Posted by JumpCrisscross 10/22/2024
Musk is an even more obvious case of hypocrisy. The "free speech absolutist" is very selective about when it applies.
What? That's literally why people use Facebook.
That is why I said "dressing it up" - is is a pretext for his primary goal.
1. The entity can not legally do X.
2. The entity can legally do X, but they're engaging in lies/hypocrisy/favoritism and deserves to be roundly called out for being a bad actor.
Banning people from sharing links to public tracking data demonstrates that their commitment to speech is extremely shallow. This suggests that despite their claims, supporting free speech was never a priority on their platforms, and was simply cover for allowing content which helped metrics or aligned with their political goals.
Pretty sure it's just Zuck haters trying to annoy Zuck.
The decisions Mark makes are more consequential than his private jet usage.
It's to illustrate the hypocrisy.
Yes, you could be "unlisted" (for a fee) but that was not really considered normal.
And, newspapers of all sizes carried personal information in blurbs, such as "John Smith is in town for 3 days, visiting with relatives here."
However, when the Sexual Revolution kicked in, it became customary for women in the 1970s and later to conceal their identities in White Pages listings, and request listings of simply "J. Smith", if they were listed at all. Because otherwise, the White Pages were a good "shopping list" for obscene/prank phone callers.
Now with it being digital it's too easy to casually find and abuse. The barrier to access is a lot lower.
(And, for the sake of accuracy, the yellow pages were a business directory that companies paid for higher profile ads. The white pages were the directory of individuals.)
Good thing people don't live on a plane, and ports (private or public) aren't just places you get to walk up to with a gun. That's all the information we get.
- Safety (never know when you might get fame/notoriety)
I'm not aware of any statutes in the United States that codify or prohibit "doxxing." Europe might have something to say on this matter, but in the United States, "doxxing" is just a colloquialism: it's not a crime.
Private companies are welcome to prohibit this behavior from areas under their dominion if that's desirable, but no civil nor criminal action may be levied against someone disclosing truthful, publicly-available information.
"doxxing" doesn't have a clear definition. It could mean anywhere between "posting personal information, however obtained" and "posting non-public personal information", which makes this statement questionable.
Setting aside any possible agreements/disagreements with that, the flight tracking information is freely public, available to anyone who wants to look- go on flightaware. Flight information has never been private, nobody treats it as private, so why would social media* companies pretend it is? I don't think home addresses are that comparable in this situation.
EDIT: company name
I don't know. To me this feels the equivalent of having paparazzo permanently on your tail. I know, it's just a ultrarich person, they don't need our defending. Just feels like like a overkill method of accountability to make a tail visible and available for all to see all the time
Aircraft are (in general) required to transmit ADS-B information in the clear over RF that contains information identifying the aircraft.
Aircraft registrations are public. You can go to the FAA[1] and look up who owns what airplane and what their address is. Some aircraft owners choose to obfuscate their ownership through shell companies or LLCs.
Passenger manifests are collected by the FAA for airlines and charter flights, but they are not made available to the public.
So you can know who owns the plane that's flying over your antenna, but not who's on it.
1: https://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/aircraft_certifica...