I don't understand the confidence that people have when talking about the internal states of celebrities they follow.

I bet if we take the absolute value of level of hate or love that someone has for any given celebrity, it will strongly correlate to the inverse of their IQ.

Assume best intentions. Don't attribute anything to an immutable aspect of one's character.

Motives are unknowable (irrelevent), it's only actions that matter.

I'm no fan, but this does pass the 'would probably do this too' test. As, I could see this being a recommendation from one's personal security team.

Not to mention a doxing that is my understanding violation of T's policy. But yes, you then have to ban Gatesjet, Puinjet and so forth.

The free speech argument is kinda stale for me at least, it's easy to virture signal 'in the interest of free speech', but obviously there will always be some speech that is not acceptable (ie.. doxing, illegal)

> Not to mention a doxing that is my understanding violation of T's policy. But yes, you then have to ban Gatesjet, Puinjet and so forth.

https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/personal-info...

Twitter's policies define doxxing as the posting of private information that was not made publicly available by the owner. They also specifically allow "sharing information that is publicly available elsewhere, in a non-abusive manner".

ElonJet and all of the other similar bots tracking interesting aircraft are using information that is broadcast unencrypted by the aircraft itself to anyone within radio range (sometimes hundreds of miles) who has a compatible receiver (including the famous $15 RTL-SDR) and publicly shared through multiple aggregators like ADS-B Exchange, FlightAware, and FlightRadar24.

This data is legally required to be broadcast, so it's definitely not private, and it's definitely publicly available elsewhere.

Elon would probably argue that it was abusive, but that's a lot more subjective. As far as I'm aware the account never tweeted anything but the facts of his jet's movements.

> Twitter's policies define doxxing as the posting of private information that was not made publicly available by the owner.

Musk didn’t make the data available so we can discount that.

> They also specifically allow "sharing information that is publicly available elsewhere, in a non-abusive manner".

Yes. Sharing information to make people track a person’s movements could be considered abusive.

I suspect this is a mistake though and Musk will have twitter re enable the account.

> Elon didn’t make the data available so we can discount that.

Did you miss the part where this data is legally required to be broadcast openly? This isn't private information, so whether or not Elon wants it to be shared is irrelevant.

> Yes. Sharing information to make people track a person’s movements can be considered abusive.

The account isn't tracking Elon's movements. It's tracking his jet's movements, which again are legally required to be publicly broadcast by the very jet being tracked. Aside from the time he's actually on the jet, the extent that this allows a person to track his movements is "he's probably somewhere within the general region served by whatever airport the plane is at" which is not exactly a significant privacy issue nor unusual for anyone of sufficient celebrity.

He always has the choice to not fly everywhere by private jet, which I believe was the entire original point of this bot. Making a note of the carbon impact of his choice to fly all over while promoting himself as a leader in reducing carbon footprint. There was a whole thing for a while with calling out a variety of celebrities for the same thing, just Elon was the only one who took it personally.

> I suspect this is a mistake though and Musk will have twitter re enable the account.

Given that the head of the company has a known public vendetta against this particular account and it was just the other day publicized that direct Musk subordinates were involved in "shadowbanning" it, and we know for a fact that Twitter has systems to flag accounts for special treatment such as Musk's previous promise to not ban it, this really doesn't pass the smell test.

What's more likely, that after all that they somehow accidentally banned both this account and later the operator's account, or that Musk got angry and changed his mind?

Well this is a surprise turn of events, at least at this time the ElonJet account is back (though the author's personal account and his other interesting aircraft tracker accounts remain suspended at this time).

https://twitter.com/ElonJet/status/1603166460746104833

Twitter has changed their policies to not allow posting of same-day location information even if it's from public sources.

https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/1603165959669354496

That seems to confirm that this was intentional and one of two things happened:

1. Someone jumped the gun and started enforcing the new policy before it was public, entirely coincidentally only enforcing it against this specific user's accounts before realizing their error but doing nothing to undo or even acknowledge it for hours after. 2. Someone in a position of substantial power made an arbitrary move and then changed the policy to justify their actions after the fact.

I know which one of those two I'd bet on.

And they banned it again.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33992412

It’s not arbitrary. A car with his child in it was attacked. The account was already against the old ToS if you define it as abusive use of public data, the new policy is clearer, and it applies to everyone equally. I’m not sure what you’re complaining about.

> Did you miss the part where this data is legally required to be broadcast openly?

No, I specifically pointed out the first part mentions data not shared by the person in the first case. You missed that.

> The account isn't tracking Elon's movements.

It’s literally called Elonjet. It’s not about anyone else except Musk.

> which again are legally required to be publicly broadcast by the very jet being tracked.

Again, abusive use of public data is against the Terms of Service. Please read the Terms of Service.

> No, I specifically pointed out the first part mentions data not shared by the person in the first case. You missed that.

In what universe is "the person's aircraft is actively broadcasting this information" not data shared by the person? Just because they don't want to share it and are legally compelled to do so doesn't mean they aren't sharing it. That policy is about data not normally, legally, or intentionally shared.

> It’s literally called Elonjet. It’s not about anyone else except Musk.

It's literally called Elonjet. It tracks Elon's jet. Not him personally.

The bot posts when the aircraft takes off and when it lands, so even if he is on the aircraft at the time that information is almost immediately stale. The moment he leaves the airport it's nothing more than "There's a reasonable chance Elon is somewhere in the same metro area as his plane"

> Again, abusive use of public data is against the Terms of Service. Please read the Terms of Service.

The bot is not abusive, it's there to make a point about Elon's carbon emissions versus his public claims of environmental concern by displaying his use of inefficient private jet travel. That was a thing for a while with a lot of celebrities, but only one of them threw such a fit about it that it remained in the public's attention.

Remember that this bot was up for ages, with Elon publicly whining about it, Elon fans reporting it regularly, and I have no doubt he was bringing it up in private conversations with Twitter higher ups once he became involved. Are you telling me that you honestly believe this account and all of its related accounts were posting content that blatantly violated ToS that entire time and was allowed to remain open just because?

Note as well that the final banning came along with a (notably after the fact) change in policy to explicitly ban these sorts of accounts. If it was so blatantly against the ToS why would that be needed?

> I suspect this is a mistake though and Musk will have twitter re enable the account.

They "accidentally" shadowbanned the account. When caught they decided to just fuck it and ban the account completely - it was no accident.

The Galaxy brain thing is to realise that’s true of literally all of them.

It's easier to get into a position of power, wealth or fame if you act like this, so people like this are overrepresented in those we see in the news and media. Even more so because those people have more reason to make their voices heard. But infering from that that it's common or generally accepted outside of very specific circles would be a mistake.

That's the attitude that creates things like the Russian government.

People are all over the place morally/politically/how they treat people, even within non-random groups like billionaires. Better to differentiate between the good and bad behaviors specifically so people strive to do better.

How can you say that when we’re surrounded by sincerity. Hell it’s true of our current president. I don’t believe for a second that Biden is just playing the game. He quietly became the most progressive president in history when he could have just chilled for four years and it wouldn’t have mattered. Anyone who hated Obama for his politics and not his skin color should be foaming at the mouth seething angry at everything he’s done the last four years.

The current US president is a reasonably well-meaning and ethical person, very likely above the 50% percentile in the population.

On the other hand, Musk's personality is way out of the range of normality, in a bad way. He's narcissistic, psychopatic, manipulative, pathologically dishonest, cruel.

And he's always been like this, although perhaps with money and power he's starting to lose the self-control necessary to keep the mask on. I'm kind of proud that I realized who he was in early 2018, which was before any of the big scandals (e.g. pedo guy, funding secured, ...).

> How can you say that when we’re surrounded by sincerity. Hell it’s true of our current president.

Biden has consistently lied throughout his entire political career to the point that it's been a running joke for decades. He doesn't even know when he's lying - he still repeats lies that he was publicly called out on a decade or more ago.

Trump lies to make people like him and pay attention to him. Biden lies compulsively.

> He quietly became the most progressive president in history

What a bizarre claim. He literally just overruled a union strike vote so an industry claiming record profits wouldn't have to give its employees sick days.

So you’re saying that Biden says incorrect information he sincerely believes while Trump doesn’t believe the things he says. And your takeaway is that Biden is insincere. You do you but I’ll always throw my hat with the person who is wrong accidentally over the one who lies purposely. I don’t see it as strength or 84d chess or whatever, I think it just makes you a bad person.

> What a bizarre claim

Your recency bias is showing. More overtly progressive legislation has been passed during his term than any other president. Like it is absolutely insane (meant positively) the amendments to Title IX that explicitly protect lgbt folks and he is threatening taking away funding from schools who ignore them. Like god damn that’s the opposite of posturing.

Obama would have been called the literal antichrist with 24/7 news coverage for months if he did that but this is the norm for Biden.

I have no idea if it’s purposeful on his part or if people are just burnt out on politics but just doing it and keeping out of the news cycle has been working out really well for him. He will probably get votes just from people who have been enjoying being able to tune out for a bit.

> Like it is absolutely insane (meant positively) the amendments to Title IX that explicitly protect lgbt folks and he is threatening taking away funding from schools who ignore them. Like god damn that’s the opposite of posturing.

Interesting view. I don't really see the new amendments to Title IX as any more "overtly progressive" as the original amendment. It's just an adjustment to definitions to recognize some more people who are typically discriminated against (and to whom we believe that is unjust). The concept is really no different.

I imagine he lives a very lonely life in most ways that are important. Like a king of old. EVERYONE is an antagonist that wants something from him and his motivations run very self centered.

If he was actually this conniving then he wouldn't have bought Twitter in the first place. He's going to lose billions of dollars on that deal.

It seems obvious to me that he's a standard very online right-wing reactionary. People don't want to believe it because he's the electric cars and solar panels guy, but the new reactionary right doesn't care about climate change denialism anymore.

People will put forth these hot takes for the usual reasons: a desire to seem smarter, to look like they see through the bullshit. It’s upscale conspiracy theorism.

14 year old edge lords on 4chan are also into rockets, electric cars, solar panels and flame throwers ...

I could believe that if people like Musk were still amplifying centrists on the right, but they're not. They're amplifying the more extreme far-right figures and bankrolling politicians with far from mainstream views.

This idea that it's only the left that has changed, in an era where we saw the supporters of a losing candidate invade the US's Capitol building and an increase in far right terrorism, is just so bizarre.

Who are they amplifying who's "far right?"

Please, back up your claims with actual evidence. And I specifically mentioned Musk, Sacks and Armstrong, so please produce evidence of far right people they are amplifying.

And if you are about to say Ron Desantis, he's a pretty middle of the road Republican by the standards of about 2010, so just because the woke left calls him far right in 2022 is pretty meaningless at this point. Oh, and he didn't ban saying gay by the way.

Well, not wanting to go back too much: "My pronouns are prosecute/Fauci" seems a lot like amplyfing extreme right propaganda. Now, please, go ahead and explain how Fauci being solely responsible of the U.S. response to COVID and somehow actually responsible of the virus itself it's a moderate right position.

I suggest you read up on NIH and Wuhan labs collaboration, do a google search of Peter daszak and ecohealth alliance.

And also do a bit of research on what negative effects of lockdowns we are currently experiencing.

No one is suggesting this is all faucis fault, musk isn’t either, but he conflict of interest is highly suspicious and shouldn’t be ignored.

The far right is racial violence, not wanting Fauchi to be prosecuted. Please don’t use extreme terms unless you know their meaning.

Openly mocking trans people, saying their desire to be referred to by pronouns that match their gender is a "woke mind virus" that will "destroy society" (this from a guy who named his child "X Æ A-12" mind you), amplifying the current LGBTQ == pedophile/groomer propaganda push, retweeting conspiracy bullshit about Paul Pelosi's sexuality, blaming him for his own assault while the man was still in the hospital... if these seem middle of the road to you, then perhaps it is the perception you have of your own views that is skewed.

> saying their desire to be referred to by pronouns that match their gender is a "woke mind virus" that will "destroy society"

It doesn't stop at pronouns though does it. This is the real problem, and how we've ended up with men in women's prisons, women's shelters, women's locker rooms, women's sports. Children being medically and surgically abused in the name of gender affirmation. And vast swathes of censorship and gaslighting to try to bully the populace into complying.

Let's not pretend that this is all a kerfuffle around pronouns. It is not, and never has been.

I'm sorry that this has affected you so deeply. This issue is so often portrayed as some sort of abstract moral panic, but interacting with someone like you who has had their bathrooms and sports teams personally invaded has changed my perspective. I suppose I just didn't realize how many males were out there willing to live their lives as "trans" people in order to leer at women in the locker room.

But now that I understand this, it does seem to be a slippery slope. At first it's just the water fountains, buses, and lunch counters. But before you know it, miscegenation is common and the presidency isn't even out of reach. And of course, vast swathes of censorship and gaslighting to try to bully the populace into complying.

I'm going to share your thoughts with my oldest friend, currently existing under the delusion that h̶i̶s̶ her seemingly well-adjusted and unassuming life is not the threat to society it clearly is. Thank you for doing your part to fight back against people like h̶i̶m̶ her.

It was quite clear from your uninsightful previous comment that you don't give a shit about women's rights, there's no need to further affirm this via such a cringeworthy effort at sarcasm.

> It was quite clear from your uninsightful previous comment that you don't give a shit about women's rights, there's no need to further affirm this via such a cringeworthy effort at sarcasm.

I appreciate your gentle feedback on my relationship to women's rights, as well as your your heartfelt stand against bullying. Although I struggle to see how my uninsightful previous comment had anything to do with that topic, I can only assume you've identified something in me to which I've been blinded by my unfortunate grandfathered affection for a living, breathing trans human being.

My tragic lack of self-awareness is perhaps because I personally witnessed years of merciless bullying during our shared childhood in one of the most conservative areas of Texas. You see, when I compare my memory of that poorly fitted kid to the successful, kind, and well-loved person they are today, when I consider their deeply personal, hard-fought struggle towards self-acceptance that I myself witnessed, it is easy to miss just how insidiously they are, in fact, perverting our society to its certain doom. So subtle is this agenda of destruction that one might be forgiven for thinking it doesn't even exist at all.

Going forward I will do my best to defend women's rights by demanding that my friend accept upon h̶i̶m̶s̶e̶l̶f̶ herself the mantle of traditional femininity, no matter what h̶e̶ she may think about that or how cruelly it will be received by the sort of people who tormented h̶i̶m̶ her in our formative years. You've truly made a difference today.

Give me another chapter of this work of fiction you're spinning.

@dang

Not wanting adults to groom kids or men in the women’s change rooms are both pretty mainstream positions.

Your delusional insistence that trans people support adults having sexual contact with children is part and parcel of the extremism I'm talking about. One of my oldest childhood friends is a trans man and I have accordingly interacted with many trans individuals. Not a single one has expressed anything but revulsion at that idea, and if you believe that's false then I'm sorry but you're buying into a political narrative whose purpose is to erase people like my friend. And the kicker: you'd seek to make a law forcing my friend to use the women's facilities, and then freak out if you saw them following that law. Because guess what! They look like a man - certainly more traditionally masculine than a few of the pundits pushing these vile narratives that I could name.

Despite your insistence to the contrary, nobody I'd associate with wants anyone to be getting sexual gratification by leering at others in dressing rooms. Because believe it or not, we're good people who don't tolerate sex pests. That has nothing at all to do with gender or sexual orientation and everything to do with not being a shitty person.

Sadly, it's beyond obvious that the right's performative outrage over men in women's dressing rooms never really had anything to do with protecting women, and everything to do with ostracizing trans folks. I'll leave you with a quote from a guy recently welcomed back to Twitter by Musk himself:

"I’ll go backstage before a show, and everyone’s getting dressed and ready and everything else. And you know, no men are anywhere. I’m allowed to go in because I’m the owner of the pageant. And, therefore, I’m inspecting it. I’m inspecting it. I want to make sure everything is good."

He went on, as if he was in the dressing room, "'Is everyone okay?' You know, they’re standing there with no clothes. And you see these incredible looking women. And so I sort of get away with things like that."

The procipal bringing dildos and butt plugs for kids to play with literally happened last week. Before you call someone delusional do some basic research.

I said people like Musk, don't try to dictate the terms of a discussion.

And there's more than enough evidence of him doing just that. [0]

[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-right-wing-extremi...

From the POV of a European the most annoying part of the american right calling the liberal mainstream social progressive values "far-left", is that it feels like a redefinition of what left means. Its like when Biden broke the rail strike by force or how they all despised Bernie for suggesting healthcare reform.

Americans are so completely uneducated about politics that they think Biden or Obama are on the far-left, its remarkable, they aren't even social democrats.

As an European you should be aware American social stuff is batshit insane when it comes to politics. I can't name one country in Europe that comes close. Econonics I agree with you.

To put a fine point on it, he believes in naïveté: People will argue about over what is said (regardless of contradictory behavior) because the general populace will spend their effort supporting their belief system for/against the argument than acting on the contradictory behavior.

Recognizing his actions are contradictory requires a higher level of abstraction.