"Last night, car carrying lil X in LA was followed by crazy stalker (thinking it was me), who later blocked car from moving & climbed onto hood.
Legal action is being taken against Sweeney & organizations who supported harm to my family."
Make that what you will.
[0]: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1603190155107794944
https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7zygg/twitter-bans-elon-mus...
"Sweeney has been using sites such as ADS-B Exchange to track the movements of private jets blogging to celebrities, tech billionaires, and Russian oligarchs for years now. By law, the movement of these plans is publicly available information. “This account has every right to post jet whereabouts, ADS-B data is public, every aircraft in the world is required to have a transponder, Even AF1 (@AirForceTrack) Twitter policy states data found on other sites is allowed to be shared here as well,” the account’s pinned tweet read before it was banned."
Without getting into the weeds on this specific issue, the idea that any public information being republished on social media can’t have safety consequences is absurd. If, for example, the information about where someone lives is buried on a buggy government website, packaging it up and broadcasting it onto Twitter to millions of people is a very meaningful event that has safety consequences to the person involved.
If Musk doesn't want to get tracked, he can take a regular airplane like other people, or maybe borrow a plane from someone he knows, and not use one that's registered to his business.
I’m not sure you’ll find many who agree with you in this definition. The natural followup to “not meant to be public” is “meant by who?” Oftentimes people are doxxed through collation of various public records, kept and published by the government. I’m thinking things like phone books, arrest records, property transfer records, business registration, WHOIS registration, and many more. Then there’s times when the victim themselves didn’t realize they were leaking information. Even seemingly innocuous photos can be used by determined individuals to get a precise location [1]. I realize this falls under “unintentional” by your definition but would it be fair to say the person doxxed themselves in this case? I don’t think so.
To me the essence of doxxing is putting together otherwise disparate info into an easily sharable package. Something which raises the profile of the individual datapoints and their relation to each other until finding the victims information is trivial for anyone with a basic search.
1: See GeoWizards fantastic series doing exactly this: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL_japiE6QKWqMVC3JbyONau_0...
Bottom line is: there is no justifiable reason to publish real-time location info of somebody against his wishes other than to harm him.
The real issue here is people believing 'do unto others' is even remotely a concern for people in a position of power.
Everyone on the planet has a legitimate interest in knowing what Elon will do next with his obscene wealth. Thus, talking about where he is must be protected as free speech.
Whether you agree with that or not, until very recently, Elon suggested that he did.
Where is the real-time data on Putin & Biden's whereabouts then?
> what Elon will do next with his obscene wealth
What does that has anything to do with his location?
> free speech
Talking about and inviting others to do harm could very well be free speech, but that doesn't make the ones doing it less of a--holes.
His location is a hint to who he's talking to and what he's doing.
There has been no invitations to do harm. It's not about who's an asshole or not - it's about who's a hypocrite on free speech.
Google Maps is tracking me every day and I have no problem with it. But it would certainly piss me off if that info was fed into a dedicated social media account.
This data is not from the FAA, but from ADSBExchange, which crowdsources the data.
Sure, I get that Musk and his plane are probably inseparable, but it just doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me.
I have absolutely no problem with a website like Twitter banning free speech like "where's musk's plane," since it is his website and he can do what he wants. As long as it isn't the government forcing a private party to say or not say something, then meh I don't really mind. In fact, I think Musk's comment about "as long as it isn't real-time location" is a pretty decent compromise.
I do wish he wouldn't be such a hypocrite about it, and I definitely wish people would stop acting like he is some free-speech absolutist hero, which he is definitely not.
> document for sharing
Google "Docs"-ing.
Now I get it.
There are countless videos of people screaming in fast food restaurants. If someone recognizes that area, looks up public addresses in the vicinity, and finds a name match, from there you can easily get a phone number, work place, etc.
Doxxing is less about information acquisition and more about intentions and location in which it’s shared. Angry mob posting online about some evil person in a video and you find the target’s address just by looking up their license plate? Most communities will ban you for doxxing if you post that info.
I know where 14 Premiership managers (and could probably have a good guess at ~150 Premiership players) are going to be on Boxing Day, with exact locations for a specific time range. Is that doxxing them?
[0] It sucks that personal private planes are even a thing, but that's a different issue.
As someone pointed out over in Fedi-land, this would be broad enough to cover sports fixtures because you know where players are going to be (live location) and you know how they're likely going to get there (coach from local hotels if you're a UK footballer).
But that's not what was said - there was no exception carved out for that.
The solution to people knowing the location of your private plane is really simple: Don't own a private plane. Most of us are already doing it.
That is of course the better solution. There's something perverse about the entire concept of a private plane.
Still, as much as I dislike his descent into madness, I do understand Musk's safety concerns here.
The information published is not constant: it is published only when a plane takes off or lands.
The information is not a person's whereabouts - it is that of a vehicle
It could be argued that taking a flight in a private jet is just as much an example of what you term a public event as being at a sports event is, since private jets are required by law to broadcast their exact id and location whenever they are in flight.
> the information is not a person's whereabouts - it is that of a vehicle
So would you be comfortable with someone publishing the location of your car every time you get in your car?
Of course the location of your car isn't public, only its ownership. But the location of your house is. So what if someone publishes every time someone enters or leaves your home? I think that would be a pretty dramatic violation of privacy.
> It could be argued that taking a flight in a private jet is just as much an example of what you term a public event as being at a sports event is, since private jets are required by law to broadcast their exact id and location whenever they are in flight.
No, because nobody is flying jets for an audience outside that jet. Except maybe at air shows and the like. It's the audience that makes it a public event, not the fact that it happens outside and is not secret.
That would be a pretty stupid argument to make. Is it one you are seriously putting forward?
Cars are required to carry license plates, that doesn't mean that using a crowdsourced license plate reader to track and publish the live location of the car isn't a massive invasion of privacy.
Please stop arguing for legitimizing surveillance because you hate some rich white guy.
I think there are reasons why we should allow aggregating and publishing plane location data, (though a time delay does seem reasonable.) Those reasons have nothing to do the data being "already public" and are based on the value transparency and accountability outweighing the loss of privacy.
However, when people argue that the loss of privacy doesn't exist or doesn't matter, they help undermine expectations of privacy in other areas.
> Musk has also apparently requested, via the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), that his plane not be tracked on third-party sites like FlightAware ... “This aircraft is on the the FAA blocklist meaning it is not allowed to be displayed to the general public,” a FlightAware spokesperson said in an email to Motherboard. “This is something that all 3rd party trackers do usually follow as a list is sent out every month."
> ADS-B Out transmits flight data directly from the aircraft to internet vendors not participating in the LADD program. Non-participating internet vendors collect and post all ADS-B Out flight data on the internet. To address ADS-B Out privacy concerns, the FAA has initiated the Privacy ICAO Address (PIA) program to improve the privacy of eligible aircraft.
ADSBExchange does not participate in the program that the blocklist is part of. They even cover this on their homepage
> First and foremost ADS-B Exchange does not participate in the filtering performed by most other flight tracking websites which do not share data on military or certain private aircraft. Because ADS-B Exchange does not use any FAA data there are no FAA BARR/LADD, military, or other “filters” preventing you from seeing the the data you collected. ADS-B Exchange simply does not accept payment or requests to remove aircraft from public tracking!
ADSB Exchange can't get around ICAO anonymizing just by looking at the transponder data.
> Elon uses the FAA PIA privacy program for a private plane ID. When using a PIA address, the owner is anon and private, not public. Sweeney’s workaround is (likely) to spot a (rare) ICAO plane resembling Musk’s & noting the private code.
You can no longer claim it's public. It was de-anonymized in some way.
It's no longer a case of reposting public information but someone going considerable lengths to post this information.
The @ElonJet guy even bragged about it:
> Elon got PIA but I've already identified it!
> "These privacy mitigation programs are effective for real-time operations but do not guarantee absolute privacy," an FAA spokesperson said. "A flight can still be tracked in other ways such as a Freedom of Information Act request, www.LiveATC.com, ADSB Exchange, or a frequently departed airport."
Registered owner: FALCON LANDING LLC at 1 Rocket Rd, Hawthorne, CA.
Google Maps known businesses at 1 Rocket Rd: SpaceX and Onsite Dental (huh?)
That’s not how you do anonymous.
His plane registration is not anonymized and is well-known[1].
1. https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/Search/NNumberResul...
Jack Sweeney's efforts to deanonymize the plane could be seen as inciting the following of Musk's two year-old child and the ambush of their vehicle.
If the deanonymisation that Jack Sweeney is said to be doing can be argued to be a protected form of free speech, it must also be open to inquiries over whether it is incitement towards violence now that it has resulted in a plausible threat to a life.
Frequently people use combinations of difficult-to-find publicly available information and educated guesswork to locate people and then repackage this information as a "dox" for their followers. Not all of their followers have good intentions and even if they don't literally tell people to intimidate/scare/attack their target, they must eventually be seen as somewhat liable for the actions of their followers once they're aware of them. (Isn't this similar to the argument made about Trump's tweets before he was banned?)
Hopefully, as a private company, Twitter can establish sensible public policy about what speech is allowed or banned and where these lines are.
Can I find this in the Twitter TOS?
Also, this application of the rules is completely in line with original policy about inciting harm, and as a private company, Twitter is well within their right to deplatform users that don't follow their rules.
What seems capricious to many right now might actually be even-handed enforcement of pre-existing rules towards people that had gotten used to special treatment. And if it's not even-handed I don't see how anything has changed from before, where some people were given a free pass from the rules while others weren't -- the only difference is who is blessed and who is cursed.
"where some people were given a free pass from the rules while others weren't -- the only difference is who is blessed and who is cursed."
Whataboutism.
There are written rules about inciting harassment and posting private information/locations without express approval. Ignorance of the rules shouldn't excuse people from following the rules.
It's not whataboutism to point out that these policies existed previously, and that if there are any differences at all it's that the rules weren't always applied for this violation previously. The fact is, certain Twitter accounts used to get a free pass -- I feel like the modern adage "when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression" applies.
(Do I believe what I'm saying? Basically, it's one way of looking at things and I think that while this interpretation of the rules and their application is unproven and counter-narrative it is a viable argument that I expect Twitter to make as the new moderation team grows.)
Your link will only be valid until he again changes his ICAO number.
More info: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/technology/equipadsb/privacy
I know nothing about this, but was a rabbit hole to explore.
The tail number for his plane is well known. If you put that N-number into an ICAO conversion script (https://www.avionictools.com/icao.php), you get the same Hex number that you see from adsbexchange.com. From what I can tell, the script is using an algorithm and not doing a DB lookup. So, just based on the tail number, you could figure out the canonical ICAO code for the plane.
The strange thing is that adsbexchange also lists the plane as being part of the LADD (Limiting Aircraft Data Displayed) program (but I don’t know the source of this annotation). AFAICT, LADD limits public display of information, but only for data distributed from the FAA. Crowd sourced data isn’t limited (nor could it be).
In order to address this privacy shortcoming, the PIA program exists. This would change the ICAO for the plane to be disconnected from the tail number. But from the tracking website, it seems like the ICAO number for his plane hasn’t been changed/anonymized(?!?). So either, they haven’t actually gotten the new ICAO number installed (after 10-ish months), or the plane isn’t eligible to be part of the program. PIA requires the plane to only fly domestically and have the right kind of transmitter. If the plane flys internationally, it can’t have an anonymized ICAO number.
See: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/technology/equipadsb/privacy
Otherwise, I don’t see how anyone could track this particular plane if it did have a PIA ICAO identifier and you only knew the tail number.
Like I said, I don’t know very much about this, but it is a fascinating rabbit hole. Anyone want to correct where I went wrong?
I'm not sure that it does at this very moment, but public statements by Sweeny himself said that it did indeed have a PIA ICAO number and that Sweeny de-anonymized it. It's possible Elon stopped using it because of that de-anonymizing.
> The strange thing is that adsbexchange also lists the plane as being part of the LADD (Limiting Aircraft Data Displayed) program (but I don’t know the source of this annotation). AFAICT, LADD limits public display of information, but only for data distributed from the FAA. Crowd sourced data isn’t limited (nor could it be).
Yes LADD is a different system and you're not required to follow it as a data provider. FlightRadar24 for example follows it and does not list any LADD aircraft as they use FAA's data feed which requires as it's terms of use that you follow the LADD program.
I read that too, but haven’t been able to find any source that wasn’t Sweeny on that. Without another source, I’m more inclined to believe that the plane is part of LADD, but not PIA (or isn’t anymore). And that the plane from the Sweeney tweet from February 2022 may have been another plane entirely. Maybe Musk’s plane was enrolled at one point, but it honestly doesn’t make much sense to me to have a plane enrolled in PIA.
I mean, if I had a private plane, I’d like to keep the option of flying it internationally, which you couldn’t do with an anonymized ICAO (again, according to my limited reading).
Also, given the limited number of PIA planes, it would be trivial to look for ICAO numbers that disappeared at one airport and then for a new private ICAO number to appear at the same airport. The system only makes sense from a privacy perspective if you don’t have continuous monitoring of the ADS-B transponders. As things currently exist, with a small number of PIA planes, it would be obvious to find new codes.
Even if you have PIA though, I don't thing you're restricted from flying internationally. I don't see any comment on the PIA page that says you can't fly internationally with it. Wouldn't you just revert to your original ICAO when doing international trips?
The FAA site made it seem like changing the codes was a non-trivial “process” that wouldn’t want to do regularly. You’d have to reprogram the transponder back to your canonical code, because other countries don’t have access to the private PIA conversion lookup tables. The private ICAO numbers might also conflict with other countries “number space”.
Maybe this is an easy thing, but most changes in aviation don’t seem “quick”.
It could be a procedural thing where after switching, the FAA won’t recognise your canonical one? That’s seems a little strange, though.
Imagine it were your child. Can you honestly say you wouldn’t change any opinions or practices when it came to personal security?
Things like libel, threats, blackmail, etc are also speech, and yet banned or restricted in some way. Social media are doing a lot of work exploring the edge cases of these, and it's possible laws need to be updated to account for the results.
[0] Years ago Musk cancelled a Tesla order from a critic. On Twitter, it didn't take him long to ban a lot of satirical accounts.
And remember, my pronouns are Prosecute/Fauci.
The 'won't somebody think of the children' argument doesn't play nice with 'free speech as long as it is legal'.
If Musk is so concerned about his children's privacy and safety then maybe he should stop tweeting out their whereabouts in real time himself?
The “speech” you speak of is automated broadcasting the movements of wealthy people in real-time. The primary group of people who have use for that information is kidnappers.
There’s zero connection between this “speech” and political freedoms.
Similarly, there’s a huge difference between you sharing you or your family’s location on social media occasionally on your own terms vs strangers tracking and sharing it regularly.
Nobody has any right to privacy regarding the flight movements of their aircraft, and indeed any idea in that light is antithetical to the entire principal of air traffic control and safe air travel. The idea that people would not be able to track his aircraft if this account is gone is ludicrous, as there are both other flight tracking websites, the ability in some areas to get full flight plans, and even if you're a stalker the ability to just listen into ATC radio near the routes his aircraft use.
You even have spotters who spend all their days at airports logging all aircraft and posting the results online, as they've done for decades, so there's no way for aircraft movements to remain secret for long.
By buying private jets and choosing to use them exclusively, Musk himself gave up his right to any privacy when flying on them. He has other options, such as flying commercially or chartering aircraft, as others in his position have done, but has chosen not to use them. He's now trying to change the rules for everyone else to carve out an exception for himself and other super wealthy individuals.
It's rank hypocrisy and bullying and I'm amazed so many people on HN are supporting him in this, and choosing to believe him rather than reading up on how open this data already is.
That doesn’t mean somebody putting those pieces of information together and regularly tweeting your movements isn’t creating a security risk for you. The choice that you make to buy a car or drive it in public also doesn’t mean that you have to welcome automated stalking.
This account wasn't even 'putting those pieces of information together', he was tweeting it directly from ADSB Exchange, one of a number of collators of ADS-B Out data.
Aircraft movements are not private and haven't been for decades. If you want privacy in your air travel, don't fly everywhere on 1-3 well known private jets.
That said it's just as legal for Musk to kick anybody he wants out of his new club house and even be a hypocrite about it.
I just wish he'd get back to saving the world and setting up Mars for my kids. As a social media icon he's basically worthless to the world.
That was never going to happen. It's just a way to get people to work their asses off to further his real goal, to amass as much wealth as possible. Ironically, buying Twitter may well end up undoing that.
Given he had no problem calling a random person a “pedo” knowing it would cause harassment, I’m going to go with “no.”
Previous strategy to appeal to tech was to pick last week's top post on /r/iamverysmart and state it as his philosophy.
Current strategy now that tech has soured on him the past few years, is transitioning to parroting fascist dogwhistles.
In two years he buys Whole Foods and will be ranting about holistic lifestyle chakra healing.
That is pretty literal
In such a case: "Died in front of me" would be accurate. "Died in my arms" is a lie.
If Lucy pulls away the football 27 times, you aren't required to go running at it the 28th.
But I expect there's something particularly poignant about the moment of death.
So to me, Musk's inaccuracy about that detail is very significant.
It was relevant to an election Biden was about to become the President. The hookers and meth was there to entertain the more base urges of audience.
It's mostly about Twitter fabrication of Hunter Biden was hacked (discovered during laptop dissembly) and the connections between federal government and Twitter's staff.
I'm grateful I was spared from H. Biden wang.
Links? You mean a picture of an https addresses that leads to a deleted tweet.
> Biden wasn’t part of federal government then FYI.
Sure but he had connections, and way to pull those images. See twit #8.
Yeah, obviously those pictures and associated tweets are deleted. That is why we are here. However, those are archived in WaybackMachine(archive.org). Copy/paste those links there.
So a picture of a link, of a deleted tweet, you have to access via Internet Archive, that's also deleted.
You know links are usually click and go, not transcribe, click, go back, go to Internet Archive and try there. Then do some internet sleuthing.
Still this isn't a case of they posted links to materials. Anyone that wants to find them needs to invest some effort to actually find them.
I mean, maybe?
I don't see a masked stalker doing much of anything in that video. In fact, the masked stalked in the car seems afraid of the person doing the filming (a security guard?). Certainly not showing much aggression. The claim is that this person then got out of the car and jumped on the hood of Elon's car preventing it from moving, but that wasn't caught on video?
People have been raising these kinds of concerns to free speech absolutists like Musk for a while, but until it impacts him they are theoretical concerns that aren't as important as his principles.
If he uses this personal experience as an opportunity to empathize with others and reconsider how Twitter handles speech which is legal but poses a safety risk to an individual or group then that is commendable.
Or, if he maintained his commitment to free speech in the face of personal danger to his family I would respect such a principled stance.
However, if he only bans those who might cause him (or people he likes) harm while allowing and even encouraging those who use free speech to incite harm against others then that seems hypocritical.
The fact that Musk previously said he wouldn’t ban the account, then changed his mind (apparently after a personal incident) just shows Musk changed his mind, is all.
It certainly demonstrates he didn’t think through his previous decision, suggesting it was a spontaneous comment and not a rigorous policy. Which is worrying, because publishers such as Twitter need to have a consistent and coherent moderation policy.
But it’s still relevant if we’re to decide which position we agree with, and whether Musk was “right” previously or now.
https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=a835af
That Musk 'changed his mind' on the one thing that he said would set Twitter apart from 'the rest' is where I have a problem: this is a matter of principle so dear that it should override his personal affairs because that is what he is on the record about. If Musk's principles only hold water as long as he isn't personally affected then I'm fine with that but then he should get off his high horse and stop pretending.
Twitter before Musk was not perfect, but it was perfectly usable (even if they got stuff wrong every now and then, and in those cases they usually - but not always - eventually corrected themselves). What is on display right now is capriciousness of an entirely different degree.
There is about how you know which link to follow.
So Twitter is now unusable because elonjet has been banned? Social media companies change their policies all the time. You don't have to agree with the decision but holding it up as something so consequential is just silly.
Assuming what he said about his son being accosted is true, how could he not change his mind? Should he really not stop something that threatened his kids life because of a promise he made to internet strangers?
If he simply bans those who would cause him (or people he likes) harm but continue to allow and encourage "free speech" for those who would cause harm to others then that seems a bit hypocritical.
This includes criticizing him in various ways.
Say what you will about pre-Elon Twitter; I never heard about anyone getting their account banned for saying bad things about Dorsey.
He has banned parody accounts that don't specify 'parody' in the username, he's threatened to de-amplify negative tweets, and he's banned the ElonJet account. I vehemently disagree with all of those moves, but the idea that the site is now unusable to say anything that he doesn't like is absolutely hyperbole.
I don't think anyone would really care about this had he not made purchasing Twitter all about trying to save us from the evil Twitter censorship demons.
Yes, people are less accepting of things that personally are meant to spite/hurt them, even if they match their general principles. News at 11.
Besides, free speech is about sharing opinions and such, however controversial. Petty "I'll share your itinerary to the world" is not real speech, opinion, let alone an argument. It is doxxing/stalking - that the information is publicly available in aviation registers is irrelevant (lots of stalking information is: the doxxing/stalking/threatening part is extracting it from its normal location, highlighting, it and making it more public).
We need to be careful about not (unintentionally) spreading misinformation.
(Your objection to Elon is correct of course.)
That won’t stop me saying he’s a hypocrite for doing so. Does he feel so strongly about accounts doxxing “the libs?”
But no matter how you slice it, this account (and it's owner's personal account) were targeted purely because they irked Musk, and he has given zero indication that he plans to enforce this rule for basically any other account.
But Musk owns Twitter and he can pick and choose what accounts he wants to allow.
I guess it is akin to me removing unwanted comments on my blog. His site, his rules, policies and ToS.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Especially when it's not even accurate, not to mention being misunderstood:
https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/14/how-the-world-butchered-be...
Musk had no problem insinuating that Yoel Roth was a pedophile (as is Musk's style), reportedly forcing Roth into hiding.
Does Musk recognize the ramifications of what he was doing in either case? No. At any rate, it's pretty clear that the "threats to personal safety" is a mask, he clearly is fine with doxxing and threatening other people's public safety... as long as he is the aggressor, not the victim.
Maybe he should just buy another jet or two, make sure the other jet(s) are in regular use (maybe shuttling SpaceX/Tesla/Twitter/etc employees around), and make sure he regularly swaps which one he is personally using. Extremely expensive solution, but not beyond his budget.
Or maybe he should just buy himself a private jet chartering firm. An even more expensive solution, but he can probably afford that too.
Only through a manual process that sounds like it can take a month or so to complete.
Perhaps, in future, this could be solved with technology that automates generation/randomisation of Aircraft IDs, much like MAC addresses on phones and laptops are randomised to prevent tracking?
Next-generation ADS-B transponders could communicate with the FAA (or appropriate local authority) via satellite or mobile network to generate/request a new, random ID before every flight.
A small risk, and something that could be mitigated, but still there nonetheless.
The proposals to encrypt ADS-B data, being driven by corporations and wealthy individuals, are more risky in that they add key management to the mix and make it much more likely that something will go wrong and cause widespread ATC failures or aircraft going dark on ATC displays and in collision avoidance systems at critical moments. Especially as there'll be a mix of encrypted/non-encrypted transponders for decades to come.
There is also an argument for some sort of cryptographic signing of ADS-B messages in order to prevent spoofing.
Is all of this really necessary when billionaires have other means at their disposal to avoid scrutiny? Why add risk and complexity to a critical system just to make their lives easier?
Spoofing is not really a useful attack vector, for various reasons. In any case it's also not something that can easily be retrofitted for the same reasons, in that it takes decades to update these systems.
I can go on one of those websites, see all those flights, but I have no idea who they belong to or who's on board.
That changes once someone specifically links a private jet to someone.
Within the EU I'd be interested in the ramifications with regards to the GDPR.
the linking is done simply by looking up who the plane is registered to, and that is also public information.
you can of course always go the other way, look who owns a plane, and the go to flight information from there.
there is nothing private about any of the information used in the process.
I would ponder the GDPR's definition of personal data before making such definitive claim.
https://dataprivacymanager.net/who-does-the-eu-gdpr-apply-to...
That's not true.
No.
Another impulsive act despite other forces forming negative business opinions of all his impulsive actions.
He will be laughed out of court by any judge.
https://www.google.com/search?q=a835af
And if you don't have the registration that one more search. All of this information is public and that goes for pretty much all aircraft.
If the bar is 'low end stalkers that don't have internet' then yes, it will make a difference.
The sad part is I’m sure Elon can bury this guy in fees even if the lawsuit is ultimately ruled as entirely without merit.
Given my real name — which is available on Twitter — my home address is not difficult to obtain from online, public, governmental real estate records.
Despite the fact that the information is public, it would still be doxxing — not to mention inappropriate, violating, and frightening — if someone decided to dig up that address and post it to a broad audience on Twitter that would have otherwise been unaware of it. This is even more true if that audience is hostile, and my information is being posted in an attempt to harass and/or intimidate.
If you want to expand the definition of the word doxxing then that's fine but you'll have to have that conversation all by yourself.
I'll just use this one:
"Doxing" is a neologism. It originates from a spelling alteration of the abbreviation "docs" (for "documents") and refers to "compiling and releasing a dossier of personal information on someone".Essentially, doxing is revealing and publicizing the records of an individual, which were previously private or difficult to obtain. "
From:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxing
So this isn't doxing, since the information isn't private and it isn't difficult to obtain.
> Doxing or doxxing (originally spelled in 1337 as d0xing) is the act of publicly providing personally identifiable information about an individual or organization, usually via the internet. Historically, the term has been used interchangeably to refer to both the aggregration of this information from public source or record databases and social media websites (like Facebook), as well as the publication of previously private information obtained through criminal or otherwise fraudulent means such as hacking and social engineering.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxing
So this is doxxing, and you dishonestly cherry-picked an incomplete definition. In case any confusion remains, here’s the Oxford Languages’ definition:
> search for and publish private or identifying information about (a particular individual) on the internet, typically with malicious intent.
Posting your home address which you've kept out of the public eye is doxing, posting the whereabouts of any aircraft that broadcasts that information to all receivers is not. That's why you can find this information all over the internet, the only place where you currently can't find Musk's jet is on Twitter. And that's before we get into his free-speech arguments which apparently were a bit inconsistent.
Or would you like to accuse the FAA of doxing as well?
I don't see how it's any different from a public figure saying they'll be attending any public event.
I know people wish this weren't the case, but your address isn't exactly private information. Anyone can find it easily for anyone else.
So the bar for doxing is definitely a low one, but in this particular case it isn't met. I can see why Musk is irritated that that account exists, even more so because it didn't go away at the first request by someone as powerful as him, and that makes it personal. See the whole saga with that diver for a typical response. But that doesn't mean that the person manning that account is doing something illegal and that is the bar which Elon Musk himself set not all that long ago, and which is what makes this news.
If he had been a bit smarter about this he would have just said: "I'm irritated by you, this is my site and you're gone". That would be that. But now there are all these logical pretzels why this is illegal and all that other stuff that people - and Musk - do on twitter is not because 'free speech'. The two are incompatible, and he knows it.
And in the case of Musk, secondary issues arise, such as the fact that in the US lawsuits can be commenced for almost any reason, and how Musk's tremendous wealth, power, and social influence allows him to hold others hostage to his whims and malleable ethical positions.
The main criterium for Twitter rules changes appears to be whether or not Elon is personally inconvenienced. Which is fine by me but then he should drop the 'free speech' act and stop pretending that he understands the degree to which the former team managed to eke out the closest workable compromise on uniting free speech whilst still having a legal and functional website. That coin does not seem to have dropped yet.
Principles such as absolute free speech only mean something if you uphold them even if you are personally inconvenienced.
> Every person who, with intent to place another person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of the other person’s immediate family, by means of an electronic communication device, and without consent of the other person, and for the purpose of imminently causing that other person unwanted physical contact, injury, or harassment, by a third party, electronically distributes, publishes, e-mails, hyperlinks, or makes available for downloading, personal identifying information, including, but not limited to, a digital image of another person, or an electronic message of a harassing nature about another person, which would be likely to incite or produce that unlawful action, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in a county jail, by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
really didn't expect my initial comment to lead to a shitstorm...
This would cover LibsOfTikTok, but not ElonJet
If they published personal information the person didn't want put in the public eye, that would be a very different story.
> LoTT re-uploads video content
This is not at all what LoTT does. That's what the LoTT TikTok did, but it was banned on TikTok. Current things that LoTT twitter account is posting about are:
- Yoel Roth
- A drag queen event at the white house
- A number of videos and images of drag queens that were not posted by the performer
- Taylor Lorenz
- etc.
"re-uploading content users had already explicitly uploaded for the purpose of public viewing" is a misrepresentation of the account.
Taylor Lorenz doxxed LoTT (not even debatable here with the article even being edited to remove some of the doxxed links). Speaking about this and the public journalist who did it to you certainly seems appropriate.
As to Boston Children's Hospital, you were lied to. A study from March this year clearly states that 36.7% of their patients were under 18 and as young as 15.
> Over the 3-year study period, a total of 204 gender affirmation surgical cases were identified: 177 chest/top and 27 genital/bottom surgeries (Table 1). Most cases were masculinizing chest reconstructions 177/204 (86.8%) with 65/177 (36.7%) of those patients being less than 18 years of age.
> The Center for Gender Surgery (CfGS) at Boston Children’s Hospital (BCH) was the first pediatric center in the United States to offer gender-affirming chest surgeries for individuals over 15 years old and genital surgeries for those over 17 years of age. In the four years since its inception, CfGS has completed over 300 gender-affirming surgeries.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9000168/pdf/jcm...
Whether or not they are newsworthy or appropriate, information about Roth and Lorenz clearly isn't "video content the users had already explicitly uploaded for the purpose of public viewing". If you want to change your argument, feel free, but don't accuse me of misrepresentation and then lie.
Of course, if you want to make the argument that Roth is notable enough, you can. But I want to see you thread the needle about how doxxing Roth is acceptable, but Musk isn't.
> As to Boston Children's Hospital, you were lied to. A study from March this year clearly states that 36.7% of their patients were under 18 and as young as 15.
No I was not. A hysterectomy is not a chest surgery, and the hospital doesn't provide them to children (https://archive.vn/7R44e). The hospital may provide some services to children, but hysterectomies aren't one of them. Again, do not misrepresent my comments.
I'm a bit confused by this.
I have just checked Libs of Tiktok's Twitter feed and only found two tweets referencing Yoel Roth, one bemoaning the fact that LoTT is receiving threats and that if it were Roth it'd be national news[1], and another[2] from November the 4th flagging a tweet to him and wondering why it is still up.
Where is LoTT doxxing Roth?
As to the stuff circulating about Roth, it was all public to begin with, right? I certainly don't wish any threats to come his way but that's threats and harassment, not doxxing. Maybe I missed something.
[1] https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1602978234345431040
[2] https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1588338910815342592
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1602188311099019265
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1602179892346585090
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1602147621698957312
And more, all recent. You're correct, I guess that I should have said "harass" not doxx, but yeah there's tons of stuff LoTT is doing to stoke harassment at Roth (like imply he's a groomer: https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1601778632552484865)
Still, no one should be in fear because of their legal speech - that makes it unfree - whether that's Roth or LoTT or Musk or anyone else, but I don't see that those tweets would be liable for that.
It doesn't exactly take amazing Google fu to find infinite examples of straight women talking about how men holding babies are hot: https://www.google.com/search?rls=en&q=men+holding+babies+se...
I don't know if the tweet qualifies as harassment, but it's certainly making entirely baseless allegations that could easily lead to this person being targeted by crazy vigilante types.
Roth has a lot of tweets that would provide context that invites raised eyebrows, especially given his PhD dissertation, and his behaviour as head of Trust and Safety, where he suppressed the #groomer hashtag, and given an overall context where people of Roth's political persuasion are hyping up drag queens dancing for children and he's actively suppressing criticism of it. That's so easy to explain.
I also might add that women have a biological urge to give birth and take into account the male's skills as a father. To say that (some or all) gay guys have this may be true but it seems a stretch, and why express it out loud when you're supposed to look like you give a damn about CSAM? At the very least, his tweets are utterly stupid and reckless. If a headteacher tweets "wow, women are hot but women holding babies, extra hot!" wouldn't you pause? How about if he tweets out from his main account "I have a secret dirty twitter account", you wouldn't raise an eyebrow? Please.
As to "that could easily lead to this person being targeted by crazy vigilante types", firstly, that could be said of anything, though we do have another spectrum, running from (to a reasonable person) non-threatening through marking out undesirables to directly threatening. The marking can lead to actual threatening situations, like before a genocide, but they also overlap with valid criticism, and since we're not in a genocide situation I struggle to see how the tweets in question reach that bar. Find something that says "we should kill paedos" from LoTT and you'll have a much stronger case, otherwise you've taken up a position where you're arguing against someone who's against paedophilia, simply because they're a political opponent. That's how this endless cycle continues.
> and why express it out loud when you're supposed to look like you give a damn about CSAM?
At least get your timelines straight. He was an academic at the time and not working for twitter.
What a strange way to misinterpret something long winded. Should I have written more for you, or do you think that your preconceived notions would render that effort as moot as it is now?
> At least get your timelines straight. He was an academic at the time and not working for twitter.
a) Were all his pronouncements during this period?
b) He was writing about letting underage children onto Grindr for some nebulous reasons around that time:
> accommodate a wide variety of use cases for platforms like Grindr — including, possibly, their role in safely connecting queer young adults.
I can think of better ways for teenagers to connect than a hookup app. Can't you?
c) American date format is idiotic, I'm not interested enough to decode them all, perhaps you could do it for me as you're so precise with what others have written.
>a) Were all his pronouncements during this period?
I don't know what counts as one of his 'pronouncements', so you will have to check this for yourself.
What’s wrong with Twitter? Tiktok, Instagram, Snapchat... Mastodon?
You know, social networks that aren’t hookup apps for over 18s. Just a thought.
> I don't know what counts as one of his 'pronouncements'
His pronouncements count as his pronouncements. Why are you being so strange about a normal word?
Err, the fact that none of them offer a way to find other queer users in the same area as you. This seems like a fairly basic point. If you're living in a small town, you're not going to be able to easily find other queer people near you on any of those apps.
But why do you think that teens will be magically be safer on Snapchat or other such apps? This really seems to just be based on an excessive fear of 'gay' apps.
>Why are you being so strange about a normal word?
In general he's obviously tweeted both before and after joining twitter. So if a 'pronouncement' is just anything he said on twitter, the answer to your question is obvious.
Because they're not full of men explicitly looking for hookups.
> This really seems to just be based on an excessive fear of 'gay' apps.
Yes, it's not that Roth was making an argument indistinguishable from what a paedophile might write, nor that if he'd said it about heterosexual children and Tinder the same logic would apply, it must be that everyone against him is bigoted!
You already tried that earlier on in the thread and it sounded just as desperately idiotic then given that it required completely missing the example given of the headteacher, or just noticing what is obvious.
Rather than seeing bigotry where it's convenient - or claiming you see it - try reading the arguments put to you and coming up with something that is cogent.
> > Why are you being so strange about a normal word?
> In general he's obviously tweeted both before and after joining twitter. So if a 'pronouncement' is just anything he said on twitter, the answer to your question is obvious.
It's not, but again, if it's inconvenient to answer then don't.
> Err, the fact that none of them offer a way to find other queer users in the same area as you.
Users on all those apps have bios and can share their preferences and location, all the apps have search. You managed to meet people with less apps, less people on the internet, worse search etc. If there's a real need for this, someone can build it. As Roth himself points out, there probably isn't, but then he skips on to letting children into Grindr formally. Is noticing non sequiturs also bigotry? Do let me know.
The irony here is that you seem to basically agree with Roth. That is, you are fine with gay teens meeting each other via apps, but think that these apps should be age appropriate. For some reason you seem to think that Grindr is super scary, even though people do the exact same stuff on it (chat and share photos) that they do on Snapchat, Insta, or any number of other apps used by teens. An age-appropriate version of Grindr, which is what Roth was suggesting, would probably be *safer* than many existing apps. Snapchat, for example, will happily let you send nudes or other explicit imagery that can could quite easily be automatically blocked in the majority of cases.
By the way, if you think that Snapchat isn't full of 'men explicitly looking for hookups', I have news for you...
There are lots of blokes who like porn on Twitter and on Pornhub but to say that they're the same because of that would be an enormous stretch.
> An age-appropriate version of Grindr, which is what Roth was suggesting,
No, Roth suggested that Grindr allow minors and be made age appropriate, without giving any details of how that would work. Those two things, like Twitter and Pornhub, are not the same thing.
> If you’re correct that Snapchat etc. can be used to search for nearby queer people in the same way as Grindr,
Again, not the same. You can find what you want via search but apps like Grindr and Tinder are optimised for meeting people nearby for hookups and dating.
> that only goes to undermine your argument that teens will somehow be safer on one than the other
What is the likelihood of finding an adult gay man looking for a hookup on Twitter vs Grindr? If you're on Grindr, can others find you too, and is that easier than on Twitter?
Sure, he didn’t give any details of how it would work, but it’s not that hard to imagine what kind of changes you’d make (e.g. automatic blocking of explicit images, stricter moderation of language on profiles…). This was just one paragraph of a thesis, so I’m not sure what your point is re the lack of details.
> apps like Grindr and Tinder are optimised for meeting people nearby for hookups and dating.
Yes! That was exactly my point. Gay teens want to date just like straight teens do, but it’s less easy for them to find suitable people on regular social networks.
>You can find what you want via search [on Snap]
What makes you so sure? I assume you don’t spend your free time searching for gay teenagers in your neighborhood on Snapchat, so what is your basis for this assertion?
> What is the likelihood of finding an adult gay man looking for a hookup on Twitter vs Grindr?
I don’t know about twitter, but it’s certainly pretty high on Snapchat or Insta. A restricted version of Grindr could potentially impose much stricter limits on under 18s interacting with adults than any of the major social networks do.
A thesis isn't somewhere anyone worries about needing to cut words to fit a limit, quite the opposite, and yet he leaves us hanging with something that sounds questionable. Much like his tweets, that one about getting a crying infant mixed up with the sound of porn comes to mind. Defending that is not a hill I'd like to die on.
> > You can find what you want via search [on Snap]
> What makes you so sure?
Roth says so:
> While gay youth-oriented chat rooms and social networking services were available in the early 2000s, these services have largely fallen by the wayside, in favor of general-purpose platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Snapchat.
There's a reason why the majority of young gays are using those instead, just as the rest of us use general networks too.
> > What is the likelihood of finding an adult gay man looking for a hookup on Twitter vs Grindr?
> I don’t know about twitter, but it’s certainly pretty high on Snapchat or Insta.
It seems the search works okay then. What is the relative chance you'll find a teenager vs an adult when searching for a teenager? (On a service that is for general users vs one stocked with over 18s)
> A restricted version of Grindr
Just why? If I knew some straight kids that were finding it hard to date, my advice to them would not be "hey, perhaps you should try adult hookup apps", or upon finding out that children like to sneak into adult spaces "you know what, we should just make it safer for them". No, they should stay out of adult spaces and adults that argue for their introduction should be questioned as to what on Earth they are thinking.
"You know that place where guys and gals go to meet?"
"Like clubs?"
"Yeah. You know that sometimes there's underage girls there"
"Of course. Got to be careful."
"You know what we should do to keep them safe, let them in!"
Try saying that amongst any group of blokes I know and you'll get called a paedo immediately. Maybe jokingly, maybe not, but no one's writing a thesis about it and expecting to get away with it. Except for academics, apparently.
The thesis wasn’t about creating dating apps for queer teenagers, so that’s why he doesn’t say much on the subject. Remember that this paragraph was picked out by people desperately trolling for anything that could be used to smear him. You seem to suggest at several points that this thesis is entirely about young queer people (“no-one’s writing a thesis about it”), but you’ve been misled on that point.
The rest of your post is frankly too much of a mess of mischaracterization to respond to. (To take only the most egregious example, I think you must recognize that Roth does not say that Snapchat is good for finding other queer people in one’s local area in the section you quote.) You’re becoming so oddly insistent on Snapchat’s utility as a location-aware queer hookup/dating app that you’re even undermining your own implied conspiracy theory. Why would Roth even care about luring young gay guys onto Grindr if he can find legions of them in his neighborhood on Snap? Snap already allows under 18s.
In my analogy, Roth is arguing that we allow children into adult nightclubs because they sneak in, not that we have separate clubs for them.
And it's I, not Roth, who already argued for "youth clubs". To quote myself “If there's a real need for this, someone can build it.” He makes no such pronouncement.
There's only 3 choices for where to put young people:
1. general apps
2. adult-only apps
3. youth-only apps
He made the case for 2, I'm anti-2 and suggest 1 or 3. Very simple, try to keep up.
> The thesis wasn’t about creating dating apps for queer teenagers, so that’s why he doesn’t say much on the subject.
I don't care. He writes just enough to be questionable and not enough to be defensible.
> You seem to suggest at several points that this thesis is entirely about young queer people (“no-one’s writing a thesis about it”), but you’ve been misled on that point.
As I wrote above, I have a copy of the thesis, I haven't been misled, you've just continued to display a wilful inability to read my comments.
> The rest of your post is frankly too much of a mess of mischaracterization to respond to.
And yet you do. This will be fun and ironic.
> You’re becoming so oddly insistent on Snapchat’s utility as as a location-aware queer hookup/dating app
That's weird because I've barely mentioned Snapchat. I've mentioned it once myself, and as a general app, not as "as a location-aware queer hookup/dating app". You have have mentioned it 10 times. Hence, every other time I've mentioned it has been quoting you.
Do you actually read the responses you get?
> you’re even undermining your own implied conspiracy theory
We're talking about Roth, a single person, there cannot be a conspiracy. I can see now why you reacted so strangely to the use of "pronouncement". Please, pick up a dictionary and use it.
> Why would Roth even care about luring young gay guys onto Grindr if he can find legions of them in his neighborhood on Snap?
I can think of several reasons why someone sexually interested in under 18s would want that:
- convenience
- self selection by the target demographic
- plausible deniability
- grooming
More difficult on a general app. In addition, when he was in charge of moderating a general app, he suppressed use of the word groomer. So many strange coincidences.
But that would be to miss the point as badly as you are wont to do. The point is, it seems perfectly reasonable to question his pronouncements and behaviour.
Great, so you can see its utility for queer teenagers then (who as a general rule are likely to be sexually interested in people around their own age).
I can also see the sexual utility for underage girls and boys if they let underage girls and boys into nightclubs but I wouldn't advocate that as nightclubs are adult spaces. Same goes for Grindr and Tinder et al.
Is what you're proposing a common position amongst gay men?
>Is what you're proposing a common position amongst gay men?
What is it that you take me to be proposing? Also, whatever it is, how would I know if it's a common position among gay men?
Or is it that you're just dogwhistling "Are all gay men pedos?" – in which case, the answer is no.
"While gay youth-oriented chat rooms and social networking services were available in the early 2000s, these services have largely fallen by the wayside, in favor of general-purpose platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Snapchat. Perhaps this is truly representative of an increasingly absent demand among young adults for networked spaces to engage with peers about their sexuality; but it’s worth considering how, if at all, the current generation of popular sites of gay networked sociability might fit into an overall queer social landscape that increasingly includes individuals under the age of 18. Even with the service’s extensive content management, Grindr may well be too lewd or too hook-up-oriented to be a safe and age-appropriate resource for teenagers; but the fact that people under 18 are on these services already indicates that we can’t readily dismiss these platforms out of hand as loci for queer youth culture. Rather than merely trying to absolve themselves of legal responsibility or, worse, trying to drive out teenagers entirely, service providers should instead focus on crafting safety strategies that can accommodate a wide variety of use cases for platforms like Grindr — including, possibly, their role in safely connecting queer young adults."[1]
[1] https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=377...
There’s a reason gays use Grindr, because they have a sexual preference and want to meet others with that sexual preference for sex. If they wanted to just chat they could go on Twitter and, you know, chat with anyone - gay or not - because it’s general purpose. Is it difficult to find gay people on Twitter?
If some bloke starts writing that we should let young girls on Tinder because they already use it and, god forbid they could just use Twitter for a chat, it’s too general purpose, they need a hookup app for interaction, feel free to label him a paedo too because that’s what it sounds like.
Sweeney isn't on the same level at all. He's tracking jets. Airports are full of security. The last time Internet posts led to an attack on an airplane was never, unless we're counting al-Qaeda's private message infrastructure.
Was this the case with the stalker? From what I can tell the airplane landed the day before, and I haven't seen any evidence that the incident occurred near the airport.
This is not how law works.
Twitter may be a private entity but the lawsuit is clearly meant to stifle the distribution of public information. Now that he owns one of the largest social media platforms used to distribute stuff like CALFire emergency announcements, that jet information is not only already public but arguably that information is now in the public interest
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_pu...
Unfortunately this means enterprising billionaires might be able to forum shop the SLAPP lawsuit to states where it’s less likely to bite them later.
IANAL and genuinely curious, how much further can Musk shop around? To the state Sweeney’s corp is in (if he has one)? Does some random court in Kansas or whatever have the jurisdiction to slap a meaningful injunction against someone who’s never stepped in the state? I doubt Musk would be able to actually recover any funds that way but again IANAL and I’m curious. Can he make this federal?
Musk is literally trying to sue a twenty year old college student. Might as well try bleeding a rock. Is Musk so out of touch that he really thinks that he can get anything but a pyrrhic victory?
Again, I’m asking about the jurisdiction which decides whether Sweeney will have anti-slapp to defend him. If so, Musk’s case can get dismissed with prejudice at the first hearing and the courts in some states will even fine him for wasting everyone’s time.
Getting sued by Musk will hopefully be a less giant pain in the ass than without an anti-SLAPP statue. But it still could be quite painful. And just the threat of the lawsuit is pain on its own and may have a chilling effect on both the target and others.
Yeah, ouch. I had thought the legal process could be terminated sooner but the defendant in the first case study Hill v. Heslep et al still had over $100k in legal fees (which they were awarded after winning the anti-SLAPP motion), though that seems to have had a complicated second prong due to California’s new revenge porn laws.
I hope Sweeney opens up a legal defense fund and Streisands Musk to victory.
It would be a worthy cause, a very high profile case, and (depending on the jurisdiction) a not-insignificant chance of recovering fees. I'd be willing to bet Sweeney won't have to front the cash for his defense. But, again, if he does, it's a pot I'd throw some money into.
That’s pretty monstrous.
If there is a kidnapping or murder down the line, your money will have helped enable it.
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.
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.
* 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.
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?
1) Contrary to your initial claims, I made an ethical criticism of a a behavior not a person (and even explicitly clarified this in a sibling comment)
2) The discussion about SLAPP was an off-topic tangent to the primary conversation of the account suspension and the security risks the anti-doxxing rule addressed
Bringing the discussion from the tangent thread to the primary topic is an improvement, not a worsening of the discussion.
3) Your implication that I “cruised over the entire” context of the thread of more than 1000 others comments to make snap posting is false on two counts. There were fewer than 1000 comments at the time and I actually had read over a hundred and already commented elsewhere first.
4) My position isn’t even close to extreme. Funding someone who is regularly de-anonymizing and broadcasting people’s real-time location coordinates against their wishes, despite being fully aware that doing so presents a security risk is morally reprehensible to many, many people—an important bit of context you yourself seem to have worked hard “to ignore”, in your own terminology.
You’ve made repeated made long-winded, meandering complaints about my critical 3-sentence comment, but at the least you’ll have to grant my comment didn’t make untrue assumptions about the other poster’s process of reading the thread, their frame of mind, their good faith in approaching the discussion, their reasoning process or their opinions.
I criticized only the specific course of action the commenter said they were planning.
Actually, if you came into the comment thread where a dozen people were already discussing this possibility, and just left a reply to one of the comments of something along the lines of "oh I guess Google thinks social is too hard, they want to focus on Android now"…that's kind of weird, right? This thread was operating under the assumption that Elon was basically lying, and trying to intimidate the ElonJet guy. The person who was going to fund him was clearly doing it because he thought he was giving money to the little guy standing up to the SLAPP abuser. When I said you waltzed in it's that you just came with "I believe every single word from Elon's side of the story and this happens to mean that you are funding a terrible thing". That was not the assumption that this thread was operating under. You can disagree with that assumption but you didn't go "guys why do you even think this is a SLAPP lawsuit?", you went "why are you funding a doxxer who might murder children". How is this an improvement to the discussion?
Objection, Your Honor, assumes facts not in evidence.
This knowledge doesn't exist. It's asserted without evidence.
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.
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.
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.
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.
As is absolutely you right! And, were this more private data (like the location of his car being published), I’d be much closer to agreeing with you position.
I think the SCOTUS position on “reasonable expectation of privacy” is not great for taking into account the way our panopticon is able to process so much data that used to be public, but hard to gather at scale.
I’d be pretty willing to be convinced that we should have a serious discussion on the merits and drawbacks of significantly expanding privacy rights, to make some of that illegal.
That being said, the movements of airplanes are inherently public information right now, and already public “at scale”, so I just don’t see a world where I’d agree that aircraft movements should be a part of that framework.
> the belief that the US 1st amendment actually does protect it.
This is a less subjective claim, and is just not accurate. The first amendment absolutely allows someone to publish that information. It’s published publicly by the government! The first amendment absolutely unambiguously protects that information currently.
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.
Let me be more specific:
What does your comment mean, with regards to the context it is in? What specific things make what you are contending true?
"Courts struck down anti-SLAPP laws in Washington and Minnesota, and Washington enacted an updated law
Courts in Washington and Minnesota struck down their states’ anti-SLAPP laws, finding them unconstitutional under their respective state constitutions. As discussed above, however, Washington enacted an updated anti-SLAPP law in 2021 that addressed the concerns of the state supreme court.
In 2016, a Minnesota appellate court similarly found that state’s anti-SLAPP law unconstitutional, finding that the law “deprive[s] the non-moving party of the right to a jury trial by requiring a court to make pretrial factual findings to determine whether the moving party is immune from liability.” Mobile Diagnostic Imaging v. Hooten, 889 N.W.2d 27, 35 (Minn. Ct. App. 2016). The following year, the Minnesota Supreme Court agreed, finding that state’s anti-SLAPP law unconstitutional as applied to claims alleging torts because it requires a district court to make pretrial factual finding in violation of the plaintiff’s right to a trial by jury under the Minnesota constitution. Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minn., 895 N.W.2d 623, 637–38 (Minn. 2017). These decisions raise concerns that courts in other states that recognize a plaintiff’s right to a trial by jury may follow suit."
From that, I don't know that it's reasonable to conclude that "they likely can't protect Sweeney at all", but IANAL.
The only bad faith argument here is claiming publishing publicly available information is somehow endangerment.
What where the causes? How can we prevent this from happening again? What do other high profile perons do to prevent this from happening?
Elon loves to shove himself front and center into the public eye and to stoke a fanbase. Large groups of people inevitably contain some crazy ones. Obsessive para-social relations often lead to unhinged fans stalking or harassing the targets of their obsession. This is so common it has a term coined by Eminem: "Stan".
> How can we prevent this from happening again?
Celebrities are often stalked not just by fans but by reporters. Princess Di was arguably put in a situation by photographers which led to a car crash and her death. It appears the solutions are either:
(1) Don't be famous, or be the type of famous person that has a low profile (there are a lot of them)
(2) If you are a billionaire then you can afford a security detail -- get one
(3) Support real mental health efforts and legislation which funds support for people with mental health issues, instead of sticking them in prison or making them live on the street
The only defense against stalkers is to avoid being stalked or to physically prevent them from stalking you. What is your solution?
Elon's case isn't exactly average even among the ultra-rich.
Not defending the ban, but the context is a bit more complex than posting something off of a public site onto twitter.
To me it doesn't just feel like extortion, it straight up is extortion.
https://www.protocol.com/elon-musk-flight-tracker#toggle-gdp...
Edit: looked this up apparently Elon offered him 5k which he rejected and asked 50k instead. So I guess neither have the moral high ground.
So Elonjet taking the information publicly available, sharing it, and people "harassing" Elon is similar enough.
Again, before Elon bought twitter the narative was that twitter as a private platform could ban anyone they wanted for no reason at all, so if that logic was reasonable then it should be reasonable now.
This is incorrect.
Hypocrisy
BUT he also built churches and schools in the poor neighborhood he grew up in.
So he did some really terrible things and was overall a terrible person, BUT he also did some really good things.
[1] https://www.marieclaire.com/sex-love/a5380/millionaire-start...
All evidence points to him liking to sire and not to father.
No really, what makes you believe this?
Some additional info: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/12/14/elonjet...
> On Wednesday evening, the account was briefly restored, with Twitter outlining new rules seemingly designed to prevent Sweeney from posting the real-time locations of planes used by Musk and other public figures as long as he included a slight delay. Sweeney, over Twitter, asked Musk how long he’d have to delay the data to comply.
> But Wednesday evening, Musk threatened to escalate the conflict against Sweeney, saying a car carrying Musk’s son, X Æ A-12, had been “followed by [a] crazy stalker” in Los Angeles, implying without providing evidence that location data had been a factor in the purported episode. “Legal action is being taken against Sweeney & organizations who supported harm to my family,” Musk tweeted.
> Sweeney, 20, shared publicly available information about Musk’s flights, not his family members or his cars. The records stopped and ended at airports, and Musk has provided no further detail as to what legal basis Musk would cite in a lawsuit.
I heard that he gave his child a strange name, but... that is just something else.
On topic: I don't see how a flight location could be shown to cause that event. If I told you that I was arriving somewhere at LAX at around 0900 could you find me?
Especially since it is claimed the @elonjet account hadn't tweeted for 48 hours before the incident - difficult indeed to claim causation.
1. This has nothing to do with the location of his private jet.
2. You can't do whatever you want, even to protect your family. Elon has a lot of power, he can't be allowed to abuse it because some guy decided to stalk him.
I am sure this will fly below the radar, however, once again shows there is no consistent moderation policy across Twitter. So far it seems Musk will only respond if it affects his own family.
Good that cars dont do it unlike private jets!
That would be terrible for privacy... /s
Early Onstar vehicles are trivial to disable and later ones can still be disabled by removing the radio transceiver. The vehicle operates normally without it, unlike a Tesla.
The only things that won't work with no cell connection while you are in the car are things like spotify app in the car (but you can still use spotify through the car bluetooth connected to your phone, if you preloaded the songs on your phone) or being able to see live stats of the car in your phone app.
Also Musk isn't really trustworthy so unless this is confirmed by am independent third party there is no reason to believe the guy that moves tens of thousands of dollars to harass rescue personnel.
Even if Musk is not lying there still isn't a connection.
Edit: apparently the last data published from the elonjet account is from December 12th. Making this even more ridiculous. Not sure what I expected.
The slight of hand here is to conflate the car and the plane and the dates. This allows his followers to push a “it was for his child’s safety!” argument, in which yet again Elon Musk uses his children as a prop to avoid critical examination of his new story. Which, as you and others point out, falls apart due to the timing of the last tweet and the purported incident.
[0]. Assuming the allegations about it happening are true.
ElonJet didn’t tweet anything on the day this incident occurred, so that part is false too.
In Los Angeles there are hundreds of private flights per day, and wealthy people pay for hangar space. It may well be possible to stalk someone this way, but I don't think it's such a foregone conclusion.
It's also conceivable that a very wealthy person with a flair for hype and dramatic gestures would stage an event as a demonstration or object lesson; we know of celebrities who have done just that is a misguided attempt to solicit public sympathy.
I am not suggesting this has happened; it's just one of numerous possibilities, and I point it out to point out that it's no more irrational than other plausible allegations.
Zero sympathy here. I'm actually more upset that there appears to be a "hush hush, pay to anonymize" program, and that it isn't rolled out as a default. Billionaires do not deserve exclusions from the baseline risk profiles everyone else endures.
No way
/s
He had a hard-on for the @elonjets account well before this alleged incident.
Law enforcement says NO! In the distance
Guess that's that.
Welcome to being a trackable number Elon. Remember, it's all in the public interest. Also, It's funny how billionaire's pander to this type of surveillance in the Board Room, but suddenly start trying to throw off the bit/yoke when it starts to inconvenience them personally once somebody is sufficiently motivated to start leveraging the data trail they all are instrumental in maintaining.
Gotta love the self-referential inconsistency.
Allegedly he had the chance to buy it for £50,000. It might have been more value for money than Twitter.
Also, his plane's data is still out there, for free.
Musk considers harm to anyone's family other than his to be necessary for Twitter revenue.
> organizations who supported harm to my family
A significant problem in Twitter and social media in general. Musk seeks to protect himself, while opening the floodgates on others for his version of "free speech" by unbanning accounts previously flagged as abusive.
A hypocrite by definition.
Maybe he should stop phoning home
When you press the record button, it dumps the past 10 mins of video from 4 external cameras onto the drive. When the car is fully stopped, you can either watch the video on the screen inside the car or unplug the drive and watch it on your laptop or on any other device that can read from usb/external drives.
There is also an automatic (aka sentry) mode that triggers dumping a video by any nearby action, but that's only when the car is parked and left unattended.
color me skeptical this is the actual story. he’s been very annoyed by that account for years
So not sure how Musk thinks it's related.
And I think Lil Nas X can handle his own.