Hacker News Reader

Comment by randomsearch | Hacker News Reader

No, I think it’s relevant because the banned account was not just “sharing public information”, but actively tracking Musk using a combination of online data and real word surveillance.

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.

View on HN

There is nothing 'real world surveilance' about following this link:

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 nothing 'real world surveilance' about following this link:

There is about how you know which link to follow.

He is not using PIA right now, A835AF code is what is entered in the publicly available FAA register.

> 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.

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 Elon uses this personal experience as an opportunity to reconsider how Twitter handles speech which is legal but poses a safety risk to an individual or group then I will commend him for finally maturing past the "free speech absolutist" position.

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.

Twitter now is unusable because Elon bans anyone who does something he doesn't like.

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.

This is an extreme exaggeration. If you've used Twitter since the Musk takeover and come away with the impression that you can't criticize him there, you've had a completely alien experience to mine- it seems to be the main use of the site these days.

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.

As he originally announced his non-banning as being due to his fundamental principles, it's more than just changing his mind. He should at least clarify how his attitude towards freedom of speech on Twitter has developed. Personally I think he's being disingenuous as he doesn't seem to care about other people's safety following even his own tweets, so although I can understand him putting his own family first, he should now appreciate that his previous stance on absolute free speech is untenable.

I wonder if he’d change his mind if this was someone else’s incident.

He perhaps wouldn't have. Then again, so? Incidents happening to us and our family, hit us harder, and can move us to take specific action more often, news at 11.

So free speech only counts when it doesn't affect you personally, got it.

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.

>So free speech only counts when it doesn't affect you personally, got it

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).

It's not doxing if it's public information. News at 11.

This incident clearly shows why there should be a firewall between owners and moderation. This is in no way a way to run any social media site.

Indeed. Which is why the golden rule used to be 'do not moderate the forum that you participate in'. That solves most of those problems.

Yes you've nailed it. Totally human to react to a personal incident. Needs to be guarded against.

How is this different than what Twitter does through its advertising partners though?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com