Originally published at: Twitter bans "live" reports of anyone's location, justifying ban on @Elonjet—but also implicating news reporting and tweeting about your lunch salad | Boing Boing
…
1: Act like a complete arse.
2: ?
3: Profit?
And he’s going to depend on AI to pick out the offending stuff? Good luck with that.
So a new rule every time Mr. Free Speech’s fee-fees get hurt?
So no live tweeting sports events, moon landings, court rooms or elections?
Got it. That’s gonna help Twitter succeed. /s
But all of that is legal. How many times has he broken that so-called promise?
Gonna be a new rule for every specific thing Elon doesn’t like, that’ll apply to that thing, and that thing only. They won’t need a system to pick out the offending stuff because Musk only cares about the one example. The rule simply won’t get applied even to identical things unless someone makes a big fuss about it, and they’re forced to apply the rule on a case-by-case basis, presumably.
I know it’s not your choice, but that blue text on orange hurts my brain.
Desaturated the image for you.
Musk says global warming is a hoax in 5 … 4 … 3 …
So, no Santa tracker this year?
I used to defend Elon for his work pushing electric vehicles and private space industry, but since his tantrum over the cave submarine, he can well and truly go fuck himself.
He’s walking cancer
Which is funny, since they seemed to put in a clause to specifically suspend Jack Sweeney’s tracking accounts automatically (though planes aren’t people).
That was very thoughtful.
You can still volunteer personal information. Santa will have to track his own location, otherwise the tracker needs permission.
You can just go to the original Santa Tracker…
Twitter always knows users’ real time locations.
Any web site that embeds a Twitter post in its articles lets Twitter know the real time location of the website’s reader. It uses that metadata to personally track us and try to sell us stuff, but it also sells that data to bad dictators who persecute and imprison people.
That’s just the facts.
So they came up with a rule specifically to target this account, realized it didn’t actually apply, had to unban it, then are now presumably coming up with a new rule that will apply, so they’re banning it again in preparation for the new rule? Or are they just entirely giving up the pretense that they’re ruled by policy, and admitting they’re ruled instead by Elon’s whims?
Well, they’re going to … checks list … yes.
So this shit’s still okay as long as it’s written in the past tense?