Maybe they should focus on putting their attention to their journalism at their journal website.
Part of the reason those sites don't get traffic is the engagement is elsewhere.
But it is a private company musk can do wht ever he wants
shareTemporarily suspending people for doxing him, or encouraging doxing him, or approving of doxing him, is not banning. He should have cut the SOBs off permanently.
shareDoxing is when you give out personal information. Flight plans from publicly available tracking apps is not personal information.
shareA man's personal location, is clearly personal.
No it isn't. Would that include tweeting a live stream of him out in public? I'm pretty sure twitter aren't going to suspend all accounts which stream live video on the platform. And live videos are giving the personal location of everybody who appears in them.
Or maybe..... maybe, it's because it's Musk....
So, all you have to do to support your snide implications, is show that he allows similar treatment of other public figures, without them being banned by twitter.
I don't imply it. The hypocrisy is already there hiding behind "doxing" while pretending to crusade for free speech.
So, do you have any examples of him allowing other celebrities to be "doxxed", while protecting himself?
Because it seems what you really have is you finding an example of "doxxing" that you think you can spin as NOT doxxing, when it is not unreasonable to consider it to be doxxing.
You still haven't answered how tweeting publicly available info is definitely doxing while live tweeting a video of someone in a public place is not.
shareThe tweeting of someone in a public place, hopefully is connected with some piont about their actions or words, and not just an attempt to let potentially hostile thugs know where they are for attack purposes.
Giving out the location of a private plane, seems to be at best, an intimidation tactic, and thus malicious.
Thus, imo, reasonably considered "doxing".
Also, I note that you have NOT given any examples to support your claim of hypocrisy, in your attack on Musk.
And ADDITIONALLY, if this is your worse point in attacking his free speech bona fides, considering the record of the previous regime at twitter, not to mention the overall trends in society and government, I would say that Musk is still completely qualified to "identify" as a "Champion of Free Speech".
So it's doxing if you suspect the motives are malicious. And that gives you the excuse to defy your own professed "free speech" ideals.
Got it.
I looked up the definition of doxing to make sure I was on the right page. It includes, "normally malicious".
But, my point, is, that this is your best example and it's pretty weak. EVEN if your spin were correct and it was NOT doxing, and Musk was being hypocritical,
he would so much better than the previous twitter admin, that worked with government... agencies to suppress information from reaching voters DURING AN ELECTION or the violent mobs that use force or the threat of force to silence their enemies, or the online bully mobs that cancel and deplatform people for the most retarded justifications imaginable.
That his take over would still be a huge step forward for Free Speech and he could still reasonable cast himself as a Champion of Free Speech.
As a Free Speech guy, you know, like all normal Americans used to be, I consider this development an unmitigated win.
Why are you unhappy with it?
Elon Musk = King Dick, one of the most hated men on the planet. Deservingly so.
share[deleted]
Doing more for free speech and the first amendment than 200 years of career politicians.
share