Why does anyone care about alternative "narratives"? Are there any other facts that one might like to introduce? Not alternative facts, things that actually happened.
Because sometimes they are very relevant. The Kanye ban and the details around it are one example as Kanye clearly wanted people to believe it was for a different reason than it was.
I'm not saying this applies to the ElonJet case, but I can see why the question would be asked.
This same account said elsewhere in this thread "I can't think of any", about times Elon Musk has said he would do one thing, then went on to do another. This is someone who is for some reason really trying to defend Musk.
Yes, I have a lower prior than you that Musk just randomly changes his opinions all the time for no reason. And I've asked for meaningful evidence that would help me update this prior. Is this really an unfathomably bizarre epistemic strategy to you?
I am being honest here and not trying to score any points or "own" you: you might want to re-read your comments, because you don't come across as someone looking to update "priors", you come across as an Elon fanboi who has somehow decided to go to bat for him in the HN comments.
I’m still reading through this read, but your response seems like it ended up on the wrong comment or something? Because their ask does not in any way read as an Elon fanboy. I admit I may get egg in my face down thread but their top level ask is sane.
Yeah it's the right place, but I was talking about their (many) comments in this entire thread. A few have been been downvoted and might not be visible anymore. Basically this person is being a bit disingenuous, they've not entered the discussion - as they claim - with an open mind, looking to be challenged and the vibe from their comments in aggregate is decidedly pro-Musk. Nothing wrong with being pro-Musk on it's own, but they go a little above and beyond.
There I basically say that Elon has flipped on a few things, this user has pretended to not be aware of any instance of this (!) and asked for any examples, someone raises a couple and their responses to that is fairly typical of a fanboi. Tbh I should just close the tab and go walk my dog, but it's a pretty interesting discussion and it's -3C outside so I'm sorta procrastinating :)
Yep, you are right. I can find a principle that I agree with in their words - much of the criticism is lazy and makes assumptions about personal motive when there are much stronger and more damming arguments available and we should hold ourselves to a higher standard - but their response to the examples raised is to try and put more work on their conversational partner.
Frankly, as some one who engages in similar lines of questioning as the top level, I think you have to bring your own findings to the table. You aren’t arguing in good faith otherwise.
>Basically this person is being a bit disingenuous, they've not entered the discussion - as they claim - with an open mind, looking to be challenged and the vibe from their comments in aggregate is decidedly pro-Musk
Or, alternatively, I've waded into a decidedly anti-Musk crowd and my comments simply look pro-Musk in comparison.
>There I basically say that Elon has flipped on a few things, this user has pretended to not be aware of any instance of this
I said that I'm not aware of any examples of Musk reversing course without any plausible justification, and people in reply bombarded me with examples that in my view had plausible justifications, and when I raised this then I was treated as a "fanboi"... of course.
But hey, after some back and forth I think maybe there are some good examples and I can revise my priors! For example, if Musk specifically said that he would not examine Twitter's internals and then changed his mind, that would be a good example of what I'm looking for. Or if Musk said that he would've fire a bunch of people right before he did, that would be another good example. However, I'm not sure if the people who are claiming that Musk did these things are reliable and more sources would be appreciated.
Completely independent of the topic at hand, I want to point out to you that you ask for a lot more than you give throughout. You read as sincere which is why I think it’s important to note that that behavior can be used to very effectively intentionally derail a conversation by virtue of becoming a huge time sink.
I see that a lot of people gave rude or nonsense answers which is frustrating, but at the point where you are getting examples and coherent responses I think it’s important to take some responsibility and try to support their argument yourself. I typically find one of two outcomes 1) I find compelling information that causes me to change my mind 2) the best argument I can form is weak or nonsense, but at least others can see I’m invested in the conversation and that a detailed reply won’t go to waste.
>Completely independent of the topic at hand, I want to point out to you that you ask for a lot more than you give throughout
I don't disagree. I also do not feel that people are required to reply to me if it's not worth the trouble. I'd rather get no replies than bad replies. Unfortunately I didn't find it easy to google something like "Musk said he wouldn't fire people", so I have to try to infer what sort of actual evidence people are using to support this claim (I can see that Musk denied having the specific intent to cut 75% of staff), and yes that can come off as demanding. But the alternative here is that I try to figure out what is underlying whatever bad unsourced claims people are making and... well, my time is valuable too.
Well, the example came up of Musk intending to buy Twitter and then trying to back out. The plausible justification for flip-flopping is that an internal review unveiled information that would justify this. It's really not hard to imagine.
That lead to a refined claim that Musk said he would not even perform this sort of review and then changed his mind, but without a clear source attached I'm not sure if this is actually what Musk said.
>Why does anyone care about alternative "narratives"?
Because the narrative of "Musk changed his mind" that is overwhelmingly popular here implicitly relies on there being no good intervening justification for why Musk would've done this, but afaik this doesn't seem like an incredibly safe assumption.
I mean, I guess you could be asking why someone would care to correct themselves if they have a popular-but-incorrect view on something, and sadly that's not always a bad question.
Is it not his company? Is he under obligation to not change his mind?
I'm not saying he is right - he isn't. I just wish people could put their arrogance aside for ONE SECOND, and realize, they would do the same thing.
It's the immature hypocrisy I don't like. That when it was the FBI and DNI having weekly meetings with high level Twitter staff or taking requests from sitting politicians or active campaigns on what political enemies to censor - that was fine because "it's a public company and they could do what they want".
I want emotional and intellectual honesty. It's beyond rare though.
It seems like these are a bunch of scattershot points that don’t add up to a cohesive argument. On top of this, “answer for this other thing someone I’ve decided to associate with you said” is one of my least favorite debate techniques.
Because facts can be interpreted in different ways. Any action can be interpreted as self-interest, but perhaps the true motive is different. You gave money to a school to pay for lunches? You were just trying to get your name in a newspaper because of your ego. Or maybe, just maybe, you're a person trying to do the right thing and make the world a slightly better place.
All the worst people I've ever known have argued against any goodness or altruism existing.
All the worst cheaters say everyone cheats (which apparently is enough justification to supersede their own public marital vows.)
Arguing that people are universally terrible is a huge signal that the person making the argument is terrible. Don't go into professional partnerships with them, I've seen at least 3 people like that whose behavior has devolved into eventual jail time and they've wrecked their companies.
The world has a surprisingly high percentage of amoral assholes who have a vested interest in pretending everyone is as misanthropic and self-centered as they are, but it's still a small minority.
> You gave money to a school to pay for lunches? You were just trying to get your name in a newspaper because of your ego.
So what? What is wrong with that? We can't even understand our own motives, let alone attempt to decipher others'. Why not let the action speak for itself? If you're a selfish person prioritizing your own PR above others' needs, your actions will ultimately reflect it, and we can judge them on it. Otherwise, kudos for finding and pursuing something that aligns nicely with your own needs as well as the needs of others.
There is an alternative justification in the right to privacy. Such accounts are indeed reckless with no corresponding need to know. No one's free speech rights are being suppressed here.
This has been discussed many times - the flight data and aircraft registration details are publicly accessible via the FAA. Posting that data in an easily accessible form hardly violates anyone's privacy.
To be fair, there is a difference when its made extremely accessible. Even the courts have seen this as a key difference with surveillance.
My question here is whether there is actually a rule here and whether that rule will be followed, or was it just done capriciously because Musk didn't like it.
I have my guesses, of course, but I haven't checked if they are true.
Perhaps a public interest argument could be made here for making this information more accessible. The whereabouts of a CEO of multiple companies could be of interest for investment decisions. For an ordinary private citizen this would be different.
You're right. It is contingent on the rule being applied fairly. Any one person making these decisions is bound to exhibit a bias, but we do not know if it was his decision alone. He may very well have asked others if it would be fair. That said, the real test will be if he can establish a fair system that self-patrols the speech on twitter.
Sure it does. Being able to observe license plates on the street is different from observing all license plates and publishing a real time feed of their location.
Don't be silly. Musk just wants to ban their Twitter account if they start to post the information to his specific plane. As long as they post specifics about someone else's plane, their account will be considered in good standing.
Since it was an individual not linked to a website, it's an even easier decision for him.
flightradar24 tracks jets. Go ahead and see if you can figure out where Jeff Bezos or Larry Ellison is from flightrader24. You can't unless you know the jet number they happen to be using.
@ElonJet is effectively tracking Elon and broadcasting that, and only that, information to the whole world.
In theory you could track Elon yourself by correlating public info (figuring out which jets he owns and using flightrader24) but it's orders of magnitude more effort and I don't see how "you can figure it out" justify "publish it to the whole world".
Can I attach a GPS tracker to your car and publish the coordinates in real time to the internet?
Of course I can't. It would be illegal.
Not because of disingenuous "car has a right to privacy" logic but because any judge would conclude that by tracking a car you're tracking the owner of the car and the owner does have a right to privacy.
Similarly, if the name @ElonJet doesn't give out the purpose: the account is tracking Elon by way of tracking his jet.
Morally speaking, the justification for transparency of jet location was to track them in order to increase safety of flying.
It wasn't to enable tracking of rich people.
It's legal but it's a loophole.
And somehow Elon hate completely overshadows the fact that the guy running @ElonJet account is an asshole.
Not because of disingenuous "car has a right to privacy" logic but because any judge would conclude that by tracking a car you're tracking the owner of the car and the owner does have a right to privacy.
I think you'll find that it has far more to do with directly interfering with another person's property without permission. If you publish someone's coordinates by using publicly accessible traffic cameras or (cost considerations aside) flying your own news helicopter around, the arguments become a lot vaguer. It's not clear that there's a legal/constitutional right to privacy in the US, and indeed recent supreme court decisions about abortion seem to reject the notion; jurisprudence in the 1970s saw an implicit right to privacy in certain constitutional provisions, an idea which 'originalists' regard as BS.
> There is an alternative justification in the right to privacy. Such accounts are indeed reckless with no corresponding need to know. No one's free speech rights are being suppressed here.
But Musk had previously called out specifically this account as one that he would not ban (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1589414958508691456). So, whether or not he has a right to ban it, this represents a reneging on an explicit commitment.
