> .. even though that is a direct personal safety risk
The data is public, jesus christ. Though Musk-fans will eat this up.
The data is public, jesus christ. Though Musk-fans will eat this up.
This idea is widely acknowledged, with key example being the EU's "right to be forgotten". Which upon request removes personal information from search results, whilst it typically does not remove said info from the underlying individual websites. The very principle here is that a republication (search result) very much can be a security/privacy risk.
(I don’t agree with that, but I spent weeks arguing with Musk supporters about this very fact. Now all of a sudden they are saying “it’s his right to do whatever he wants with Twitter”, which I agree with. But then why did Musk buy Twitter in the first place? Well now we know: to do whatever he wanted with it, not to champion free speech rights! Which is exactly what people were worried about! It’s all so frustrating…)
The obvious response to anyone who says this is that the previous owners (and hence management appointed by said owners) similarly had that right… so why be upset about them - ha because their decisions didn’t align with you. Juts be careful, while Musk’s choices today might match your world view you should know that he only looks out for himself and will do whatever is his best interest and so the projection of being fundamentally pro speech is a mirage.
Right now, you conclude that this was a personal vengeance by Musk himself. Whilst this conclusion isn't verified at all. We don't know why the suspension is there. It's in fact unlikely a personal action as Musk has reinstated some of his biggest enemies before.
The "free speech absolutist" quote is bullshit. It's a random interview quote taken out of context, that never applied to running Twitter. You can be a free speech absolutist as a person whilst not applying this to Twitter. For the simple reason that you can't. It doesn't work with advertisers and is downright illegal in some jurisdictions, like the EU. Musk has readily admitted that and aims to "piss off both political extremes equally" whilst "elevating the silent 80%".
He's also refused to do so based on personal feelings. https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/21/tech/alex-jones-twitter-ban/
> Musk has readily admitted that and aims to "piss off both political extremes equally" whilst "elevating the silent 80%".
Sure. He's also claimed "funding secured" to bring Tesla private before, which was found in court to be a lie. I'm not sure why you'd take his statements at face value.
The next thing you do is to make him guilty by association. Something was done before (in a different context with different circumstances) hence that is evidence that this case is exactly the same. Which too is speculation and narrative.
Eternal damnation is also a way to build narrative.
It's all narrative and zero facts. I never said that I take his statement at face value. I said that I would refrain from judgement until the reason for the suspension is given. Which is very basic human courtesy.
No; I knew he wouldn't actually do that. Its value is to demonstrate the hypocrisy of Musk's approach so far.
> The next thing you do is to make him guilty by association.
With whom did I associate him?
> I said that I would refrain from judgement until the reason for the suspension is given. Which is very basic human courtesy.
The more times someone lies to you, the less you should "refrain from judgement" on new claims.
And if it's never given? Are we to just refrain from judgement forever?
This line is pretty commonly used to cover for "let's just stop talking about it until it's old news"
Republishing public flight data is closer in spirit to retweeting a public hearing announcement. Usually, at least one party to a hearing would prefer that it be secret, but that data is public for a reason
It has become increasingly common on social media where a post that does not directly call for violence, still triggers all kinds of real world harassment. Musk himself is guilty of this too.
The right to be forgotten is not designed for high profile public figures, quite the opposite. Public figures in a way are always screwed from a privacy/reputation point of view.
Instead, the right to be forgotten is to protect common people. Maybe as a teenager when drunk you posted something stupid on social media. Which shouldn't haunt you for the rest of your life. Maybe a nude photo got leaked. Maybe you made a mistake at work, and don't want to be unhirable for the rest of your life.
Hard to see how that applies to future flight plans for a private jet!
You make people aware of data that they may not have been aware of before. Do this to a large audience and it only takes 1 to be triggered into a harmful idea.
Restrictions on republishing data always have limiting principles (at least in US and EU law).
There should be a banner on the account or tweets with a justification or at a minimum an explanation for shadowbanning. Otherwise it's easy to abuse.
Yet, he consciously chose to suppress the speech which very marginally increased the security risk for the richest man in the world, who can probably afford to hire every security firm in the world at the same time, but considers the act of Twitter not promoting such speech which targets marginalized people most of whom couldn't afford any private security, a huge affront to free speech.
We don't know this. The reason for the suspension is not given. It may as well be part of the big bot purge.
Other than that, I very much agree with you that Musk as well as any account with an enormous amount of followers should very carefully pick their words. Even opinions within the limits of free speech that you and I could express, have a way different effect when you have a 100M followers.
Why give Musk the benefit of the doubt in this way? The @elonjet account was a properly registered automated account going through the Twitter API, it should never be caught up in a bot purge of inauthentic accounts.
So they’re happy to embrace what they think of as say a concept like freedom, even if it is the opposite.
I've searched for "Elon Musk jet callsign" but apart from the mentioned twitter account, I couldn't easily find out which one it was.
The one covered in the NYT (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/03/technology/elon-musk-jet-...), Musk has publicly tweeted about (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1589414958508691456), offered $50k to remove (https://www.protocol.com/elon-musk-flight-tracker), and of a plane registered to "Falcon Landing LLC" at "1 Rocket Road, Hawthorne CA" (https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/Search/NNumberResul...)?
C'mon. We know it's his jet.
Yes, we know. Because of the twitter account.
My point is that it would be much harder to know which airplane is Elon's jet if it weren't for the twitter account.
Which goes to the gp's point that even if the data is public, making it easily accessible increases Elon's personal safety risk.
That said, the NYT story does seem to make my point a bit moot. In any case, I wasn't aware of that story, and it didn't come up when I searched for "Elon Musk jet callsign".
Although I would guess a determined attacker could find it out given sufficient research.
You don't have to be determined; a college freshman on a lark found Musk, Gates, etc. and made Twitter accounts. This information is intentionally public; you can browse recent plane registrations at https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/Search/RecentRegist..., export it to CSV, with full name and address of each owner.
I get a text message whenever my dad is seen in the air.
@elonjet isn't the problem here. (IMO, there isn't a problem.)
Publishing someone's personal jet callsign should be treated similar to publishing someone's license plate number, phone number, or home address.
And an organization like Twitter should have clear policies on that.
https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/Search/NNumberResul...
Musk is a public figure, using public airspace, with a legally required ADS-B device that broadcasts its location, altitude, etc. to the public.
Perhaps you're thinking of home purchase records? Real estate title transfers are public, so if you buy a house in your own name, there will be a public record of that. But you can move, and AFAIK there is no annotation in the record of whether you intend to inhabit or rent out the purchased property.
If the private citizen is a renter there is another database used by rental companies that operates similar to a credit rating system, the name escapes me, but it's open to a large number of people to query. That system shows all current and prior residence of renters as well as missed payments and even has notes for problematic renters including but not limited to late payments, evictions, property damage, etc...
Several years ago I hear a guy on the radio telling people to be very careful. There was a place where people could get your name, your address, even your phone number, all for free... if they knew where to look.
Listeners called in, some incensed that the MC/DJ whatever was even talking about it.
After a few minutes, he exposed the secret. It was... the phone book.