If the data were gathered from already public information, I wouldn't have a problem with it. How is synthesizing data that's already public (indeed, required by law to be public) a problem?
Anyone that actually wanted to use this data to harm Musk would have no trouble simply using the exact same original data.
Based on the evidence (safety claim by Elon, death of Diana) it appears that promoting and publicising it makes it accessible to a wider audience that does have an effect on real world consequences. I presume this is also why marketing works on a platform that enhances the reach and distribution of a particular piece of information.
Anecdotally, I did see the @ElonJet account, and have still never seen the source of the data.
> Based on the evidence (safety claim by Elon, death of Diana) it appears that promoting and publicising it makes it accessible to a wider audience that does have an effect on real world consequences.
Wow, you have to reach back 25 years, and it's an absolutely terrible example because it has nothing to do with a constant publication of location to the general public. Instead paparazzi used their own private communications (paparazzi who saw her board in Sardinia told other paparazzi in France). And her death wasn't caused by someone who found out her location and wanted to do her harm.
"Safety claim by Elon" is also completely meaningless since he's literally the person who wanted this shut down.
So two really bad examples over 25 years is not evidence for your claim.
Finally, using public information to say the state or country Elon has recently flown to is a far cry from actually giving away his current location.
> that promoting and publicising it makes it accessible to a wider audience that does have an effect on real world consequences.
So you'd be okay with banning misinformation about COVID and the COVID vaccine? Misinformation and agitprop had very real consequences in the real world.
The test of the truth of a live location is trivial. The test of truth of COVID information is not. In the case are spreading something that is provably untrue eg. 1 + 1 = 3, even in that case, you should just rebut and explain why it is untrue.
Nice strawman!
It's a question of safety of provably true information in this case.
>The test of the truth of a live location is trivial. The test of truth of COVID information is not.
The assertion that posting a 'live location' create dangerous real world consequences is completely absurd. We know plenty about the dead humans COVID misinformation left in its wake.
You are okay with censorship here because you agree with it. Full stop.
>It's a question of safety of provably true information in this case.
Yeah, misinformation and agitprop have very real consequences, but Twitter still shouldn't ban, e.g., Anthony Fauci (if he had an account) or CNN, no matter how much misinformation or agitprop they spread. That stuff should be addressed with replies, community notes, and other commentary.
Again, the account didn't post passenger manifests. It posted publicly available ADS-B data, automatically. You can review the source, if you like: https://github.com/Jxck-S/plane-notify
