The ongoing Elon Twitter saga: "insert demographic" melts down

[GordyR]

Go back to your initial post from our interaction, your 1st assumption should be very apparent, even for you.

I can't see any posts from me on that page. Why not simply quote me? That would make things much easier, surely?

Also, when you said:

Quite a few times you've made an incorrect assumption isnt it.

And this:

Your little snippet is just a continuation of your false assumptions

That implies that you think I made multiple incorrect assumptions about you.

Any chance you could quote me on those too? Or is it just now one incorrect assumption?

 

[dowie]

You mean ‘some alleged lunatic allegedly jumping on a car’ surely. The video shows no crime being committed and certainly doesn’t appear to show anyone jumping on a car.

Or do we believe male billionaires without evidence?

Which video? I'm not aware there was video of the incident? edit There is a video posted in this thread of (presumably security) getting the guy's details, not the incident, presumably because it was shot after the incident! Anyway if you're going to be anal about it you missed the "if" in the snippet you quoted.

Because its ridiculous and will only be selectively used to suit Elon. Its just one more example of him acting like a dictator and Twitter is his state. He even called it doxing when he knows it isn't.

You don't have any basis for that claim, it's a now a platform-wide rule so I doubt Elon is going to individually chose when to apply it.

Also if you're going to state it is ridiculous perhaps you could state why you believe the rule is ridiculous? (To be clear I'm asking you about the rule here not Elon)

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

You don't have any basis for that claim, it's a now a platform-wide rule so I doubt Elon is going to individually chose when to apply it.

Also if you're going to state it is ridiculous perhaps you could state why you believe the rule is ridiculous? (To be clear I'm asking you about the rule here not Elon)

As I said in an earlier post I think the US should have a right to privacy, I think every nation should, so posting anything about someone's private life should be an issue. If he was to bring in a ban on that I could definitely see a benefit, no way he does that though. He has bought this rule in just because he didn't like the Elon jet tracking account, he doesn't care about any one elses privacy being infringed upon, he just cares about his.

 

[wesimmo]

I can't see any posts from me on that page. Why not simply quote me? That would make things much easier, surely?

Also, when you said:



And this:



That implies that you think I made multiple incorrect assumptions about you.

Any chance you could quote me on those too? Or is it just now one incorrect assumption?

I think you've found yourself a B Grade Dowie.

 

[dowie]

As I said in an earlier post I think the US should have a right to privacy, so posting anything about someone's private life should be an issue. If he was to bring in a ban on that I could definitely see a benefit, no way he does that though. He has bought this rule in just because he didn't like the Elon jet tracking account, he doesn't care about any one elses privacy being infringed upon, he just cares about his.

I did try to anticipate this, again:

(To be clear I'm asking you about the rule here not Elon)

I mean you should be able to construct an argument about why the rule itself is bad without even mentioning Elon, I'm not asking you to guess Elon's motivations re: his jet etc.. I'm asking you about why you think the rule is bad.

The rule doesn't depend on a general right to privacy, the details can be posted with a delay, it simply concerns the security issue of real time details of third parties being posted.

 

[C Kent]

I can't see any posts from me on that page. Why not simply quote me? That would make things much easier, surely?

Spoiler: One

Like everyone else you could simply judge each event individually and apply criticism where it's due.

Spoiler: Two

Injecting a tiny "I don't agree with this little bit but..." disclaimer, into what is a 100+ post long defence against all criticism of him, doesn't really count as criticism itself in my opinion.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

I did try to anticipate this, again:

(To be clear I'm asking you about the rule here not Elon)

I mean you should be able to construct an argument about why the rule itself is bad without even mentioning Elon, I'm not asking you to guess Elon's motivations re: his jet etc.. I'm asking you about why you think the rule is bad.

The rule doesn't depend on a general right to privacy, the details can be posted with a delay, it simply concerns the security issue of real time details of third parties being posted.

The ridiculous bit is Elon. Its him using Twitter as his personal little state, changing rules to suit him on a whim for his own benefit. Is that really hard to understand? It can't be enforced in any real way as journalists post the location of people all the time. Its just someone with a god complex acting out. But he paid $44b to be able to do that, he just shouldn't say he's a fan of free speech because he isn't, he just likes free speech until he doesn't, then he bans it.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1519036983137509376

 

[GordyR]

Okay so just to be clear, the first incorrect assumption that you've charged me with was when in response to this:

how many posts of "eLoN iS a MoRoN" do I need to churn out?

I said the following:

Zero...

Like everyone else you could simply judge each event individually and apply criticism where it's due.

Not exactly a damning indictment there old boy. I don't think there is any particular assumption in that sentence, context is everything after all.

And for your second charge, you've chosen this:

Injecting a tiny "I don't agree with this little bit but..." disclaimer, into what is a 100+ post long defence against all criticism of him, doesn't really count as criticism itself in my opinion.

Again, not really much to write home about, especially given that I subsequently clarified what I meant, with this:

I'm saying that I don't believe that your single, mild disagreement with Elon, assuming of course that it's genuine, amounts to evidence that you've been fair and balanced in your assessment of the multiple events that have taken place during the course of this thread.

I don't know, maybe it's just me? But if was going to lay accusations of making multiple false assumptions at someone, I would probably make sure that it was a pretty rock solid case.

But still, if you genuinely think that the above constitutes some grave crime of outrageous, multiple false assumptions against your person, then hey, what can I say?

I personally think that would be mightily over-sensitive of you, but who am I to argue?

 

[unwashed potato!]

I never knew @C Kent was so hurt by simple things. What a snowball.

He's moaning about thumbs up from gordy, I assume he also moaned about the thumbs up his post got from my old friend Plas? Nope, nothing?

We should have had a sweepstake

I would have gone all in for @Roar87 being the only one to make that claim, but so would everyone else. We'd all be voting on the same one that no one would win anything sadly.

Edit
@Roar87 I'm just on the toilet, that's why I'm posting, before you say I should get back to work or anything.

Hope that doesn't make you roid rage like we've seen of late.

 

[plasmahal]

It's not Antifa, its that weird ex head of trust and safety, the guy that wants to let kids on grindr

Same thing!!!!!!!!!!

 

[dowie]

The ridiculous bit is Elon. Its him using Twitter as his personal little state, changing rules to suit him on a whim for his own benefit. Is that really hard to understand?

No, it's quite obvious you've got a bee in your bonnet about Elon which is why I prefaced my question to be about the rule, which was apparently both ridiculous and will only be selectively used. The second point is flawed as it is site-wide, if you don't in fact think the rule is ridiculous then you could have simply said so; instead I've just had a couple of replies in a row where you're ranting about Elon again even though I quite clearly stated, twice, that that isn't what I was asking you about.

 

[C Kent]

Okay so just to be clear, the first incorrect assumption that you've charged me with was when in response to this:

I said the following:

Not exactly a damning indictment there old boy. I don't think there is any particular assumption in that sentence, context is everything after all.

oh, so you haven't made an assumption with the statement "Like everyone else you could simply judge each event individually and apply criticism where it's due", gotcha. So what was the post in aid of? What was the point? ***** and giggles? I mean that does make sense given the context of your posts and the ad hominem attacks, given it was you that chose to initiate dialogue with me.

And for your second charge, you've chosen this:



Again, not really much to write home about, especially given that I subsequently clarified what I meant, with this:

Yes, we've already established your backtracking.

I don't know, maybe it's just me? But if was going to lay accusations of making multiple false assumptions at someone, I would probably make sure that it was a pretty rock solid case.

But still, if you genuinely think that the above constitutes some grave crime of outrageous, multiple false assumptions against your person, then hey, what can I say?

I personally think that would be mightily over-sensitive of you, but who am I to argue?

Well again, you've decided that my posts in the thread are a blasé defense of musk based solely on some sort of 'cult of personality', if you can point to this I would love to see it. From memory, my only 'defense' of new Twitter would be the massive improvement that has seemingly been made regarding certain imagery. Then again you probably think my laughing at the doomsayers claiming twitter was going to crash and die as some sort of defense of the bloke at this point in time.

 

[hudson86]

*** Sorry probably fake.

 

[i-bert]

*** Sorry probably fake.

Spoil sport.

Put it back up! There will have been quite a few off here on the vinigar stroke hoping that was true.

 

[Hotwired]

No, it's quite obvious you've got a bee in your bonnet about Elon which is why I prefaced my question to be about the rule, which was apparently both ridiculous and will only be selectively used. The second point is flawed as it is site-wide, if you don't in fact think the rule is ridiculous then you could have simply said so; instead I've just had a couple of replies in a row where you're ranting about Elon again even though I quite clearly stated, twice, that that isn't what I was asking you about.

Briefly putting aside the short chain of events from Elon getting booed for 10 mins straight in what he thought was a safe space to him deciding that standing by his free speech statement was too high a price to suffer a student tracking his plane.

The rule is ridiculous because it claims punishment for live location reporting (unless you're media or otherwise exempt by the whims or laziness of Twitter, in which case go ahead) and unless I'm mistaken, actually preventing harm from real time location posting would require a large real time moderation team which would be a fascinating thing to see Elon commit to at this stage.

The first and only case of banning someone for it was premeditated for quite some time starting with an undeclared shadowban and doesn't go through the warning/punishment stages mentioned so is an appalling demonstration and a giant neon sign to why it was invented in the first place. The diversion of the car story fails to mention any real time location sharing that led to it occurring yet the plane guy is specially mentioned as deserving legal action.

This rule's beneficial value and its honest enforcement has shown no proof worth taking seriously.

As an aside, many laws are written in blood which is a crude way describing tangible evidence that bringing in more restrictions was truly necessary. To not present any evidence of harm and go right to chucking restrictions around is extremely unusual and doesn't inspire confidence.

So to pick up the words ridiculous and selectively used, both of those are proven. The benefit of this new rule is not.

I am not incidentally inviting a discussion on a perfect use of selective publicity control that doesn't exist.

 

[dowie]

The rule is ridiculous because it claims punishment for live location reporting (unless you're media or otherwise exempt by the whims or laziness of Twitter, in which case go ahead) and unless I'm mistaken, actually preventing harm from real time location posting would require a large real time moderation team which would be a fascinating thing to see Elon commit to at this stage.

Yeah, I think you're mistaken, that's like saying unmonitored CCTV cant deter crime because it can't only be reviewed after the fact. The fact that action can be taken for posting a snap of some celeb and their location is still a deterrent and can still reduce the bad effects from it.

In particular consider that not all twitter accounts are equal, far from it, the big hip hop, celeb gossip etc.. accounts aren't likely going to want to risk it all breaching this rule and that in itself has a far greater impact than say some <1000 follower lowbie account that disregards the rule and sends some pic that say only ends up being seen by 40 people.

This rule's beneficial value and its honest enforcement has shown no proof worth taking seriously.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, the issues with current locations being highlighted on social media can be severe (I've given an example of a literal murder taking place as a result) reducing the risk of that seems like a beneficial thing to do.

 

[mattx4]

Yeah, I think you're mistaken, that's like saying unmonitored CCTV cant deter crime because it can't only be reviewed after the fact. The fact that action can be taken for posting a snap of some celeb and their location is still a deterrent and can still reduce the bad effects from it.

In particular consider that not all twitter accounts are equal, far from it, the big hip hop, celeb gossip etc.. accounts aren't likely going to want to risk it all breaching this rule and that in itself has a far greater impact than say some <1000 follower lowbie account that disregards the rule and sends some pic that say only ends up being seen by 40 people.



I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, the issues with current locations being highlighted on social media can be severe (I've given an example of a literal murder taking place as a result) reducing the risk of that seems like a beneficial thing to do.

So does this rule stop them posting pictures of Hunter from his laptop?

 

[dowie]

So does this rule stop them posting pictures of Hunter from his laptop?

Are you a fan of his?

 

[mattx4]

Are you a fan of his

He knows how to party

I am big fan of well written rules because looking at the way the rules are written it's not clear if they should show them

He's a private citizen and doesn't hold office nor is he particularly famous before the laptop leak.

They wouldn't have his permission to upload those pics

It doesn't matter if they are available on other sites

The loophole is if it's in the public interest.

Now who decides that. We are once again back to process where employees are deciding what free speech is and what is in the public interest. They very things Elon accused the previous Admins of doing. Still a massive lack of transparency

 

[dowie]

He knows how to party

I am big fan of well written rules because looking at the way the rules are written it's not clear if they should show them

He's a private citizen and doesn't hold office not is he particularly famous before the laptop leak.
[...]

I thought you were just making some weird comment. You were actually asking a serious question?

So does this rule stop them posting pictures of Hunter from his laptop?

It's totally unrelated surely, I don't even know why you're asking that. What does the Hunter Biden laptop have to do with posting a pic of someone's current location?