Musk Critics Including Laura Loomer Claim Censorship on X, Loss of X Badges

[u/Doctor_Byronic]

https://www.cf.org/news/musk-critics-including-laura-loomer-claim-censorship-on-x-loss-of-x-badges/

[u/cathbadh]

What purpose does sharing his flight data provide other than encouraging people to stalk him?

This very sub has used it to shame supposed environmentalists for use of private planes. Is that stalking and somehow wrong? Others could use it to organize protests where he and other public figures are at, using their actual, constitutional right to free speech.

You say stalk... He's the richest man on Earth. He could conceivably hire an actual army to overthrow a country if he wanted. He has great private security, better than the leaders of some nations. He'll be fine without special protections created just for him.

The important part of free speech is being able to publicly share and discuss your opinions. Critically, the old Twitter censored people for sharing opinions it didn’t like or agree with.

If this report is accurate, the new one does too.

The question is how to differentiate harassment from expression of opinions. And it comes down to making a judgment call about intent.

Sharing public information is not harassment, even when it's public information related to the ruling class.

The dude who was sharing Musk’s flight info seemed to be trying to intimidate him

I don't see that, but how? How can he intimidate a man worth more than some countries? What power does a 20something year old sharing information that is incredibly easy to find have over that?

Yes, it’s data that is technically publicly available

Not "technically." It's published in real time for all to see. It is literally publicly available. Sorry, banning info on website A that is available on website B isn't making him safer by any reasonable amount.

which increases the likelihood some nutjob will see it and stalk Elon.

Wider availability of firearms increases the likelihood that someone could harm Elon or other public figures too. Time for gun control, right? We must protect our wealthier betters at all cost!!!

It may not be technically “doxxing” but it serves a similar goal.

It's no more "doxxing" than listing the that the President lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

If he wanted to say how much he hates Elon, that could be done without that data. If he wanted to start a conversation about limits of free speech, that could be done without that data.

Tell that to Loomer and the others.

Yes, this is still censorship, but it’s a characteristically different kind of censorship from the kind happening at the old Twitter.

True. There it affected conservatives. Here it affects those King Elon doesn't like. All hail our social betters.

I understand that this theoretically diminishes the “free speech absolutist” claim, because theoretically there might be some legitimate reason to share the flight data.

Not theoretically. Literally.

But I also understand that Elon, who pays the server bills for X, doesn’t want to pay to make it easier for people to stalk him. You’re free to create a website StalkElon.com and test First Amendment limits with your own money.

All true. However claiming to be a free speech advocate, and claiming to promote it on your platform, while wielding said platform as a weapon against those who dare criticize you is hypocrisy. Musk is no ally to free speech.

[u/StarMNF → u/cathbadh]

First, I want to say that IF Elon is censoring Loomer then that is wrong and hypocritical of him. I was never defending that, but speaking about the flight data, which I consider a very different situation.

Most of your argument seems to boil down to “Elon is rich and powerful, so he shouldn’t worry about being intimidated or harassed.”

So does that mean it’s not okay to share the flight data of someone who isn’t as rich as Elon??? Drawing the line at someone’s ability to hypothetically defend themselves from harassment doesn’t seem like the right line to draw.

Also keep in mind that rich people aren’t invincible. Consider the Manson murders. Yes, you can hire a ton of security, but most people don’t want to live that way if they can help it.

Let’s go back to the nature of the information itself, because that’s the crux of the issue. You argued that the flight data can be used to make an argument about hypocritical environmentalists.

Fair enough, but can’t you make that argument without providing specific real time information? You can say so-and-so flew 1,000 times in the last month, without providing every detail. Averages and summary statistics will be more useful in making your argument than raw data.

That’s what a newspaper would do. They would publish enough information to make the case, without publishing needless details that only serve to violate someone’s privacy.

Well…unless they’re a paparazzi tabloid like TMZ. Then the goal might be invading a celebrity’s privacy for entertainment.

But the point is that there’s a difference between expressing an opinion and being a paparazzi. While banning paparazzi-like behavior is a restriction on free speech, it’s not the same kind of restriction as banning opinions.

[u/cathbadh → u/StarMNF]

So does that mean it’s not okay to share the flight data of someone who isn’t as rich as Elon???

I didn't say that. It's a rebuttal to the pretend fears that Musk must be protected at all costs from all of these stalkers who are so lazy about their stalking that they only look to Twitter.

Fair enough, but can’t you make that argument without providing specific real time information?

Sure. Is that the bar we 're going to use for free speech now? Limit it by time or vagueness to ensure the rich and powerful are happy? Regardless, your argument should be with the FAA here.

That’s what a newspaper would do. They would publish enough information to make the case, without publishing needless details that only serve to violate someone’s privacy.

Random activists are not newspaper journalists. Are those the only ones who should be allowed to speak ill of our social betters?

But the point is that there’s a difference between expressing an opinion and being a paparazzi. While banning paparazzi-like behavior is a restriction on free speech, it’s not the same kind of restriction as banning opinions.

Christ, you sound like the Biden folks who wanted to police misinformation. Anything to protect our kings though, right?

[u/StarMNF → u/cathbadh]

You’re making a false equivalence.

Policing misinformation is dangerous because the person judging the misinformation may judge incorrectly, and that authority is easy to abuse.

We have many examples of where so called “fact checkers” have gotten it wrong. And things that the mainstream media dismisses at first, like the “COVID lab leak” theory are later proven to have merit.

But hypothetically banning paparazzi behavior is not the same thing. You can argue there would be downsides to such a ban, but those downsides are not the same ones as the risk of policing misinformation.

ANY RESTRICTION on free speech will have some downsides to it.

But there is nowhere you can go without some restrictions on speech. Even the United States with its strong First Amendment protections has restrictions on speech. You can’t “yell fire in a crowded theater”, you can be sued out of existence for libel, and you can sued for republishing copyrighted material.

So the current laws in the U.S. are far from being true “you can say anything you want” free speech absolutist. They are still relatively more free than anywhere else in the world.

Ultimately, you have to weigh the Pros and Cons of any restrictions you place on speech. You may be of the belief that ANY restriction is bad, but then your ideal platform is illegal in the U.S. and everywhere in the world.

You can also argue for a platform that has no restrictions that go beyond U.S. law.

X is clearly not that platform. But I think it’s disingenuous to say that the restrictions X has carry the same dangers as those of old Twitter — at least, using the flight data restriction as an example.

[u/cathbadh → u/StarMNF]

Policing misinformation is dangerous because the person judging the misinformation may judge incorrectly, and that authority is easy to abuse.

True. It isn't a perfect comparison, as where misinformation can be judged, public facts, like flight data, are objective. Weird that you support restricting objective information but oppose policing subjective stuff. Why not let both flow?

But hypothetically banning paparazzi behavior is not the same thing.

Listing information found on a public website isn't paparazzi behavior.

Ultimately, you have to weigh the Pros and Cons of any restrictions you place on speech. You may be of the belief that ANY restriction is bad, but then your ideal platform is illegal in the U.S. and everywhere in the world.

You've said a lot of words to sum up "we need to protect the billionaires from our rights."

But I think it’s disingenuous to say that the restrictions X has carry the same dangers as those of old Twitter — at least, using the flight data restriction as an example.

Again, he is allowed to run his site however he wants. It just makes him a liar and hypocrite when he claims to be a free speech absolutist while simultaneously suppressing the speech of anyone who he doesn't like. Speech isn't free if you can't criticize the person providing it. But yes, he is of course allowed to restrict people tweeting flight data, or made up gender words, or daring to disagree with his demands on how the country is run.

[u/StarMNF → u/cathbadh]

No, I am not saying “we need to protect the billionaires from our rights”.

That’s a very poor summary of what I said. In fact, I said nothing even remotely like that.

It’s clear you are starting with the assumption that Elon can’t be trusted.

I am merely arguing about whether it is justifiable to ban the flight data. Forget about who did the ban. Forget about who it protects. That should be irrelevant to the debate.