Twitter

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
You can't think of anything else Elon has said or done that would upset the left? You have drunk deep of the Elon Kool aid it appears if you think Boring company is going to solve traffic or Neurolink is going to solve difficult neurological diseases; I believe that fusion is more likely to happen than either of those companies achieving those goals.
Not sure he will advance the science in those areas…pretty cool he is using his talents and money to try though…don’t ya think?

Also, are you a wizard? Fusion was solved today!
 
If I were a sentimental person, I would have shed a tear.

Great article I think (by previous CEO of Twitter, Jack Dorsey)

 
Last edited:
Not sure he will advance the science in those areas…pretty cool he is using his talents and money to try though…don’t ya think?

Also, are you a wizard? Fusion was solved today!
I don't think he is doing it out of a benevolence for humanity otherwise how the hell did he end up as the richest person alive?



Here's another little gem from him, he clearly is deep in the q universe if he thinks Fauci is responsible for the creation of covid 19....
 
I don't think he is doing it out of a benevolence for humanity otherwise how the hell did he end up as the richest person alive?



Here's another little gem from him, he clearly is deep in the q universe if he thinks Fauci is responsible for the creation of covid 19....

I think he has a point in both paragraphs. There is nothing Q in this. He's just not in the echo chamber where nobody can question Fauci's sainthood.
 
I think he has a point in both paragraphs. There is nothing Q in this. He's just not in an echo chamber where God forbid somebody says anything about St. Fauci. Just look up how he managed the HIV crisis, and that was back when he had more spine.
So you think Fauci funded gain of function research and is in some way responsible for the pandemic?
 
So you think Fauci funded gain of function research and is in some way responsible for the pandemic?
The most credible story (genetically) is that the virus came from a local lab, not the BS about animal mutation that they were trying to feed us. The NIH was funding exactly the type of research that would create such a virus. Association does not mean causation, but personally I doubt that it's a coincidence. And I really did not like that he kept lying about our involvement. He must have known from the beginning.

And I used to be a huge St. Fauci fan, until I started digging some more. Even now he's supporting the obsession about masks, when it's been proven again and again that only N95s offer meaningful protection, and that regular masks are just security theater.
 
The most credible story (genetically) is that the virus came from a local lab, not the BS about animal mutation that they were trying to feed us. The NIH was funding exactly the type of research that would create such a virus. Association does not mean causation, but personally I doubt that it's a coincidence. And I really did not like that he kept lying about our involvement. He must have known from the beginning.
And in the scenario where all of these educated guesses are correct should we prosecute him? Of the bad actors during the covid crisis do you place Fauci near the top of that list with a clear net harm to society from his response?
 
And in the scenario where all of these educated guesses are correct should we prosecute him? Of the bad actors during the covid crisis do you place Fauci near the top of that list with a clear net harm to society from his response?
You can't prosecute him. He has immunity (governmental employee doing his job).

And I wouldn't. I don't think it was malicious. It may have also been in the national interest. Honestly, I don't know enough details, I stopped being interested once Trump left the White House.

I'm just saying it's not at all weird that Musk doesn't hold Fauci in high regard.
 
.....he clearly is deep in the q universe if he thinks Fauci is responsible for the creation of covid 19....
That isn't quit what he was saying. He is saying two things.

#1. He said Fauci funded gain of function research which is 100% accurate. It’s a fascinating story and worth exploring if interested. Obama had stopped all of this type of research and when Trump came into office, Fauci used his magic to get him to allow the continued funding of this type of research. Fauci denies it and says it wasn’t gain of function, but holy crap, it clearly was. Regardless, the money went to fund whatever research the Wuhan lab was doing. Call it boogly-boo research, it doesn't matter. And he lied about it. That is the key part.

If interested, the full deposition from the lawsuit against him just dropped recently. It is over 500 pages long. He said "I don't recall" 147 times on issues that he was heavily involved in. The most striking and really funny thing, is he says he is barely aware of the research that is in question (the funded part from NIH), yet at other times, he emphatically says that there is NO WAY the NIH funded research could have sparked the virus. And just in case you aren't reading too closely as I am often times too wordy - those are two statements that are 100% contradictory and impossible.

Here is a quote from the Attorney General after the deposition took place.

“Fauci’s recent deposition only confirmed what we already knew: federal bureaucrats in collusion with social media companies want to control not only what you think, but especially what you say,” said Attorney General Landry. “During no time in human history was this more obvious than during the COVID-19 crisis where social engineering tactics were used against the American public, not to limit your exposure to a virus, but to limit your exposure to information that did not fit within a government sanctioned narrative.”


#2: Gain of function research is a very likely cause of the creation of the COVID-19 virus. Is it known for a fact this is the case? No it isn’t. But it’s the leading plausible hypothesis.
 
Last edited:
I don't think he is doing it out of a benevolence for humanity otherwise how the hell did he end up as the richest person alive?
Maybe not. Although the few interviews I've seen with him - and this last's years TED Talk interview convinced me he is doing it for humanity. If interested, the guy that interviewed for the TED convention also did another interview with him at his factory. Both were very informative.
 
Anyone who still likes Musk care to explain this?




View attachment 363301

View attachment 363302
I don't particularly like Elon. Never really did, but he is intriguing. I don't get why people that liked him, now hate him just bc he said he won't be voting Dem any longer. Seems very flakey. Anyway to answer your question: Seems like he did know her and lied to distance himself from her/Epstein. It is a bit suspicious. FYI- I think it is healthy to have a dose of suspicion regarding any celebrity, politician, billionaire. Too many examples of the power ruining them as a decent human being.
I just saw this on my news feed (googlenews). It made me realize I have seen this headline on there twice today, but I don't recall seeing any of the twitter files stories I see posted googlenews. Does anyone else notice their headlines seen in places like googlenews do not seem to reflect the importance of the stories. For instance, "twitter files dump by Elon/PR writers prove shadowbanning happened" seems like a bigger story to me than "twitter/Elon suspends florida college student for tracking his plane." It seems like an obvious attempt to push certain stories and hide other stories. Which makes me more suspicious of google, etc than if they just reported the news. I don't watch hardly any news, but I do love to see the news as it gets passed on to me through sites like SDN. It is crazy how there is such a large difference based on people's political leaning. (I get zero social media exposure to the news)
 
I don't particularly like Elon. Never really did, but he is intriguing. I don't get why people that liked him, now hate him just bc he said he won't be voting Dem any longer. Seems very flakey. Anyway to answer your question: Seems like he did know her and lied to distance himself from her/Epstein. It is a bit suspicious. FYI- I think it is healthy to have a dose of suspicion regarding any celebrity, politician, billionaire. Too many examples of the power ruining them as a decent human being.

I just saw this on my news feed (googlenews). It made me realize I have seen this headline on there twice today, but I don't recall seeing any of the twitter files stories I see posted googlenews. Does anyone else notice their headlines seen in places like googlenews do not seem to reflect the importance of the stories. For instance, "twitter files dump by Elon/PR writers prove shadowbanning happened" seems like a bigger story to me than "twitter/Elon suspends florida college student for tracking his plane." It seems like an obvious attempt to push certain stories and hide other stories. Which makes me more suspicious of google, etc than if they just reported the news. I don't watch hardly any news, but I do love to see the news as it gets passed on to me through sites like SDN. It is crazy how there is such a large difference based on people's political leaning. (I get zero social media exposure to the news)
Agree. Musk is no saint, but the woke left invaded the major media institutions so I feel I have no choice but to root for him to bring about their demise. It’s mostly self-induced by the legacy media, Elon is just hastening their demise. His grand ambition is to create a WeChat everything app that he calls “X.” It will take him a few years but I believe he will be successful.
 
“Woke” is a funny term.

It used to be a term of pride. My kids used to tell me I wasn’t “woke” enough because I would argue with them about culture appropriation issues, or they would say things like people of color couldn’t be racist, only white people…and because I would try to explain otherwise, I needed to become “woke.” I was the bad one for not being woke.

Now, as it turns out, no one would dare claim to be woke - now it is just a term to throw at someone as a negative.


Words are funny.
 
“Woke” is a funny term.

It used to be a term of pride. My kids used to tell me I wasn’t “woke” enough because I would argue with them about culture appropriation issues, or they would say things like people of color couldn’t be racist, only white people…and because I would try to explain otherwise, I needed to become “woke.” I was the bad one for not being woke.

Now, as it turns out, no one would dare claim to be woke - now it is just a term to throw at someone as a negative.


Words are funny.
Of course they dare. It's still a matter of pride. I just wouldn't be proud of it, none more than being proud about being a Marxist-communist.

It still means progressive. Pity that progressive now means regressive, the same way anti-racist means racist.

Have your kids read "Blackout" by Candace Owens. 😉

And get them into a better school. 😛
 
TBH, I feel like the term became negative bc someone finally stood up and said “the emperor has no clothes.”

I'm not sure if the Blackout crack is a joke, but is it a good book? I actually like her even though she is widely hated by so many. Sure, she supported Kanye and says a few things I disagree with, but so does everyone else. There is a certain group that will rip anyone to shreds if they are not 100% perfect or if they say anything not in agreeance with them. The easiest, safest thing to do is to just stay silent...

PS- The exchange that Candace had where a politician mischaracterized her as admiring Hitler was an amazing exchange. I am not sure if or how that politician could ever recover.
 
TBH, I feel like the term became negative bc someone finally stood up and said “the emperor has no clothes.”

I'm not sure if the Blackout crack is a joke, but is it a good book? I actually like her even though she is widely hated by so many. Sure, she supported Kanye and says a few things I disagree with, but so does everyone else. There is a certain group that will rip anyone to shreds if they are not 100% perfect or if they say anything not in agreeance with them. The easiest, safest thing to do is to just stay silent...

PS- The exchange that Candace had where a politician mischaracterized her as admiring Hitler was an amazing exchange. I am not sure if or how that politician could ever recover.
It's a fantastic book. It has a 4.9/5 rating on Amazon, after 21,000+ votes. That's amazing for any book, especially one that should be polarizing.

I used to have a bad prejudgment about her, too, based on hearsay (the radical left badmouths anybody who has a brain, exactly like the communists or Trump). Then I read her book on Kindle Unlimited. And I was taken aback how articulate the woman is. To me, she's in the Glenn Loury category. Like many intelligent women, she has what we used to call common sense.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
“Woke” is a funny term.

It used to be a term of pride. My kids used to tell me I wasn’t “woke” enough because I would argue with them about culture appropriation issues, or they would say things like people of color couldn’t be racist, only white people…and because I would try to explain otherwise, I needed to become “woke.” I was the bad one for not being woke.

Now, as it turns out, no one would dare claim to be woke - now it is just a term to throw at someone as a negative.


Words are funny.
It’s unpopular mainly because the people who use it now are right-wing conservatives who use it wrong.
 
RadOnc suggests that there are proper and improper uses of the word. I would like to know what they are.

Correct - You woke up this morning.

Incorrect - usage in to disparage the other side because FoxNews or some talking head told you to.
 
Correct - You woke up this morning.

Incorrect - usage in to disparage the other side because FoxNews or some talking head told you to.
Thank you! These folks def have their own definition of the term but use it non stop.

I have never used the term before as they are describing but somehow I’m “woke” because I’m a democrat. Because if “woke” means I don’t agree with MAGA folks then yea by all means I’m “woke” as hell!
 
Thank you! These folks def have their own definition of the term but use it non stop.

I have never used the term before as they are describing but somehow I’m “woke” because I’m a democrat. Because if “woke” means I don’t agree with MAGA folks then yea by all means I’m “woke” as hell!
epidural man said that people used to use the phrase in a derogatory way by saying that he was not woke enough because he expressed more conservative views. Then the phrase was co-opted to be used to describe those who were super enlightened with new and advanced ways of looking at the world and only then, it became distasteful to those who were supposedly more enlightened.
 
I have never used the term before as they are describing but somehow I’m “woke” because I’m a democrat. Because if “woke” means I don’t agree with MAGA folks then yea by all means I’m “woke” as hell!
The irony that you lambast the use of "woke" but immediately follow-up with the exact same word for conservatives. Ohhhhh the irony is killing me!!!!
 
“Woke” is a funny term.

It used to be a term of pride. My kids used to tell me I wasn’t “woke” enough because I would argue with them about culture appropriation issues, or they would say things like people of color couldn’t be racist, only white people…and because I would try to explain otherwise, I needed to become “woke.” I was the bad one for not being woke.

Now, as it turns out, no one would dare claim to be woke - now it is just a term to throw at someone as a negative.


Words are funny.


I’m woke 😉

0F1BAE04-696C-4D01-80EF-98CE27101D63.jpeg
 
The irony that you lambast the use of "woke" but immediately follow-up with the exact same word for conservatives. Ohhhhh the irony is killing me!!!!
You guys and Fox News are literally the only people who use that term, I assure you. But also just know it’s not offensive to me either, so not sure why it’s being used so much.
 
epidural man said that people used to use the phrase in a derogatory way by saying that he was not woke enough because he expressed more conservative views. Then the phrase was co-opted to be used to describe those who were super enlightened with new and advanced ways of looking at the world and only then, it became distasteful to those who were supposedly more enlightened.
So “woke” means not believing the election was rigged or anything the anti-vax people or saying or that gays and minorities should have equal rights or a woman’s right for an abortion?

Is so, I guess I am woke, thank you!
 
Last edited:
So “woke” means not believing the election was rigged or anything the anti-vax people or saying or that gays and minorities should have equal rights or a woman’s right for an abortion?

Is so, I guess I am woke, thank you!
I did not say any of that, but if that is your definition of the word, that is fine. So, that is what you meant when you said some use it incorrectly and what you describe above is the correct usage?
 
When Musk took over, he said, he found Twitter in disarray. Employees had unlimited vacation time and permanent work from home. The company had stopped doing performance reviews altogether, according to a long-time Twitter employee. “As long as Twitter could just keep its head above water and be roughly cash-flow break-even, then that’s all that they cared about,” Musk said.

Musk calls the Twitter he purchased a “non-profit.” Twitter, as it existed, wasn’t pursuing net earnings but “social influence,” he said. “This was fundamentally an activist organization.”
One additional note: For the past few days, conservative media—and social media—has thought this was the biggest story in the world. The legacy press—and those Americans who rely on it—barely seems to know it exists.


“They say they didn’t put their thumb on the scale,” Musk, who became CEO of Twitter in October, told The Free Press. “But they were pressing the thumb hard in favor of the left. If left, you could get away with death threats, and nothing would happen. If right, you could get suspended for retweeting a picture of a Trump rally.”
When we asked Musk whether the world should be worried about all this power being concentrated in his hands, he laughed. (He laughed a lot.) The old content-moderation teams—SRT-GET, SIP-PES—hadn’t been disbanded; the people on them had just changed.
“I’m open to ideas,” Musk said. “I’ve got a lot of work on my plate. I was just worried that Twitter was sending civilization in a bad direction.”

Twitter ostensibly kicked Trump off because of two tweets he fired off that morning. But on the day he was banned, executives and lower-level employees alike privately admitted that neither of the president’s tweets violated the platform’s rules.
By the afternoon, some Twitter staff had grown increasingly hysterical. In a private conversation with a software engineer, Yoel Roth—Head of Trust and Safety—remarked that “multiple tweeps [Twitter employees] have quoted the Banality of Evil suggesting that people implementing our policies are like Nazis following orders.”

Less than an hour later, Twitter announced Trump’s permanent suspension “due to the risk of further incitement to violence.”
In June 2018, Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei tweeted, “#Israel is a malignant cancerous tumor in the West Asian region that has to be removed and eradicated: it is possible and it will happen.” Twitter neither deleted the tweet nor banned the Ayatollah.
In October 2020, the former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed said that it was “a right” for Muslims to “kill millions of French people.” Twitter deleted the tweet, but allowed Mohamed to remain on the platform.
Muhammadu Buhari, the President of Nigeria, incited violence against pro-Biafra groups.“Those of us in the fields for 30 months, who went through the war,” he wrote, “will treat them in the language they understand.” Twitter deleted the tweet but didn't ban Buhari.
After the announcement, the mood among many Twitter employees was ecstatic. They back-slapped one another for the “extraordinary acts of awesomeness going on around Twitter right now.” That day, many staffers sent private, heartfelt notes to Roth and Gadde, congratulating them for the decision.
Taken together, reporting from the Twitter Files paints a clear picture: that a very small group of unelected individuals is making decisions about what the public is allowed to see and not see on Twitter; that they have developed many tools—operating without transparency—to influence public debates; and that their decision-making process was, till now, largely inscrutable.

The implications of all of this are far-reaching and not at all limited to one social media platform. Whether you agree or disagree with Twitter’s ban of President Trump is almost beside the point. The truth is that ultimately, what many find so disturbing isn’t that unelected executives at Twitter chose to ban a sitting head of state. It’s the fact that they had the power to do so—unaccountable to anyone but themselves—in the first place.

Less than a week after Trump’s ban, Dorsey wrote on Twitter that such a ban “sets a precedent I feel is dangerous: the power an individual or corporation has over a part of the global public conversation.”
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You guys and Fox News are literally the only people who use that term, I assure you. But also just know it’s not offensive to me either, so not sure why it’s being used so much.
Woke (/ˈwoʊk/ WOHK) is an adjective derived from African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) meaning "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination".[1][2] Beginning in the 2010s, it came to encompass a broader awareness of social inequalities such as sexism, and has also been used as shorthand for American Left ideas involving identity politics and social justice, such as the notion of white privilege and slavery reparations for African Americans.
By 2020, members of the political center and right wing in several Western countries were using the term woke, often in an ironic way, as an insult for various progressive or leftist movements and ideologies perceived as overzealous, performative, or insincere.
Opponents of progressive social movements often use the term mockingly or sarcastically,[4][41] implying that "wokeness" is an insincere form of performative activism.[4][42] British journalist Steven Poole comments that the term is used to mock "overrighteous liberalism".[43] In this pejorative sense, woke means "following an intolerant and moralising ideology".[18]
Among American conservatives, woke has come to be used primarily as an insult.[4][29][42] Members of the Republican Party have been increasingly using the term to criticize members of the Democratic Party, while more centrist Democrats use it against more left-leaning members of their own party; such critics accuse those on their left of using cancel culture to damage the employment prospects of those who are not considered sufficiently woke. Perry Bacon Jr. suggests that this "anti-woke posture" is connected to a long-standing promotion of backlash politics by the Republican Party, wherein it promotes white and conservative fear in response to activism by African Americans as well as changing cultural norms.[29][44] Such critics often believe that movements such as Black Lives Matter exaggerate the extent of social problems.[41]
In a survey by YouGov, 73% of Britons said they used the term in a disapproving way and 11% in an approving way.[47] In the United Kingdom, the term has also been used as a pejorative by conservative figures.[40][48]

The phenomenon le wokisme has also seen use in French politics, particularly around the 2022 French presidential election. Education minister Jean-Michel Blanquer established an "anti-woke think tank" in opposition to what is perceived as an export from the English-speaking world.[49][50][40]
 
So the term is used to be derogatory or let’s say sarcasm to a very liberal person?

Is this a safe assumption for the anti-woke folks to accept as a baseline definition?
 
I like how our forum is basically a microcosm of twitter. Let’s close the political discussion thread because someone expressed an opinion on transgenders and the vaccine. Misinformation alert must shut down. Can’t have any conservative viewpoints freely expressed here. Anesthesiologists and medical students are not smart enough to form their own political opinions.
 
I like how our forum is basically a microcosm of twitter. Let’s close the political discussion thread because someone expressed an opinion on transgenders and the vaccine. Misinformation alert must shut down. Can’t have any conservative viewpoints freely expressed here. Anesthesiologists and medical students are not smart enough to form their own political opinions.
Nobody is forcing you to be here.

The place doesn't work without moderation. Complaints are received, staff discusses them and a consensus is reached. This forum receives far more latitude than any other on this site.
 






Lol he bought it to save the world? Did banning the jet tracking account accomplish that yet?
 
The thread was closed then reopened for one more political opinion post and then closed again. Arch has always been a level headed moderator, so that surprised me a bit.
 
I like how our forum is basically a microcosm of twitter. Let’s close the political discussion thread because someone expressed an opinion on transgenders and the vaccine. Misinformation alert must shut down. Can’t have any conservative viewpoints freely expressed here. Anesthesiologists and medical students are not smart enough to form their own political opinions.
True. There is a common sense difference between hating trans people and not agreeing with trans ideology. Same thing as the difference between hating Christians and not agreeing with Christian ideology.

I think it is very telling that hawkeye went on his string of hateful comments, that someone was blatantly mocking Christianity and Jesus. But what closed the thread and brought multiple complaints was antivax discussion and disagreeing with trans ideology.

Certain members of the left need to complain less and be more open to discussion of ideas that don’t align with theirs. (I’d say the same about any whiners on the right that act like idiots)

PS- thanks arch for allowing more latitude than other places on SDN. I’m sure it isn’t easy. But that is scary that other places on here are even more sheltered from discussion.
 
So the term is used to be derogatory or let’s say sarcasm to a very liberal person?

Is this a safe assumption for the anti-woke folks to accept as a baseline definition?
No. Maybe for some at times, but I usually hear it in the form of moderate democrats referring to more extreme leftists. Or conservatives referring to extreme liberals.

You have probably heard of the term "go woke, go broke." That isn't derogatory either. It basically says preach/force your ideology and imagined enlightenment on everyone else and you will have no audience.
 
The thread was closed then reopened for one more political opinion post and then closed again. Arch has always been a level headed moderator, so that surprised me a bit.
Eazy does it. I would have made the comment earlier but so many complaints were made in a short period of time that I had to close the thread. Multiple complaints were received about multiple users.
 
Eazy does it. I would have made the comment earlier but so many complaints were made in a short period of time that I had to close the thread. Multiple complaints were received about multiple users.
I did not disagree with why you wanted to add the comment, but it seemed strange to close the thread and let it sit for a while when no one else could comment, then you came back in and added one last comment then closed it again. It seems like, if it needs to be closed (which you thought it did and I respect that decision), then the rules of "no more responses" should have applied the same to everyone. It does not seem to matter that you wanted to make the comment earlier but did not get the chance to. The thread was closed. Maybe others also were busy and wanted to respond but never had the opportunity.
It is just different than how you have operated for the past decade or so. Maybe it has happened before, but I have never seen a moderator close a thread to responses only to come back later and add one last response to a poster that they disagree with and then not allow them any opportunity to respond. It seems contrary to the customary accepted rules of debate. That is all I am pointing out.
I don't think that applying the closed thread rule equally to all is an unreasonable expectation. I am not trying to pick a fight, just simply pointing out that this thread closure was handled quite differently than others have been in the past. You have always been one of my favorite posters and mods on here and I respect what you do. I just saw this as a weird exception to the normal way things are done.
 
I did not disagree with why you wanted to add the comment, but it seemed strange to close the thread and let it sit for a while when no one else could comment, then you came back in and added one last comment then closed it again. It seems like, if it needs to be closed (which you thought it did and I respect that decision), then the rules of "no more responses" should have applied the same to everyone. It does not seem to matter that you wanted to make the comment earlier but did not get the chance to. The thread was closed. Maybe others also were busy and wanted to respond but never had the opportunity.
It is just different than how you have operated for the past decade or so. Maybe it has happened before, but I have never seen a moderator close a thread to responses only to come back later and add one last response to a poster that they disagree with and then not allow them any opportunity to respond. It seems contrary to the customary accepted rules of debate. That is all I am pointing out.
I don't think that applying the closed thread rule equally to all is an unreasonable expectation. I am not trying to pick a fight, just simply pointing out that this thread closure was handled quite differently than others have been in the past. You have always been one of my favorite posters and mods on here and I respect what you do. I just saw this as a weird exception to the normal way things are done.
Everybody has a moment now and then I guess.
 
So now he has banned journalists from CNN, Washington Post and NY Times. What a guy. He may be even more thin skinned and more of a snowflake than trump.
Unlike Trump, I'm pretty sure Elon Musk is actually a billionaire.

Somewhere there's a parallel universe where Musk runs for president.
 
Lol he bought it to save the world? Did banning the jet tracking account accomplish that yet?

So now he has banned journalists from CNN, Washington Post and NY Times. What a guy. He may be even more thin skinned and more of a snowflake than trump.


Musk: "Any account doxxing real-time location info of anyone will be suspended, as it is a physical safety violation. This includes posting links to sites with real-time location info. Posting locations someone traveled to on a slightly delayed basis isn’t a safety problem, so is ok."


Musk: "If anyone posted real-time locations & addresses of NYT reporters, FBI would be investigating, there’d be hearings on Capitol Hill & Biden would give speeches about end of democracy!"

I think this seems logical. It's likely he didn't come up with the policy until it affected him, but I think both are valid points. The CNN/NYT/WaPost reporters had all "doxxed" or posted links to places that did.
 
Last edited:

Musk: "Any account doxxing real-time location info of anyone will be suspended, as it is a physical safety violation. This includes posting links to sites with real-time location info. Posting locations someone traveled to on a slightly delayed basis isn’t a safety problem, so is ok."


Musk: "If anyone posted real-time locations & addresses of NYT reporters, FBI would be investigating, there’d be hearings on Capitol Hill & Biden would give speeches about end of democracy!"

I think this seems logical? Likely he didn't come up with the policy until it affected him, but I think both are valid points...

Maybe it’s semantics but is a plane’s coordinates really doxxing? Doesn’t doxxing imply that someone can go to location to likely cause trouble?
If I give you latitude and longitude that corresponds to a specific street address and the name of the person on that mortgage/lease, that’s doxxing, right. And you can by private or public transportation or a combination thereof go that residence.
But if I say Musk’s plane is at longitude x and latitude y, well then by the time you read it, it’s probably not there any more. The residence in the above example doesn’t move. And how is someone gonna meet that plane in mid-air and harass Musk? Do those trackers give an altitude? Even if they do, I’m still stumped how someone will meet that plane like ConAir.
Sure, it’s his platform so he’s within his privileges to move the goalpost, but that’s all it is. It’s a loosely thought out rationale to ban the account he presumably doesn’t like. I don’t really see a logical safety concern from knowing his plane’s location.
 

Similar threads

D
Replies
0
Views
1K
deleted87051
D
Top Bottom