Elon & Twitter

[bkp_duke]

Free speech absolutists don't ask people to stop speeching

Can we agree there is ample evidence of Elon opposing people's free speech when it suited him? That's the only point here which you seem to want to avoid accepting by insisting on not looking at all the different lines of evidence.

I don't agree to that. Sorry.

He's human, he will do things that piss off everyone at some point in time. But I am reserving judgement till a few months from now on how I see he has changed (or hasn't) Twitter.

 

[STS-134]

Elon clearly cited safety concerns in that, and made that public.

I know a former VP of Tesla, and those safety concerns are very real, and Elon spends a ton on security services because of them.

Publishing flight routes is not the same as publishing threats. And free speech absolutism is free speech that's unrestricted except for what is prohibited by law, and there are no laws against publishing flight routes.

 

[ZenRockGarden]

Moderator Note: Moved some posts away to politics. Some may have just responded to a political post, but had to be moved as well. Sorry for the inconvenience but the AI neural net moderator is on vacation in Tahiti this weekend.

I admire the moderators here, even when it hits me.

And notice something relevant to TWTR and Elon's plans: The mods here do very hard, very human work to keep things ON TOPIC and reign in excesses that are no where near being illegal, they're just not in the best interest of reasoned coherent discourse. The human mods on this board do exactly what would be needed to create a legitimate good-for-the-world "town square" which Elon talks about trying to create.

And it's done with the opposite of free-speech-absolutism. There's all kinds of rules of conduct required here - that's what makes this board pretty darn good.

 

[bkp_duke]

Publishing flight routes is not the same as publishing threats. And free speech absolutism is free speech that's unrestricted except for what is prohibited by law, and there are no laws against publishing flight routes.

But Elon CLEARLY said he asked the guy to stop BECAUSE of threats he had received and safety concerns. You are wanting to look at just a small piece of the puzzle and not that specific situation as a whole. Sure, that info is public knowledge (btw, the FAA has now allowed guys like Elon ways to legitimately hide that info - Zuck just did this in the past week - so clearly there was some merit to the argument).

EDIT - here is the program (see LADD and PIA section):

Charting a Secure Flight Path through Threatening Skies | AIN

Business aviation faces evolving threats on multiple fronts while in flight but security experts are constantly developing new means to counter them.

www.ainonline.com

 

[ZenRockGarden]

But Elon CLEARLY said he asked the guy to stop BECAUSE of threats he had received and safety concerns. You are wanting to look at just a small piece of the puzzle and not that specific situation as a whole. Sure, that info is public knowledge (btw, the FAA has now allowed guys like Elon ways to legitimately hide that info - Zuck just did this in the past week - so clearly there was some merit to the argument).

EDIT - here is the program:

Charting a Secure Flight Path through Threatening Skies | AIN

Business aviation faces evolving threats on multiple fronts while in flight but security experts are constantly developing new means to counter them.

www.ainonline.com

I think you're missing our point. We're not the free-speech absolutists. That's Elon and (maybe) your position.

We're pointing out that there is nothing illegal in publishing flight plans - it's already public records, and thus on YOUR standard it should be allowed.

I personally would be fine with shutting the thing down, since I'm not a free-speech absolutist, and I agree that although it was "legal" it carried a safety risk which I can easily include in "not in the public interest" clause of not allowing.

It's the free speech absolutists who should be arguing with me and insisting using Elon's own words that anything not explicitly illegal must allowed.

 

[STS-134]

But Elon CLEARLY said he asked the guy to stop BECAUSE of threats he had received and safety concerns.

Irrelevant. A free speech absolutist should go after the people making the threats (which is what's unlawful), not the person publishing the flight routes (which is legal). And if he doesn't want to be tracked, he can always fly commercial. No one knows which flights I took over the summer unless the TSA or the companies that operated those flights publishes their passenger manifests, which they don't.

What part of "absolutist" do you NOT understand here? You can't be an absolutist is only some scenarios and not others because that's not an absolutist. If you claim to be an absolutist and then subsequently ask people to stop their LEGAL free speech about you, that doesn't make you an absolutist. It just makes you a hypocrite.

 

[ElectricIAC]

Irrelevant. A free speech absolutist should go after the people making the threats (which is what's unlawful), not the person publishing the flight routes (which is legal). And if he doesn't want to be tracked, he can always fly commercial. No one knows which flights I took over the summer unless the TSA or the companies that operated those flights publishes their passenger manifests, which they don't.

What part of "absolutist" do you NOT understand here? You can't be an absolutist is only some scenarios and not others because that's not an absolutist. If you claim to be an absolutist and then subsequently ask people to stop their LEGAL free speech about you, that doesn't make you an absolutist. It just makes you a hypocrite.

Maybe Elon should buy an airline next.

 

[ZenRockGarden]

Irrelevant. A free speech absolutist should go after the people making the threats (which is what's unlawful), not the person publishing the flight routes (which is legal). And if he doesn't want to be tracked, he can always fly commercial. No one knows which flights I took over the summer unless the TSA or the companies that operated those flights publishes their passenger manifests, which they don't.

What part of "absolutist" do you NOT understand here? You can't be an absolutist is only some scenarios and not others because that's not an absolutist. If you claim to be an absolutist and then subsequently ask people to stop their LEGAL free speech about you, that doesn't make you an absolutist. It just makes you a hypocrite.

Yep. And once we get folks to let go of this silly claim that they're "absolute" on the topic of free speech (almost none of them are, they just like to use that phrase when it happens to favor their cause) - we can then get on with agreeing that we ALL think moderation is needed, that it should be MORE than just stopping explicitly illegal speech, and if you want a town square there will be a LOT of rules of conduct which DO restrict free speech if you want it to be a place that the general public is willing to attend and listen to.

 

[ElectricIAC]

Yep. And once we get folks to let go of this silly claim that they're "absolute" on the topic of free speech (almost none of them are, they just like to use that phrase when it happens to favor their cause) - we can then get on with agreeing that we ALL think moderation is needed, that it should be MORE than just stopping explicitly illegal speech, and if you want a town square there will be a LOT of rules of conduct which DO restrict free speech if you want it to be a place that the general public is willing to attend and listen to.

The issue is when Twitter colludes with intelligence agencies to silence “inconvenient voices” who go against the desired narrative.

That’s really just the tip of it though and the more you peel back layers of the Twitter onion, the more dirty works you’re gonna find.

 

[bkp_duke]

Irrelevant. A free speech absolutist should go after the people making the threats (which is what's unlawful), not the person publishing the flight routes (which is legal). And if he doesn't want to be tracked, he can always fly commercial. No one knows which flights I took over the summer unless the TSA or the companies that operated those flights publishes their passenger manifests, which they don't.

What part of "absolutist" do you NOT understand here? You can't be an absolutist is only some scenarios and not others because that's not an absolutist. If you claim to be an absolutist and then subsequently ask people to stop their LEGAL free speech about you, that doesn't make you an absolutist. It just makes you a hypocrite.

What about Elon's right to privacy? If we are going to sling mud and call people names, what gives you the right to privacy and him none? Doesn't that make YOU a hypocrite?

YOU are wanting to take ONE quote from him and use that as the bedrock for . . . everything . . . without looking at what he has said as a whole about following the law regarding free speech, etc.

 

[bkp_duke]

Yep. And once we get folks to let go of this silly claim that they're "absolute" on the topic of free speech (almost none of them are, they just like to use that phrase when it happens to favor their cause) - we can then get on with agreeing that we ALL think moderation is needed, that it should be MORE than just stopping explicitly illegal speech, and if you want a town square there will be a LOT of rules of conduct which DO restrict free speech if you want it to be a place that the general public is willing to attend and listen to.

I'm not an absolutist, but I do believe free speech is a bedrock freedom, and one that should be liberally protected in all but the most severe cases (i.e. threats of bodily harm, etc.).

 

[ZenRockGarden]

The issue is when Twitter colludes with intelligence agencies to silence “inconvenient voices” who go against the desired narrative.

That’s really just the tip of it though and the more you peel back layers of the Twitter onion, the more dirty works you’re gonna find.

I know you believe in this stuff, but from where I was standing in actually-reading-the-tweet land, a bunch of people who happen to lean one direction got banned for posting stuff that was CLEARLY against the content guidelines. Repeatedly. After being warned to stop it.

"free speech absolutism" is mostly an excuse to allow back in these particular people (and not anyone else), while having no interest in actually allowing absolute free speech.

 

[ElectricIAC]

What about Elon's right to privacy? If we are going to sling mud and call people names, what gives you the right to privacy and him none? Doesn't that make YOU a hypocrite?

YOU are wanting to take ONE quote from him and use that as the bedrock for . . . everything . . . without looking at what he has said as a whole about following the law regarding free speech, etc.

There’s no point arguing with that individual anymore than there is in wrestling with a pig in mud. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.

 

[ZenRockGarden]

What about Elon's right to privacy? If we are going to sling mud and call people names, what gives you the right to privacy and him none? Doesn't that make YOU a hypocrite?

YOU are wanting to take ONE quote from him and use that as the bedrock for . . . everything . . . without looking at what he has said as a whole about following the law regarding free speech, etc.

Um, right-to-privacy doesn't get any traction in a world where things have to be illegal to be banned. It's that simple.

 

[Buckminster]

Gonna say it again

1. Illegal is illegal and gets deleted
2. Much of what today is deleted (but legal) gets suppressed where almost nobody sees it (this is basically the same result as deleted but meets 1st amendment)
3. Genuine tweets that delight the customer will be so numerous, folk won't have time to see the trolls/prejudiced output
4. Dinosaur media will highlight some of the suppressed tweets which will lead them to be cancelled (finally...)

 

[bkp_duke]

Um, right-to-privacy doesn't get any traction in a world where things have to be illegal to be banned. It's that simple.

Then, as in respectful discourse, we will agree to disagree. I'm not going to force my opinion on you, and I don't agree with yours.

 

[ZenRockGarden]

Then, as in respectful discourse, we will agree to disagree. I'm not going to force my opinion on you, and I don't agree with yours.

If you can't show that publishing flight plans is illegal, then it's not an opinion that it should be allowed under "only ban the illegal stuff" - it's a simple fact that you find inconvenient

Please note that I am in FAVOR of banning Elon flight trackers because I do see a safety concern, and I'm NOT a free speech absolutist

 

[2daMoon]

I never said policies changed, just the emboldened behavior associated with Elon's takeover. Racists, fascists, and conspiracy lunatics see Elon as their savior, this is who he's attracting. If he becomes more associated with those types it will negatively impact Tesla's brand.

So, let me get this right, you are worried that the guy who was bullied as a child in racist South Africa and who routinely takes on bullies to teach them a lesson is somehow going to suddenly capitulate and take up with any of the extremists (Left or Right)?

Elon has a good sense of right and wrong. He is working hard every day to secure humanity's bright future. He leads by example. There is nothing in his behavior to date which lends credence to the concerns you have stated.

Don't worry, be happy.

 

[bkp_duke]

If you can't show that publishing flight plans is illegal, then it's not an opinion that it should be allowed under "only ban the illegal stuff" - it's a simple fact that you find inconvenient

I JUST posted above a link, to a new FAA program (that replaces an old one) that ALLOWS PRIVATE PLANE OWNERS to have their data hidden. Zuckerberg is already using this, I expect Elon will be soon as well.

Reading comprehension failure?

EDIT - to be clear, that is FAA code, which falls under the law. So YES, it's "illegal" to publish Elon's flight info if he opts in to that progam.

Just like it would be illegal for someone to dox from say the credit card company, it's PROTECTED information. He has to opt in, but once he does, it's a done deal.

 

[ZenRockGarden]

So, let me get this right, you are worried that the guy who was bullied as a child in racist South Africa and who routinely takes on bullies to teach them a lesson is somehow going to suddenly capitulate and take up with any of the extremists (Left or Right)?

Elon has a good sense of right and wrong. He is working hard every day to secure humanity's bright future. He leads by example. There is nothing in his behavior to date which lends credence to the concerns you have stated.

Don't worry, be happy.

You think Elon has good personal judgement on posting to social media.... and I can't even bring UP the horrible examples of what he has personally posted on twitter because it's a forbidden topic here?

Have you READ the worst of Elon's tweets and rants?