Owner of Twitter makes changes to policy that everyone kind of agrees with but they are still angry at him for doing it.
"you can’t share the following types of private information, without the permission of the person who it belongs to".
Permission is given.
> “elon is at the chapelle show”
This is an interesting one. Should celebrity sightings be allowed. And what is the difference between going on stage, and be attending a show.
> it is not something most people should agree with
I mean personally though - you would right?
The only thing I can see people disagree on is an exception for famous people.
But I don't know anyone who would say: "this policy is bad because I want people to be able to track me...even if I don't give them permission".
A lot of the time in online discussions there is always grey area. You can never be 100% right. Except for the precious few, like this one. And it is even better when the person accuses you of arguing in bad faith, and using an ad-hominem attack, at the same time they are completely wrong.
Click the link in the OP. It's literally a diff of the rule change - which you didn't read. LMAO.
It's ironic how it turns out it is you who is not arguing in good faith. You are but one of many though so don't beat yourself up too much about it.
But if someone was tracking me, I would absolutely want a clear policy to have it taken down. I don't know anyone who would disagree with this.
I think its good though because there is an inherent fascination in people to want to know where people are (like celebrities) and to watch where they go. And a lot of this information could be collected by social media posts if someone really wanted to.
Like an SBF tracker for instance...would be interesting to get a notification when he gets transferred to prison and to the courthouse. But if you happened to be in SBF's situation, you would prefer your privacy.
I think its a big thing. People are looking at it as just one small thing that he does for himself, but the right to privacy of location is a big deal. And mainly because everyone would prefer to be in control of their privacy. And also, posting pictures on social media, or someone seeing you in the street, is public, but shouldn't give someone the right to repost this with live GPS coords. Except if someone is like "I'll be signing books, come down and meet me" which is giving permission, which is allowed by the rules.
Sigh. Privacy is a good thing! But now its politicized, so people for it turn against it.
This is the only sentence that is added:
> live location information, including information shared on Twitter directly or links to 3rd-party URL(s) of travel routes, actual physical location, or other identifying information that would reveal a person’s location, regardless if this information is publicly available;
Would you like someone to share that information about you or not. That's as simple as it is.
> home address or physical location information, including street addresses, GPS coordinates or other identifying information related to locations that are considered private;
You make a good point about the risk of selective enforcement, but there is already a huge amount of rules left open to ambiguity already.
I guess we will see if its used as a tool for censorship.
That’s a broad claim yeah?
Data to support that claim?
So, yes. I would be OK with it. So long as, like with the flight tracker bots, it's not included with an incitement to violence.
> On April 6, 2007, Emily Gould appeared on an edition of Larry King Live hosted by talk show host Jimmy Kimmel during a panel discussion titled "Paparazzi: Do They Go Too Far?" and was asked about the Gawker Stalker. Kimmel accused the site of potentially assisting real stalkers, adding that Gould and her website could ultimately be responsible for someone's death.
It’s publicly available information to begin with. What exactly is the issue?
Not hard to do. I’m part of everyone and don’t agree so your claim is initially false.
One group who may be against such a measure on philosophical grounds would be so-called “free speech absolutists” who evangelize the value of unfettered speech. Censoring content of any kind should be reprehensible to anyone who claims to belong to such a group.