Hacker News Reader

Comment by gfodor | Hacker News Reader

Dozing a person’s whereabouts isn’t free speech - yes I know you can fish this information out but it’s obvious this is intended to make it easy to figure out where he is. I’m amazed at the replies to this thread arguing this is a speech issue, especially considering the obvious need for heightened security due to what I’d imagine is a flood of death threats.

View on HN

“fish this information out” makes it sound like it's hard to use any of the common websites which do the same thing. If the goal is security, he either needs to stop flying a personal jet or accept the cost of having adequate physical security where he does. Anyone who was incapable of looking up the jet's location without Twitter is unlikely to be competent enough to pose more risk than they would, say, staking out one of the buildings he frequents.

Pull vs push. The model where a person’s jet is posted on Twitter is one where the information can go viral and get pushed to everyone. It is a hugely different situation in terms of distribution and expected impressions.

Could you please point out where in the "free speech absolutism" the push vs. pull nuance comes in? That's the whole point of absolutism, you have to get rid of the nuance.

And just on this very website I have been told by very vocal Elon fanboys that "you either support free speech or you don't, no halfway points about it" when I tried to explain why banning/muting hateful rhetoric may be necessary in a social media.

I was responding to what you wrote in your post. With regards to free speech principles, I think the question you are asking is if the rule against this kind of thing in the Twitter rules is in conflict with the principle of free speech. (Specifically broadcasting location data about an individual.)

Free speech absolutism has always been a fake frame since it is actually “legal speech absolutism” even according to Musk.

I didn’t say anything about absolutism - my take on free speech is that “doxxing” speech like the GPS coordinates of an individual, particularly when it is not newsworthy or connected to current events, doesn’t do anything to contribute to the marketplace of ideas beyond increasing personal risk to that person, and therefore is under motivated from the perspective of the principle of free speech.

Can you expand the scenario you're imagining where there's a grave threat to Elon Musk's personal safety because someone can see where his jet is located, but only if it goes viral because that person would not otherwise be motivated enough to spend 30 seconds looking it up?

I'm having trouble seeing even reach the level of Bruce Schneier's Movie Plot threats much less the level where it would warrant restricting someone's ability to share public information. We were, after all, tediously reassured that Musk's deep and heartfelt belief in the sanctity of free speech extended even to the point of not restricting people who made specific threats to attack the U.S. system of government, so it seems quite disingenuous for him to then turn around and block people to prevent comments which might hurt his feelings.

Coming up with scenarios is just an invitation to get into the weeds. The situation to me reduces down not to the jet per se but the fact that it’s basically a way to know with high confidence exactly where he is located. It’s not hard to imagine a hysterical mob animating itself into a point where people descend on the location in question with bad intentions.

In other words, you don’t have a plausible scenario - just a highly improbable hypothetical that some angry mob would be foiled because nobody would know about flight tracking websites or think to watch his offices.

It’s also very telling that his acolytes think this ineffectual attempt at protection justifies restricting speech but someone who actually incited a violent attack against the U.S. system of government should have their platform amplified again. If we’re concerned about violent mobs, wouldn’t you start with the people who’ve actually led one?

Ah cool, I see now what was actually going on here - shame on me for responding on good faith.

Hey, if you want to explain your position you’re welcome to start. This entire thread has been trying to get you to articulate a clear position.

Death threats are not covered by free speech, but the location of a jet is not a death threat. I don't think you'll find any legal precedent that says doxing isn't protected speech. Doxing is a bit of forum etiquette and is not considered taboo under other norms.

It's also incorrect to say the jet's location tells you where Elon is. I have a friend who's ridden that jet. My friend isn't Elon, but worked for him

What about stalking??

Stalking is not speech

Taking public and legally published information from one website and putting it on another is not free speech? Excuse me?

Every day I wake up and wonder what the free speech absolutist's new definition of free speech would be.

The principle of free speech is about protecting the marketplace of ideas. Broadcasting a person’s whereabouts continuously in a subscription feed is legally protected speech obviously but it’s not obviously a violation of the motivation for the principle of free speech to have such messages be against the Twitter rules.

Most homeowners' personal home address is publicly published on county government websites. Everyone on both sides of aisle agrees that the unwanted reposting of such on social media is doxxing and a bannable offense.

If he doesn't want people to know where he is, he shouldn't fly around in a private jet.

Sorry but the world doesn't revolve around that guy. No special rules for billionaires.

Using sites like www.flightradar24.com is not that hard, so there isn't a higher threat level by the twitter account.

And it was Elon who stated free speech over everything.

Their def is a higher threat when the information about an individual’s jet is tweeted out continuously, each time subjecting it to risk of going viral. Distribution and risk are connected.

Musk isn't a person, he's public property. He's our puppet now, and we make it dance until it falls apart.

Like anyone else so unreasonably rich or famous, they should have no expectation of privacy or any of the other privileges us commoners enjoy. There need to be consequences to such sociopathic hoarding of resources.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com