asteroidbelt

Hey Orwin, I've found why Chad Loder was banned: https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1611107762775228420

(Sorry for offtopic here, original thread is closed, and I don't have your other contacts.)

So did he doxx her or didn't he?

Maybe he did something else, and that is bad, but let's not move goalposts.

> he retweeted someone who doxxed her email address

"Doxxing" for revealing email address a bit exaggeration. This is also bad, but doxxing usually means revealing something which may give people significant distress. Like home address.

Also if there's a screenshot of such tweet. Since it seems to be disappeared from the internet, probably nobody really cared.

> Musk is setting his army of fanboys loose on Lopez

This is journalistic exaggeration. There's no proof of that in the article. Mentioning someone in Twitter does not mean he intentionally sets "his army of fanboys".

Can you quote from the article please? Because I don't see it. The closest I get is this:

> she accuses Musk of having 'always' doxxed people in an attempt to silence critics of his treatment of employees

Perhaps because not a lot of people posted links to their new profiles on Facebook and Facebook did not consider that a threat.

But Facebook bans links to Telegram in WhatsApp.

Also Facebook ranks posts with links to Twitter (or YouTube) lower than other posts.

> I know of exactly zero other social media platforms that ban the mere mention of other social media platforms

WhatsApp banned links to Telegram.

Facebook ranks links to Twitter/YouTube lower than content without such links.

> Precisely none of those companies are owned entirely by individuals claiming to be "free speech absolutists"

Either Elon Musk is no longer "free speech absolutist" or does not consider Twitter policy must match his personal preferences.

> Mastodon is not a company, major or otherwise

Competition may be not only for money, but also competition for users. It is quite possible that critical number of users will leave Twitter for Mastodon.

chadloder seems like a decent person. I'd like to know what Elon or Twitter has on him.

Musk promised that everyone will get explanation why they were banned. I'm waiting for it.

> It's clearly political.

It may be personal, but I doubt it is political. It just happens that people who attack Elon are on the left, and people who were banned by previous administration and unbanned now are on the right, so it looks political.

Of course, Twitter moderation should not be based on personal preferences of Elon.

> he doxxed her

Can you give a link to the source please?

> what would make you change your mind about EM

I change my mind constantly when I get more information. But my opinion of Musk is not polar either absolute evil and absolute good. When he does something good, I give him a point, when he makes a mistake, I subtract a point.

So far Elon was net positive for Twitter.

Hyperloop, I don't think this is a big deal. Musk has thousands ideas, not all of them work.

I don't care about pedo story. It was inappropriate for sure, but everyone can make mistakes. Who is without sin... I prefer people who make mistakes openly to people who know how signal virtue.

In the end, for me, it is important what you do, and not as much, what you say.

I think it was this: she tagged Elon (and emailed him), so he went looking at her account. Found some older posts and reported them (maybe his assistant did that).

And the account was banned until the links are removed by the account owner (this is how twitter deals with such posts).

Taylor Lorenz did enough harm already, for example, revealing identity of libsoftiktok was inappropriate, she is a bad person.

I don't think that anything prior to rule introduction should stay forever. If she was forced to delete it, that's fine.

But Elon as usual could have managed it better.

I'm not sure that is true.

And she is unsuspended already.

Here's her explanation why https://twitter.com/TaylorLorenz/status/1604559889585410048

Here's Musk explanation: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1604482428281753601

(Sorry, could not post earlier, massively downvoted, so HN prohibits me from posting replies.)

> You can post on FB about Twitter or Mastodon

Because people do not threaten FB to leave to Mastodon. But you can't link (maybe you can now, but some time ago you couldn't) to Telegram inside Whatsapp, because Facebook considered Telegram a competitor.

> You can search on Google about DuckDuckGo

Again, because Google does not consider DDG a competitor.

But a while ago (long before the war when everybody were at peace), Russia was the only country where Google Chrome did not offer the choice of search engine. Because Russia was the only country where Google was not the leading search engine. There's famous commit in Chromium repository which explicitly excludes Russia.

Can you name the journalists please and some proofs of your accusations? If true, this is serious, but I cannot take it at face value.

The article is propaganda junk.

Did not read every accusation from it, but it mention for example, Andy Ngo and VPS_Report.

Here is the tweet about both of them:

https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1594550575383072770

I must say, VPS_Report is an evil person. I don't know if he deserves his right to speech after he posted his threats, but I won't miss him on Twitter.

Andy Ngo is fine. You may disagree with him, but he only does journalist work.

> were definitely not banned for their opinions on Musk?

They banned because they shared his jet location.

> he was claiming that the journalists caused him to be stalked

Did he claim that specifically? I'm not sure. But if he did, these claims are probably incorrect.

But that does not cancel the fact that journalists were posting jet location after he asked (via twitter policies) not to.

This is not exactly free speech issue, because Twitter does not ban based on political preferences/opinions.

This is dishonest competition (all other major companies do the same but not as blunt: Facebook, Google, Amazon for example). Twitter could be an exception. But it won't.

You use very uncommon (or I'd say, left-leaning) definition of "extremism". Basically, expressing opinion you disagree with, is extremism.

No, I'm referring to the other guys.

People change mind even if facts do not change.

> use Twitter to promote right-wing extremists

I did not see evidence of that.

There's non-zero number of people who are not able to enter these three queries in google, and may have desire to act on that information.

> Posting public information publicly isn't doxxing

Sometimes it is.

For example, name plate on the mailbox is publicly available, but posting the address with full name online constitutes doxxing.

> a free speech "absolutist" like Musk is a complete hypocrite

One guy once said, who never changes his/her opinion, is a moron.

Why? If one wants to harass Musk, meeting him at the airport is convenient.

Doxxing is a common attack on people who are guilty of wrongspeak.

I have no strong opinion about how doxxing relates to free speech, but desire to hide your private life is understandable, and I don't see any benefit for the society from realtime doxxing.

Did these "attack" include realtime doxxing? Especially after TOS modified to prohibit it?

Or can you give other examples of disparity between free speech rule applications for themselves and people they don't like?

It is more nuanced than that. Professional criminals won’t have trouble locating Musk, but nut job activists may be not that smart and providing them location actually increases risk for Musk.

Tim Pool is swatted regularly for example. Tucker Carlson had to move after his home was attacked. There was an attack on Brett Kavanaugh. There’s a lot of such stories.

You don’t have to attack a jet in the airport. You can attack a car on the only road from the airport for example if you know exactly when and where to attack. (Also, not all the airports have good security, smaller airports don’t.)

Sony could be smart, for example keep existing price as is, but also offering “premium” version for higher price but with delivery this week. This would kill scalpers.

Very little and and what is donated likely will be spent inefficiently (as in many charities) or maybe even with negative efficiency (see greenpeace who is largely responsible for us not having cheap, green and reliable nuclear power).

I prefer to buy cheaper products and decide for myself how I should spend the price tag difference on charity, not trust clothing brand to do it for me.

LHR is not the only airport in London.

Live in New York City once but leave before it makes you hard.

Heating is an accessory like floor mat, it can be easily added or removed in 2 minutes. No, I don’t believe they try to save on production, but try to take last penny from a consumer: when you know you already have heater installed, you are probably more likely to pay for it, or pay for it half time (at least this is how they think about it).