Musk's Twitter starts banning journalists

[Bucknutz]

LOL. You’re missing some crucial context here. Alex Jones had lied about ****ing children being massacred at Sandy Hook which led to parents receiving threats. So not the same as journalists who have been suspended for… *checks notes* not sucking up to Elon/holding opposing political views.

Elon Musk has been whining for months about being a “free speech” guy. He’s pro free speech when it means inviting insurrectionists, anti semites, and other RW bros who suck him off. He’s suddenly pro moderation when it’s not.

Elon has the right to ban whoever he wants according to whatever policy he seems to pull out of his *** these days. But the fact that you don’t see this has hypocritical coming from a guy who pretends to care about free speech just shows how partisanship has rotted out your brain.

Except I don’t see it that way at all. I see it only through what are the rules of the site at that time. Period. He can change his mind a 1000 times for all I care. He posted literally yesterday do not dox people or you will be suspended. These journalists thought they were above everyone else and posted what he warned them about and then they were suspended. Boo hoo. Follow the rules.

Alex Jones posting disgusting things. Twitter has the right to ban him and appropriately did. Trump posted that he would not attend Biden’s inauguration, Permanently banned. They still have the right to ban him. Did you complain about that? Or did you celebrate it? Is it that you’re upset now that people on the left are now getting suspended?

Follow the rules, even if they change. Period. There is no partisanship when you view it this way.

You are the one who is partisan, complaining when it happens to the left and standing up for twitter when it happens to the right. No consistency.

 

[Bucknutz]

LOL. You’re missing some crucial context here. If conservatives like you want me to treat them as good faith actors and not trolls, you can’t do this. Cc @One Brow this Is EXACTLY what I’m talking about. Buck isn’t being honest or arguing in good faith here. If “conservatives” on this site want to be treated respectfully and not easily dismissed as trolls by me, then they need to do a better job than this. This post was merely a troll job to illicit an emotional reaction rather than accurately and honestly debate. Do you disagree? @One Brow? I hope you hold conservatives to a similar standard you hold me. One shouldn’t be making hasty troll job posts, lame attempts at “gotcha” rather than seriously debate issues in a respectful and honest manner.

Nice additional edit. Not trolling. Just showing your inconsistency. I also called out One Brow earlier for the same thing. You both were sticking up for Twitter because Jones crossed Twitters hate speech/lies/misinformation. So they banned him. You both were completely fine with that and both even said it’s a private company and they can choose to keep or remove people.

Now that journalists who lean left, literally the next day, ignored Musk’s warning about doxxing and went ahead and posted the information that you will get suspended for, got suspended.

Now both of you are outraged.

Then you start with the personal attacks.

I called you out. I don’t consider that a troll job. If you have open posting history that is not consistent on the same topic, I will call it out every time. If I do it, please call me out.

Attacking me calling me “tribal babies who’ve had their brains rotted out by partisanship” for posting context and information and having a different opinion is weak. If you want a debate keep it civil and you won’t get an emotion response from me.

 

[One Brow]

Except it isn’t…

X's private information policy and doxxing | X Help

Learn about how X handles unauthorized posting of private information, also known as doxxing, and how to report it.

help.twitter.com

You forgot to quote this part:

Is the information available elsewhere online?

If the reported information was shared somewhere else before it was shared on Twitter, e.g., someone sharing their personal phone number on their own publicly accessible website, we may not treat this information as private, as the owner has made it publicly available. Note: we may take action against home addresses being shared, even if they are publicly available, due to the potential for physical harm.

ElonJet posts publicly available information, and does not post a home address. It's not violating this newly-formulated rule.

Just follow the rules. This is the second time you guys have brought this up. Thinking it’s some conspiracy to go after the left. It isn’t, just people not following the rules.

ElonJet did follow the rules, and so did the journalists linking to ElonJet.

It’s also a private company…do you still agree with this?

Did anything I post indicate to you that Elon had no right to ban these people? Freedom to act is not freedom from criticism.

 

[One Brow]

It should be stated that few if any of the journalists suspended yesterday were tweeting Musk’s location. They appear to have been suspended because they were critical of the “free speech absolutist” who owns twitter.

Most of the banned were linking to ElonJet (I think there was one exception). That seems to be the lynchpin of the decisions. After his encounter with a stalker, his reaction is understandable, if inappropriate.

 

[Bucknutz]

You forgot to quote this part:

Is the information available elsewhere online?

If the reported information was shared somewhere else before it was shared on Twitter, e.g., someone sharing their personal phone number on their own publicly accessible website, we may not treat this information as private, as the owner has made it publicly available. Note: we may take action against home addresses being shared, even if they are publicly available, due to the potential for physical harm.

Please reread… the bold.

Elon jet is not Elon Musk, therefore not the “owner”.

I will add this for more context about Elonjet and public information:

View: https://twitter.com/tittertakeover/status/1603518022181855254?s=46&t=HjcUUazrzmaZjYVEQgXM9w

 

[One Brow]

LOL. You’re missing some crucial context here. If conservatives like you want me to treat them as good faith actors and not trolls, you can’t do this. Cc @One Brow this Is EXACTLY what I’m talking about. Buck isn’t being honest or arguing in good faith here. If “conservatives” on this site want to be treated respectfully and not easily dismissed as trolls by me, then they need to do a better job than this. This post was merely a troll job to illicit an emotional reaction rather than accurately and honestly debate. Do you disagree? @One Brow?

I disagree. I think @Bucknutz has gotten a little emotional, confused censorship with criticism, and posting on adrenaline. I think he'll realize that fairly quickly. That's very different from arguing in bad faith.

I hope you hold conservatives to a similar standard you hold me. One shouldn’t be making hasty troll job posts, lame attempts at “gotcha” rather than seriously debate issues in a respectful and honest manner.

I think you typed out these responses with some emotion and a little adrenaline, as well. Quite frankly, with regard to 'lame attempts at “gotcha”', specks and planks.

By 2018, Alex Jones had lied about ****ing children being massacred at Sandy Hook which led to parents receiving threats. So not the same as journalists who have been suspended for… *checks notes* not sucking up to Elon/holding opposing political views.

Quite frankly, that's irrelevant to the notion of whether Twitter had the right to perform either ban (which it did, in both cases). I support banning Jones and criticize banning journalists, as is my right.

Elon has the right to ban whoever he wants according to whatever policy he seems to pull out of his *** these days. It’ll lead to the collapse of twitter, but I’m also fine with him burning $44 billion in stupid ways. The fact that you don’t see this has hypocritical coming from a guy who pretends to care about free speech just shows how partisanship has rotted out your brain.

Who has said Musk is not being hypocritical?

 

[One Brow]

Is the information available elsewhere online?

If the reported information was shared somewhere else before it was shared on Twitter, e.g., someone sharing their personal phone number on their own publicly accessible website, we may not treat this information as private, as the owner has made it publicly available. Note: we may take action against home addresses being shared, even if they are publicly available, due to the potential for physical harm.

Please reread… the bold.

Elon jet is not Elon Musk, therefore not the “owner”.

Elon Musk's team shares the personal flight plan with the FAA (or similar regulatory agency), knowing it would become publicly available. ElonJet has been around for years.

I don't judge Musk for reacting to his experience with harassment. My sincere hope is that he uses this to reconsider his supposed free speech absolutism. Musk has a right to ban whomever he chooses, even when they don't break the rules.

That said, ElonJet didn't break the rules.

 

[The Thriller]

Nice additional edit. Not trolling. Just showing your inconsistency.

What additional edit are you talking about? I posted my last message at 11:11. Made its late edit at 11:20. Then you posted at 12:00 pm.

What inconsistency? Have I ever said that owners of social media companies shouldn't be able to set policy?

I also called out One Brow earlier for the same thing. You both were sticking up for Twitter because Jones crossed Twitters hate speech/lies/misinformation. So they banned him. You both were completely fine with that and both even said it’s a private company and they can choose to keep or remove people.

Now that journalists who lean left, literally the next day, ignored Musk’s warning about doxxing and went ahead and posted the information that you will get suspended for, got suspended.

Now both of you are outraged.

Outraged is a bit strong. Critical of the decision? Absolutely. It's weird how you call what a handful of journalists were doing as "doxxing" in the same vein as Jones making money off torturing families of victims of Sandy Hook. Trump and insurrectionists were suspended because their tweets violated company policy. What did those journalists do to violate company policy?

What policy did those journalists violate? What policy do you think Alex Jones violated back in 2018? Why do these two appear the same to you?

Then you start with the personal attacks.

You were the one that got personal here by taking a screenshot of my post in a pathetic attempt to demonstrate my hypocrisy. You weren't debating issues.

I called you out. I don’t consider that a troll job. If you have open posting history that is not consistent on the same topic, I will call it out every time. If I do it, please call me out.

Attacking me calling me “tribal babies who’ve had their brains rotted out by partisanship” for posting context and information and having a different opinion is weak. If you want a debate keep it civil and you won’t get an emotion response from me.

Okay

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Elon Musk's team shares the personal flight plan with the FAA (or similar regulatory agency), knowing it would become publicly available. ElonJet has been around for years.

I don't judge Musk for reacting to his experience with harassment. My sincere hope is that he uses this to reconsider his supposed free speech absolutism. Musk has a right to ban whomever he chooses, even when they don't break the rules.

That said, ElonJet didn't break the rules.

Yes ElonJet broke the rules and no the information was not publicly available. Elon had a PIA in place which anonymized his plane's ICAO identifier. For every flight Elon makes his plane has a different ICAO identifier in the database. ElonJet was using ground spotters to sleuth out the ICAO identifier for the flight. That is NOT public information. It is no different from having someone on the ground follow a judge home to then post their home address.

 

[The Thriller]

I disagree. I think @Bucknutz has gotten a little emotional, confused censorship with criticism, and posting on adrenaline. I think he'll realize that fairly quickly. That's very different from arguing in bad faith.

We'll see. I just responded to his post and I hope he engages in a good faith manner.

I think you typed out these responses with some emotion and a little adrenaline, as well. Quite frankly, with regard to 'lame attempts at “gotcha”', specks and planks.

It is rather obnoxious that the "conservatives" on this forum go out of their way to make personal attacks on me rather than debate issues rationally and in good faith. But I guess when you can't debate the issues, personal attacks will suffice. Then they whine when I refer to them as trolls.

Who has said Musk is not being hypocritical?

Those who currently defend him. Up until five minutes ago, they were critical of the moderating of insurrectionists, racists, and those violating set Twitter policy. They demanded "free speech" on social media, despite whatever consensus company management had put into terms of policy. Now, they praise Musk banning journalists who don't appear to have violated policy but are perceived to be enemies of their RW tribe. I support moderation and policy making. Right now it appears that Musk is making stuff up as he pleases and because of tribalism, is seeing a lot of the RW rush to his defense. Free speech principles be damned.

 

[The Thriller]

The problem is that if the community isn't fairly heavily moderated then it always devolves into the extremes. They are the loudest and they are the bullies, so the regular folks go elsewhere, or get swept up in the chaos, feeling like they are part of some counter-culture insurgency righting all the wrongs, whatever they have deluded themselves into believing those wrongs are. This is a large part of why I do not engage in any social media, really. Jazz Fanz and a few other forums are my only "social media" and the other forums are more geek-centric some with strict no-politics policies.

As a side note, I otherwise try to do the weird thing in the world today, I try to talk to real flesh and blood people. During COVID we have cut down on these interactions, but we regularly host(ed) barbecues or dinners or block parties or whatever you want to call it for people in our church, and not in our church, and from work, or from the neighborhood, and they are usually really well-received. And it is there I try to talk to people about current events, and get a different perspective. But it is NOT the norm. When I approached a guy that just moved in this last summer about coming to one of our gatherings, he was genuinely perplexed, like "you want to have us come to dinner, at your house, and we can sit around and talk", I mean it was weird. But he came and brought his fam and has come to a few more since. Probably mostly for the ribs and pulled pork, but most people enjoy the discussions because it is a lot of diverse backgrounds in a non-threatening setting and without the toxic anonymity of the cesspools of FB and Twitter.

Don't get me wrong, we don't always have these in-depth philosophical conversations and ****, mostly it is sports and what the kids are up to and how's work, but we do get into some really interesting exchanges about things like BLM and Trump and Jan 6, etc. I highly recommend it if you can pull it off in your neighborhood. Plus I find new basketball players this way for our Saturday morning games at the local park, or at least rope people into it. lol

Oh and another big benefit of this is we tend to look out for each other, like when we are away on vacation and such. My neighbor has a key to my house and I have one to his and the code to his security system.


Won't be long and that 75" OLED will be MINE!!!! bu-wah hah hah hah!!!

But getting to know someone in person means effort and getting to know someone and perhaps listening to them. It's much easier to turn off our brains, play on social media and teevee, and just play the tribal game of "gotcha."

Dan Vallone: The History Wars Are Not What They Seem

Americans are less divided than they think about how schools should teach about our nation’s history. Conflict entrepreneurs are stoking polarization and cherry picking extreme opinions as majority views. More in Common’s Dan Vallone joins guest host Mona Charen today. Learn more about your ad...

www.thebulwark.com

Dan Vallone joined the Bulwark earlier this week in a 30 min podcast to discuss his research that Americans aren't actually as divided as they appear to be. Unfortunately, there's a billion dollar industry that thrives off selling the rage and sadly a lot of Americans are addicted to the rage. It was a really interesting episode.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Then you start with the personal attacks.

What The Thriller means when is says that you're trolling and "not arguing in good faith" is that you post things that contradict everything he's read on a topic. The Thriller only, Only, ONLY ever reads a curated hyper-partisan viewpoints. When he wrote the following, he wasn't lying but really didn't know better.

It should be stated that few if any of the journalists suspended yesterday were tweeting Musk’s location. They appear to have been suspended because they were critical of the “free speech absolutist” who owns twitter.

One Brow knows different because One Brow likes to argue with the other side of the aisle and so takes in their information to better 'debunk' it. Kudos to One Brow for calling out The Thriller's naive proclamations. If you want to be considered a good faith poster, you must refrain from posting information that is not in the sphere of the political left. The Thriller will think you are trolling before it occurs to him that he maybe doesn't have all the facts.

 

[One Brow]

Yes ElonJet broke the rules and no the information was not publicly available. Elon had a PIA in place which anonymized his plane's ICAO identifier. For every flight Elon makes his plane has a different ICAO identifier in the database. ElonJet was using ground spotters to sleuth out the ICAO identifier for the flight. That is NOT public information. It is no different from having someone on the ground follow a judge home to then post their home address.

You really think ElonJet has people all over the country reporting to him on when Musk's plane lands and takes off? That's 100 or so unpaid volunteers in 50 different airports who have access to private jet runways to visually verify which planes come and go? You read that somewhere, thought "this makes sense", and repeated it? Do *some* critical thinking.


View: https://twitter.com/TitterTakeover/status/1603518022181855254




No spotters needed, it's all automatic.

 

[One Brow]

Those who currently defend him.

People can be sincerely wrong.

 

[Bucknutz]

What additional edit are you talking about? I posted my last message at 11:11. Made its late edit at 11:20. Then you posted at 12:00 pm.

This edit...
"If conservatives like you want me to treat them as good faith actors and not trolls, you can’t do this. Cc @One Brow this Is EXACTLY what I’m talking about. Buck isn’t being honest or arguing in good faith here. If “conservatives” on this site want to be treated respectfully and not easily dismissed as trolls by me, then they need to do a better job than this. This post was merely a troll job to illicit an emotional reaction rather than accurately and honestly debate. Do you disagree? @One Brow? I hope you hold conservatives to a similar standard you hold me. One shouldn’t be making hasty troll job posts, lame attempts at “gotcha” rather than seriously debate issues in a respectful and honest manner."

What inconsistency? Have I ever said that owners of social media companies shouldn't be able to set policy?

I took the below quote from you reading it as personal "cancel culture" and not as company policy. If I was wrong, I would like to apologize.

"If only there was some sort of term that could describe this action of canceling others whom Musk disagrees with. A type of culture that cancels unpopular opinions. Hmmm"

Outraged is a bit strong. Critical of the decision? Absolutely. It's weird how you call what a handful of journalists were doing as "doxxing" in the same vein as Jones making money off torturing families of victims of Sandy Hook.

When it comes to terms of service, I don't view as what degree of the offenses is, just that it violated the terms.

Trump and insurrectionists were suspended because their tweets violated company policy.

I posted the reason Trump was banned by twitter. Once again, I don't care about the degree, but he was banned after tweeting this:

"To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th."

The Biden Administration and All Things Politics

Ya I don’t know why I’m one thing from my phone and another from my computer. Some friendly advice, you might want to contact the admins about that. Having multiple accounts is a banable thing, but if it is an honest mistake I'm sure they'd work with you on it.

jazzfanz.com

What did those journalists do to violate company policy?

I posted the policy in this thread:

Musk's Twitter starts banning journalists

View: https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1603551884748460034?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1603551884748460034%7Ctwgr%5E13cbf50db75f20540939b7465c3ab8fa6513f371%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fboardgamegeek.com%2Fthread%2F2989333%2Ftesla-electric

jazzfanz.com

I also posted Aaron Rupars sub stack stating he posted the information in the forum as well:

Musk's Twitter starts banning journalists

View: https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1603551884748460034?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1603551884748460034%7Ctwgr%5E13cbf50db75f20540939b7465c3ab8fa6513f371%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fboardgamegeek.com%2Fthread%2F2989333%2Ftesla-electric

jazzfanz.com

What policy did those journalists violate?

I even posted the warning the day before, from Elon, in this thread:

Musk's Twitter starts banning journalists

View: https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1603551884748460034?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1603551884748460034%7Ctwgr%5E13cbf50db75f20540939b7465c3ab8fa6513f371%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fboardgamegeek.com%2Fthread%2F2989333%2Ftesla-electric

jazzfanz.com

What policy do you think Alex Jones violated back in 2018?

Twitter Bans Alex Jones And InfoWars; Cites Abusive Behavior

Twitter said it has "permanently suspended" the conspiracy theorist and his InfoWars outlet, citing tweets and videos posted Wednesday that violate Twitter's policy on abusive behavior.

www.npr.org

From the link Twitter posted:
Twitter linked to its page detailing its policy on abusive behavior. That policy states, in part: "You may not engage in the targeted harassment of someone, or incite other people to do so. We consider abusive behavior an attempt to harass, intimidate, or silence someone else's voice."

Why do these two appear the same to you?

They both violate the terms of service. Easy. Once again, the degree of offense is different, but both did not follow the rules.

You were the one that got personal here by taking a screenshot of my post in a pathetic attempt to demonstrate my hypocrisy. You weren't debating issues.

After you became personal calling people, like myself "Those defending him are just tribal babies who’ve had their brains rotted out by partisanship."

You stated that in post #13. Then I responded in post #18.


I don't think you were reading my posts. I added lots of context, information and links so people can see more of the story than a partisan post from twitter.

 

[fishonjazz]

Except it isn’t…

X's private information policy and doxxing | X Help

Learn about how X handles unauthorized posting of private information, also known as doxxing, and how to report it.

help.twitter.com

View attachment 13548


Just follow the rules. This is the second time you guys have brought this up. Thinking it’s some conspiracy to go after the left. It isn’t, just people not following the rules. It’s also a private company…do you still agree with this?

View attachment 13549

It looks like you are pointing out private information and One Brow was speaking of information that is already available to the public. Not private.

 

[The Thriller]

This edit...
"If conservatives like you want me to treat them as good faith actors and not trolls, you can’t do this. Cc @One Brow this Is EXACTLY what I’m talking about. Buck isn’t being honest or arguing in good faith here. If “conservatives” on this site want to be treated respectfully and not easily dismissed as trolls by me, then they need to do a better job than this. This post was merely a troll job to illicit an emotional reaction rather than accurately and honestly debate. Do you disagree? @One Brow? I hope you hold conservatives to a similar standard you hold me. One shouldn’t be making hasty troll job posts, lame attempts at “gotcha” rather than seriously debate issues in a respectful and honest manner."



I took the below quote from you reading it as personal "cancel culture" and not as company policy. If I was wrong, I would like to apologize.

"If only there was some sort of term that could describe this action of canceling others whom Musk disagrees with. A type of culture that cancels unpopular opinions. Hmmm"



When it comes to terms of service, I don't view as what degree of the offenses is, just that it violated the terms.



I posted the reason Trump was banned by twitter. Once again, I don't care about the degree, but he was banned after tweeting this:

"To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th."

The Biden Administration and All Things Politics

Ya I don’t know why I’m one thing from my phone and another from my computer. Some friendly advice, you might want to contact the admins about that. Having multiple accounts is a banable thing, but if it is an honest mistake I'm sure they'd work with you on it.

jazzfanz.com

I posted the policy in this thread:

Musk's Twitter starts banning journalists

View: https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1603551884748460034?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1603551884748460034%7Ctwgr%5E13cbf50db75f20540939b7465c3ab8fa6513f371%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fboardgamegeek.com%2Fthread%2F2989333%2Ftesla-electric

jazzfanz.com

I also posted Aaron Rupars sub stack stating he posted the information in the forum as well:

Musk's Twitter starts banning journalists

View: https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1603551884748460034?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1603551884748460034%7Ctwgr%5E13cbf50db75f20540939b7465c3ab8fa6513f371%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fboardgamegeek.com%2Fthread%2F2989333%2Ftesla-electric

jazzfanz.com

I even posted the warning the day before, from Elon, in this thread:

Musk's Twitter starts banning journalists

View: https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1603551884748460034?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1603551884748460034%7Ctwgr%5E13cbf50db75f20540939b7465c3ab8fa6513f371%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fboardgamegeek.com%2Fthread%2F2989333%2Ftesla-electric

jazzfanz.com

Twitter Bans Alex Jones And InfoWars; Cites Abusive Behavior

Twitter said it has "permanently suspended" the conspiracy theorist and his InfoWars outlet, citing tweets and videos posted Wednesday that violate Twitter's policy on abusive behavior.

www.npr.org

From the link Twitter posted:
Twitter linked to its page detailing its policy on abusive behavior. That policy states, in part: "You may not engage in the targeted harassment of someone, or incite other people to do so. We consider abusive behavior an attempt to harass, intimidate, or silence someone else's voice."


They both violate the terms of service. Easy. Once again, the degree of offense is different, but both did not follow the rules.


After you became personal calling people, like myself "Those defending him are just tribal babies who’ve had their brains rotted out by partisanship."

You stated that in post #13. Then I responded in post #18.


I don't think you were reading my posts. I added lots of context, information and links so people can see more of the story than a partisan post from twitter.

Never have I claimed that owners of Twitter couldn’t make policy. Therefore, there is no hypocrisy on my end. Clearly there’s a difference between reporting publicly available information on Musk’s location vs inciting an insurrection or lying about children being murdered. Cmon, stop being so obtuse. Furthermore, if Musk wants to be known as the free speech absolutist that he claims to be, he shouldn’t be banning folks for posting public information. You're defending him because you see him going after your perceived enemies, “the left.”

You’re not responding rationally or in good faith here. You’re arguing for the sake of arguing. I gave you a chance and now it’s back onto the block list. Arguing with you is worthless as you’re not listening to my pts nor adjusting your talking pts to what’s being presented. You’re regurgitating the same nonsense page after page after page. Waste of time.

I never directed a message to you. You jumped the gun and got personal in a lame attempt to “get me” on some pathetic attempt to expose hypocrisy when none exists.

Per usual on this site, “conservatives” cannot debate the facts rationally and circle the wagons. The conversation devolves into personal attacks and emotional outbursts to defend their tribe and attack perceived political enemies. It’s getting old. And now the thread is off track with you and Al hoping to extract their pound of flesh. Really, I’m flattered. But perhaps others in this thread would like to read good material rather than a pissing match?

 

[The Thriller]

It looks like you are pointing out private information and One Brow was speaking of information that is already available to the public. Not private.

But Musk is going after “the left” and that’s awesome. How dare anyone criticize this. Just follow the rules. Or something. Posting publicly available information is like threatening to billionaires who claim to be free speech absolutists. Or something.

Just follow the rules. This is the second time you guys have brought this up. Thinking it’s some conspiracy to go after the left. It isn’t, just people not following the rules. It’s also a private company…do you still agree with this?

I’m old enough to remember a former president who didn’t follow the rules. Yet his account is active. Wonder why right wingers aren’t demanding his account to be suspended? After all, “follow the rules.”

Clearly, no hypocrisy being shown by bad faith actors here….

 

[Bucknutz]

You’re not responding rationally or in good faith here. You’re arguing for the sake of arguing. I gave you a chance and now it’s back onto the block list.

I did respond rationally and in good faith. You didn’t like the answers. Don’t care you block people. You are complaining about people who silencing others, while silencing them. Hypocrisy. Stay in your left wing echo chamber and stay uninformed with partisan information.

Arguing with you is worthless as you’re not listening to my pts nor adjusting your talking pts to what’s being presented.

You literally didn’t bring anything to this conversation. Literally nothing. No new information, no context, no data. Just you complaining about the “conservatives”

You’re regurgitating the same nonsense page after page after page. Waste of time.

Because you can’t or will not read my posts. They answered your questions, before you asked them. So I had to send links, to not write it again.

I never directed a message to you. You jumped the gun and got personal in a lame attempt to “get me” on some pathetic attempt to expose hypocrisy when none exists.

I already apologized for my misreading of your opinion. I never said you direct messaged me.

Per usual on this site, “conservatives” cannot debate the facts rationally and circle the wagons.

Once again, not a conservative, and again I am the only one who posted facts. You brought 0 facts, just a partisan opinion.

The conversation devolves into personal attacks and emotional outbursts to defend their tribe and attack perceived political enemies.

Yes, you start with personal attacks when you can’t debate. This happens every time. You can’t debate and you have no depth.

It’s getting old. And now the thread is off track with you and Al hoping to extract their pound of flesh. Really, I’m flattered. But perhaps others in this thread would like to read good material rather than a pissing match?

Agreed

 

[Bucknutz]

It looks like you are pointing out private information and One Brow was speaking of information that is already available to the public. Not private.

We are speaking on the same thing. Elonjet has created a program that takes public information (flight plans ect) and then uses software to take private information from the transponders and compute where the plane is.
Yes, it has part public information and part private information. Overall Elons flights would be private without this process. Then Elonjet takes the information and publishes it. This is where you could consider it public. With Twitters TOS, this is not the case. It is not published by the owner (Elon). So people who post the Elonjet information on Twitter will get a 7 day suspension.

Once again, it’s subjective if it’s public information and to the owner and his recent harassment, it’s considered private.

He is not going after the left. It’s just that the left leaning journalists were not following the rules.