ostensibly as a "check out how bad this shit is", but pretty fucked up nonetheless. He got the tweets deleted but Elon himself allowed him his account back. Probably because Dom Lucre drives a lot of traffic. Pretty shameful situation all around.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - smcl 3y ago
    Here is the guy in question - a non-anonymous person publicly posting child porn to Twitter who then got suspended. Then Elon Musk took a personal interest in the situation, removed the tweet and restored the account. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/07/27/twitter-csam-dom-lucre-elon-musk/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/07/27/twitter... I guess we will see if there’s any further action against the guy who tweeted it. But we are in a pretty bizarre situation now where accounts like @elonjet (the account that tweeted when his jet took off and landed anywhere) and Chad Loder (journalist covering the far right) are suspended and someone posting child porn gets a pass. Again, it’s entirely up to Elon what he does with Twitter/X as he owns it. It’s just really fucking weird what he thinks is OK to have there and what he disagrees with. I am curious what happens to this “Dom Lucre” - he’s not unknown even if I personally don’t know his real name - and no matter his intent he seems to have broken a couple of really serious laws. @dang can we get my original comment unflagged? It’s a bit odd to have my comment (which is reasonable and accurate) hidden but this reply (which is uninformed and incorrect) to be visible.
    - smcl 3y ago
      Eh fine if the original reply is not getting reinstated I'll repost it: -------- It’s fine in the sense that Musk owns Twitter/X and can do whatever he likes with it. It’s a bit stupid in my opinion (I don’t know if they really gain much by having @music vs @twittermusic) but there have been plenty more stupid things going on over there and the former owner is apparently a fan of Elon so it’s not really worth losing any sleep over. The right-wing guy recently posting child porn and getting personally reinstated by Elon, for example, was another one of those “he owns it and can do what he likes” issues … but one that’s far more troubling.
jasmer 3y ago
[dead]
JJMcJ 3y ago
Thought experiment: Your business is located at 420 West 69th Street. Along comes X and takes that address away from you? Would you like that?
- Aachen 3y ago
  A "would you like something being taken away from you?" is not a thought experiment but a suggestion on what to think. Secondly, I don't think this comparison with an address by a random stranger for no apparent reason is correct to begin with
- pedroma 3y ago
  Thought experiment: Someone takes something* away from you. Would you like it? *thing wasn't yours to begin with
- constantly 3y ago
  I would not like that, but also understand how purchased real property, which has a long history dating thousands of years and a whole legal system and framework on point getting into even minutiae (Rule Against Perpetuities anyone?) is different than squatting on a generic username on someone’s new tech platform for free. In the former case, I would usually have legal recourse, unless this is a dystopian future where Twitter can leverage eminent domain. It’s a bad comparison.
- mackatap 3y ago
  If x owned the entire entire street than yes. It isn't even remotely a good comparison.

smcl 3y ago

[flagged]

mlindner 3y ago
Can we not keep spreading obvious propaganda about “child porn”? It’s completely and very obviously illegal to post such things. If anyone was posting it anywhere, on or off Twitter, they’re going to prison. Twitter deletes any such material, and always has, and reports people to the police. So there aren’t any known non-anonymous people out there publicly posting child porn to Twitter that lasts longer than an instant before it’s deleted, banned and reported to the police.
- extr 3y ago
  Sorry, but this did happen very recently (though context is important). A huge account, Dom Lucre, posted CSAM, ostensibly as a "check out how bad this shit is", but pretty fucked up nonetheless. He got the tweets deleted but Elon himself allowed him his account back. Probably because Dom Lucre drives a lot of traffic. Pretty shameful situation all around.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- smcl 3y ago
  Here is the guy in question - a non-anonymous person publicly posting child porn to Twitter who then got suspended. Then Elon Musk took a personal interest in the situation, removed the tweet and restored the account. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/07/27/twitter-csam-dom-lucre-elon-musk/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/07/27/twitter... I guess we will see if there’s any further action against the guy who tweeted it. But we are in a pretty bizarre situation now where accounts like @elonjet (the account that tweeted when his jet took off and landed anywhere) and Chad Loder (journalist covering the far right) are suspended and someone posting child porn gets a pass. Again, it’s entirely up to Elon what he does with Twitter/X as he owns it. It’s just really fucking weird what he thinks is OK to have there and what he disagrees with. I am curious what happens to this “Dom Lucre” - he’s not unknown even if I personally don’t know his real name - and no matter his intent he seems to have broken a couple of really serious laws. @dang can we get my original comment unflagged? It’s a bit odd to have my comment (which is reasonable and accurate) hidden but this reply (which is uninformed and incorrect) to be visible.
  - smcl 3y ago
    Eh fine if the original reply is not getting reinstated I'll repost it: -------- It’s fine in the sense that Musk owns Twitter/X and can do whatever he likes with it. It’s a bit stupid in my opinion (I don’t know if they really gain much by having @music vs @twittermusic) but there have been plenty more stupid things going on over there and the former owner is apparently a fan of Elon so it’s not really worth losing any sleep over. The right-wing guy recently posting child porn and getting personally reinstated by Elon, for example, was another one of those “he owns it and can do what he likes” issues … but one that’s far more troubling.

jasmer 3y ago

[dead]

JJMcJ 3y ago

Thought experiment: Your business is located at 420 West 69th Street. Along comes X and takes that address away from you? Would you like that?

Aachen 3y ago
A "would you like something being taken away from you?" is not a thought experiment but a suggestion on what to think. Secondly, I don't think this comparison with an address by a random stranger for no apparent reason is correct to begin with
pedroma 3y ago
Thought experiment: Someone takes something* away from you. Would you like it? *thing wasn't yours to begin with
constantly 3y ago
I would not like that, but also understand how purchased real property, which has a long history dating thousands of years and a whole legal system and framework on point getting into even minutiae (Rule Against Perpetuities anyone?) is different than squatting on a generic username on someone’s new tech platform for free. In the former case, I would usually have legal recourse, unless this is a dystopian future where Twitter can leverage eminent domain. It’s a bad comparison.
mackatap 3y ago
If x owned the entire entire street than yes. It isn't even remotely a good comparison.