X (Twitter) blocks links to hacked JD Vance dossier(theverge.com)
theverge.com
X (Twitter) blocks links to hacked JD Vance dossier
https://www.theverge.com/2024/9/26/24255298/elon-musk-x-blocks-jd-vance-dossier
140 comments
That's hilarious because their filters are sophisticated enough to block archive.is links to the same URL ... but can still be defeated with a query param. Seems like one of these was implemented at Twitter 1.0, and the other at Twitter 2.0.
Well, looks like they finally figured it out - but it's a hacky fix, they're still not using a proper URL parser. Here are some of the ways you can trick badly implemented URL parsers (haven't tested all of them on twitter specifically, but at least a couple do indeed work):
authority: https://user:pass@host/[..]
anchors: https://[...]/path#anchor
path params: https://host/path;param/[...]`
port: http://host:80/[...]`I'm quite sure they're reading this thread. Fully expecting you to post again in 20 minutes haha.
I'm sure Uncle Musk is scrolling through this thread yelling at his people asking "Why aren't we doing this!? Can we do this?"
wow, I suppose this is the quality you get when you fire all the workforce
"it's just code after all"
"it's just code after all"
I hope it's some developer implementing Elmo's order of "Block this exact url" with malicious compliance, knowing about the possible workarounds.
(Could you replace e.g. an "a" with %61 and keep the URL working?)
(Could you replace e.g. an "a" with %61 and keep the URL working?)
"Elmo"? Why the nickname?
Here, it’s slightly gratuitous, but on Twitter, even pre-Musk Twitter, Musk was one of the people who it was best not actually to name when talking about them, as mentioning his name tended to summon his weird fans. So, nicknames.
Because Elon likes nicknames. Remember "pedo guy"?
Traces back to 2022: https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-insiders-users-calli...
> It began as a joke, one of the people said, given the close spelling of the Muppet's name to Musk's own and the irony of Musk's temperamental personality in contrast to that of the kind and curious "Sesame Street" character.
> However, use of Elmo to discuss Musk has become more commonplace in recent weeks, as Musk has turned Twitter into "a dictatorship," one former employee said. There are potentially fewer repercussions from criticizing your billionaire boss if you can argue you were discussing a puppet, not the CEO.
> Elmo is also gaining traction as a nickname for Musk on Twitter itself. Thousands of recent Tweets and comments clearly discussing Musk only mention the Muppet by name. Discussing Musk under his new nickname keeps the CEO from trending and it keeps critics out of his mentions.
> It began as a joke, one of the people said, given the close spelling of the Muppet's name to Musk's own and the irony of Musk's temperamental personality in contrast to that of the kind and curious "Sesame Street" character.
> However, use of Elmo to discuss Musk has become more commonplace in recent weeks, as Musk has turned Twitter into "a dictatorship," one former employee said. There are potentially fewer repercussions from criticizing your billionaire boss if you can argue you were discussing a puppet, not the CEO.
> Elmo is also gaining traction as a nickname for Musk on Twitter itself. Thousands of recent Tweets and comments clearly discussing Musk only mention the Muppet by name. Discussing Musk under his new nickname keeps the CEO from trending and it keeps critics out of his mentions.
Yup what a total muppet. Guy seems to have a problem with names. What
makes me laugh is he just can't make "X" stick. Every time I see it
written X (formerly Twitter) am thinking it's less characters to just
type Twitter. Everyone still calls it Twitter. Only journalists
swallowed the X thing, and they're tiring of it now. Fuck it, just
change the name back to Twitter and admit defeat. Using X in any
sentence looks ridiculous and ambiguous, If people used to tweet what
do they do now? Send kisses?
"The president XXxed (formerly tweeted) yesterday on X (formerly Twitter)..." sigh
"The president XXxed (formerly tweeted) yesterday on X (formerly Twitter)..." sigh
It has been widely speculated that Elon, or someone close to him, has operated a large bot farm for the past decade focused on influence operations around his persona.
References online to 'Elon' show a marked difference in bot activity than those that refer to him as 'Elmo.'
Language ambiguity is a good tool to employ against influence operations.
I've long speculated that fixing the "bot problem" means the problem of his bots being removed.
I thought everyone was going to work hardcore to offset that. Oh well.
Imagine being an original Twitter employee that's still stuck around. You could ask for a 7-figure salary, and your toughest job would be implementing a regex filter for the JD Vance leak.
Musk would have identified the bug if only the programmer had printed their code.
Elmo's "radical free speech" on full display.
Doxing someone is not free speech. Documents aren't just 'hacked documents' when they include private information.
The thing about free speech is that everyone has their own criteria of what should or should not be included into it.
When someone talks about "free speech absolutist", one expects they will include everything. No exceptions. After all, that's what the "absolutist" is supposed to be doing here.
If you want to add exceptions to free speech, then you're not an absolutist. You just have the same lame relativist free speech definition as everyone else. Except your criteria is different than the others. Which, I mean, no problem, but at least be honest.
When someone talks about "free speech absolutist", one expects they will include everything. No exceptions. After all, that's what the "absolutist" is supposed to be doing here.
If you want to add exceptions to free speech, then you're not an absolutist. You just have the same lame relativist free speech definition as everyone else. Except your criteria is different than the others. Which, I mean, no problem, but at least be honest.
If you believe that is free speech, post your SSN, phone number, and address here right now, or would you be fine if i posted them for you?
I talked about what I believe the definition of absolute free speech is. I didn't said I agree with it, or that it is what society should aim for.
Fun fact: I do agree, but I haven't said that in my previous comment.
As for my data, you're free to post it. I'm not going to sue you or anything. Maybe the HN staff wouldn't like it, but that's out of my control.
Fun fact: I do agree, but I haven't said that in my previous comment.
As for my data, you're free to post it. I'm not going to sue you or anything. Maybe the HN staff wouldn't like it, but that's out of my control.
Documents obtained via hacks don't qualify under "free speech" and should be blocked, just like you'd block a list of people's social security numbers obtained via hacking, or secretly-recorded nude/pornographic material (without the subject's knowledge or consent).
Yet more definitions of free speech that some agree with and some disagree with.
That’s fine, block whatever you want. Just don’t whine that others have a different view on what “free speech” means.
That’s fine, block whatever you want. Just don’t whine that others have a different view on what “free speech” means.
"Whining about other people having different views" accounts for pretty much all political speech, and I don't understand why you're saying it shouldn't happen on this topic.
If you believe 1st Amendment protections extend to prevent censorship from private parties, as Elon et al claim to, then banning this material is unambiguously a violation of free speech.
If you don’t believe that’s what free speech is, then that’s fine too (and you’re right), but then stop using that as a cultural cudgel.
If you don’t believe that’s what free speech is, then that’s fine too (and you’re right), but then stop using that as a cultural cudgel.
The First Amendment most certainly does not apply to private parties.
Correct. Which is why the right wing moaning about free speech with regard to content moderation is juvenile and, as OP illustrates, completely hypocritical.
[deleted]
I do agree that this is unambiguously a violation of free speech, though the first amendment doesn't enter into it. What I don't get is the last bit, which you've only restated- why shouldn't people be allowed to invoke free speech on the basis of their opinions on what it means?
Because at least in America “free speech” refers to 1st Amendment protections, which this does not violate.
“Free speech” does not mean “carte blanche protection from any repercussions from anything I say, everyone is still obligated to like me and be nice to me and do business with me.”
“Free speech” does not mean “carte blanche protection from any repercussions from anything I say, everyone is still obligated to like me and be nice to me and do business with me.”
So when the first amendment says congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech, that's self-referential and does not refer to an underlying basic human right? Or are you saying that Americans just don't care about why the bill of rights exists anymore because the constitution is now their sole source of morality?
Crux of the problem:
> everyone is still obligated to like me and be nice to me and do business with me.
That takes force. You can't ask the government to protect you from the consequences of your speech, because that violates the free association of others.
> everyone is still obligated to like me and be nice to me and do business with me.
That takes force. You can't ask the government to protect you from the consequences of your speech, because that violates the free association of others.
I'm really just addressing
>Because at least in America “free speech” refers to 1st Amendment protection
Which I took to be the part that tried to answer why 'whining that others have a different view on what “free speech” means' is somehow bad behavior in a way that other political speech isn't.
I really had no intention of discussing my position on free speech, but briefly: It is morally good for an entity to permit freedom of speech and it is morally bad for them to suppress it, but I don't think the government has any business pushing them in either direction.
>Because at least in America “free speech” refers to 1st Amendment protection
Which I took to be the part that tried to answer why 'whining that others have a different view on what “free speech” means' is somehow bad behavior in a way that other political speech isn't.
I really had no intention of discussing my position on free speech, but briefly: It is morally good for an entity to permit freedom of speech and it is morally bad for them to suppress it, but I don't think the government has any business pushing them in either direction.
I think it’s better if we don’t mix your preference for people to be nice to you with our hard-won guaranteed right from government oppression.
Maybe pick a different term?
“This content moderation is a violation of my personal content preferences!” has a nice ring to it, and won’t delude people into misunderstanding how our society works.
Maybe pick a different term?
“This content moderation is a violation of my personal content preferences!” has a nice ring to it, and won’t delude people into misunderstanding how our society works.
Or you could use "first amendment" to refer to the first amendment and I can continue using the term that predates it and is referred to within it to mean what it means.
I really do not get why "it's okay if a corporation takes away our rights" is such an important point to you that you are enforcing your vocabulary in service of it. It doesn't cohere for me when you suggest it's a right worth fighting for, but if anybody other than the government takes it away from you it's just a preference.
I really do not get why "it's okay if a corporation takes away our rights" is such an important point to you that you are enforcing your vocabulary in service of it. It doesn't cohere for me when you suggest it's a right worth fighting for, but if anybody other than the government takes it away from you it's just a preference.
Correct^ In fact, even more philosophically, the marketplace of ideas needs ways to select ideas. The bad way to apply selection pressure is with the state (thus the 1st Amendment). The good way to apply selection pressure is to have other people tell you you are an absolute fucking moron and refuse to associate with you. That's what free speech really looks like.
For 33-45% Americans, the only source of morality is what the Orange Dear Leader says. That's why they are fine with supporting a candidate who openly calls for jailing people who criticize the Supreme Court judges and wanted to shoot protesters in legs.
Well, numerous jurisdictions have passed laws against "revenge porn", so they seem to agree with my suggestion. I will agree that information gathered via hacking can be seen both ways (much of Wikileaks was gathered somewhat nefariously) but the idea of blocking should not automatically be considered a suppression of free speech.
Except the indisputable public interest in having information about the person sitting on deck for the most powerful position in the world, as opposed to the prurient interests in seeing leaked nudes.
How is the vice presidential candidates social security number, phone number, and home address in the public interest?
Is SSN, phone, and home address repeated for ~200 pages? Seems like there's more to it than just that data.
[deleted](1)
So that if we see his SSN released in a future hack we can be sure to text him a warning to freeze his credit, and he can apply for two months of free credit monitoring.
It’s not, but the rest of the content is.
You mean like the nude photos of hunter biden, stolen from his personal laptop, and shared across twitter without any changes? That sort of free speech?
Ridiculous. He's a VP candidate so these things are definitely in the public's interest and reporters report on ill-gotten documents all the damn time.
https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/read-the-jd-vance-dossier
https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/read-the-jd-vance-dossier
His home address and social security number are not material nor part of the "public interest" and a legitimate reporter would have excluded them.
As always, it is MOST improper on this website to actually read the article, but this is addressed in the article; Musk was upset when old-Twitter blocked an article containing hacked data. Appears to be a case of ‘free speech’ for me but not for thee.
So why did Elon complained when Twitter censored the Laptop Biden leak? This was the same policy, documents obtained via hacks.
That's what I'm wondering, isn't his behavior now pretty much exactly what the whole Twitter Files thing was about? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Files
Are you talking about Hunter Biden's laptop? It wasn't hacked, he left it at a computer shop and never picked it up.
You don't get to rummage through someone's computer just because it's in your possession. That's not how the law or property works in the US. The shop owner made an illegal copy of Hunter's hard drive and then went forward and shared it with a bunch of people.
It seems like you do, in certain situations, this being one of them. Otherwise someone would have been prosecuted for making an illegal copy, as you say. Further, such evidence would be considered "illegal search and seizure" and inadmissible in court as evidence against Hunter Biden. But that isn't happening, the laptop information is/was absolutely used as evidence.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/22/politics/hunter-biden-laptop-...
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/22/politics/hunter-biden-laptop-...
He tried to get Hunter to pay for the repairs several times, and then took possession of the laptop as payment for services after a year or more. That is legal in the US.
Given how public this story was, if what he did was illegal, local DA would have prosecuted him.
Hunter Biden abandoned the laptop. The Intel agencies and the corp media tried to cover it up.
Given how public this story was, if what he did was illegal, local DA would have prosecuted him.
Hunter Biden abandoned the laptop. The Intel agencies and the corp media tried to cover it up.
Him "leaving" it a computer shop was never credibly, regardless what a bizarre line in the sand.
The personal information is blacked out... and Elmo still seem to block people for 12 hours when you share the link.
Do they qualify under "free speech absolutist"?
X (Twitter) policy on sharing private information: https://help.x.com/en/rules-and-policies/personal-informatio...
Among others it prohibits sharing:
>home address or physical location information, such as street addresses, GPS coordinates, or other identifying information related to locations that are considered private
Among others it prohibits sharing:
>home address or physical location information, such as street addresses, GPS coordinates, or other identifying information related to locations that are considered private
As it applies to JD Vance,
> X suspended Ken Klippenstein after he shared the Iranian-hacked dossier on J.D. Vance, which doxed his home addresses, phone numbers, emails, and social security number.
https://x.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/1839382777223164033
Official message from X Safety,
> Ken Klippenstein was temporarily suspended for violating our rules on posting unredacted private personal information, specifically Sen. Vance’s physical addresses and the majority of his Social Security number.
https://x.com/Safety/status/1839392663864549688
> X suspended Ken Klippenstein after he shared the Iranian-hacked dossier on J.D. Vance, which doxed his home addresses, phone numbers, emails, and social security number.
https://x.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/1839382777223164033
Official message from X Safety,
> Ken Klippenstein was temporarily suspended for violating our rules on posting unredacted private personal information, specifically Sen. Vance’s physical addresses and the majority of his Social Security number.
https://x.com/Safety/status/1839392663864549688
So if those pieces of information are redacted then the document can be freely shared on X? This seems simple enough to test.
What about Hunter Biden's laptop? This was mentioned as a key reason Elon bought Twitter in the first place. And those documents contained way more sensitive data than the JD Vance one.
what is your question actually?
they also blocked the laptop stories
they also blocked the laptop stories
I scrolled over the dossier and there nothing significant there, most of it is bunch of things he said, his investments, property, donations, tickets, taxes and so on.
Most of the information can be found online, this is just complied into one PDF file.
Most of the information can be found online, this is just complied into one PDF file.
What PDF reader would you trust to open and run a document reportedly produced by Iranian intelligence?
Any reader that has only bothered to implement pdf object processing and page rendering. Or just any pdf reader that doesn't have pdf javascript implemented
My Nintendo Switch
Rather than a PDF reader, how about a PDF sanitizer? I've heard of Dangerzone [1][2], though I've never used it.
[1] https://github.com/freedomofpress/dangerzone
[2] https://dangerzone.rocks/
[1] https://github.com/freedomofpress/dangerzone
[2] https://dangerzone.rocks/
[deleted]
I used Firefox.
>> complied
compiled
compiled
Yeah, the only novel info in this story is the twitter suspension. Very counter productive if Elon was trying to suppress this.
This is why no major media outlet ran this story when the hackers offered the documents a month or two ago: there's literally nothing in it. It's a standard opposition research report. The Harris campaign has a document just like it on their own Google Drive. It isn't even directionally interesting; it records every line of attack the GOP could imagine Vance facing (they missed "childless cat ladies", though!), and so calls out places where Vance is in line with Trump as well as places he isn't.
All the real stories about this piece are going to be from people like Klippenstein and Musk beclowning themselves over it.
All the real stories about this piece are going to be from people like Klippenstein and Musk beclowning themselves over it.
Streisand effect.
The dossier doesn't matter. The fact they are blocking it does.
The dossier doesn't matter. The fact they are blocking it does.
The omission of the "Childless Cat Ladies" comment is arguably pretty newsworthy since it has a bunch of implications, most notably being its the attack line that likely drew blood so to speak (the other a potential campaign blind-spot for how to communicate with female voters, a demographic the Trump campaign has struggled with)
It's just so stacked in conditionals, and the document doesn't even prove whether they didn't consider it a problem or just didn't know about it. I'm not saying it's some tragedy that this document got published, but it makes perfect sense to me that big newsrooms didn't think there was anything in here worth becoming a mouthpiece for some anonymous "Robert" guy. Independent journalists have more flexibility in this kind of thing because they don't have to develop and enforce editorial policies.
Presumably newspapers will have more to say about the dossier now that it's already public.
Presumably newspapers will have more to say about the dossier now that it's already public.
Right, the argument being that the Trump campaign oppo folks are redpilled and unable to apply a cynical eye to arguments made from outside their echo chamber.
And I guess that's possible, but I think the simpler explanation is just that they're lazy. Trump himself was going to pick whoever he wanted, everyone knew it. There's no point in going the extra mile to support a process you know is going to be ignored. So check the boxes you need to and move on.
And I guess that's possible, but I think the simpler explanation is just that they're lazy. Trump himself was going to pick whoever he wanted, everyone knew it. There's no point in going the extra mile to support a process you know is going to be ignored. So check the boxes you need to and move on.
Is Klippenstein self-beclowning? He readily admits in the piece that it's pretty much a nothingburger.
He is using it as advertising. Saying he will publish what others won’t so subscribe to me.
Is that a bad thing?
What could possibly in there that would be more damaging than what you can get for free by waiting for Vance to open his mouth in public?
Someone on Bluesky said something to the effect that nine out of ten times the shooting around Trump is just JD Vance shooting himself in the foot
And the tenth time they miss.
So posting publicly available information gets someone banned but people can post horrific videos of children being abused with no punishment? https://www.dailydot.com/debug/elon-musk-reinstates-child-ab...
[deleted]
Majority of Elon's net worth is tied to Tesla. Tesla has a massive presence in and therefore dependence on China. How can we accept Twitter as a free-speech platform? Just because he says so?
Twitter is obviously not a free speech platform, as demonstrated by basically anyone posting things critical of Musk or his allies.
https://youtu.be/1sbZLhuaZIY
Duck Sauce - Barbara Streisand
(It's just a really catchy song. And I suspect this block will backfire.)
Duck Sauce - Barbara Streisand
(It's just a really catchy song. And I suspect this block will backfire.)
[deleted]
So much free speech!
Much of the dossier reads like it was written by ChatGPT. Similar style and structure of paragraphs. I think a Trump campaign staffer got a little lazy.
[deleted]
There is no evidence how the document, commissioned by the Trump team while vetting Vance, got out. I'm reminded of Facebook suppressing the New York Post's Hunter Biden story in 2020, minus any noteworthy revelations.
On the one hand, Musk has already retracted his claim[1] that he's a "free speech absolutist"[2], so I don't think it's fair to come after him for that:
[2]: https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/29/tech/elon-musk-twitter-govern...
In last month’s interview with the BBC, Musk said, “the rules in India for what can appear on social media are quite strict, and we can’t go beyond the laws of a country … If we have a choice of either our people go to prison or we comply with the laws, we will comply with the laws.” At another point in the interview, Musk said: “If people of a given country are against a certain type of speech, they should talk to their elected representatives and pass a law to prevent it.”
Twitter, before it was bought by Elon Musk, had a policy regarding hacked materials — but the page is no longer available. A pre-Musk version of the policy, dated 2019, stated that posting or linking to hacked content is prohibited. Under this policy, links to a story by The New York Post about Hunter Biden, the current president’s son, were banned. But in October 2020, Twitter changed its policy to say that it would no longer block hacked materials, after an outcry about how the company had handled the Post story. “Straight blocking of URLs was wrong, and we updated our policy and enforcement to fix,” wrote then-CEO Jack Dorsey.
Musk was one of the people who was unhappy with the decision to ban links to the Post’s story. “Suspending the Twitter account of a major news organization for publishing a truthful story was obviously incredibly inappropriate,” Musk wrote of the decision on the story in April 2022. He even invited former Rolling Stone pundit Matt Taibbi to examine internal documents showing how Twitter handled the decision. (In the course of tweeting his conclusions, Taibbi exposed the email addresses of Dorsey and Representative Ro Khanna.)
[2]: https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/29/tech/elon-musk-twitter-govern...
> “If people of a given country are against a certain type of speech, they should talk to their elected representatives and pass a law to prevent it.”
Yet Brazil's speech laws he publicly flouted and attacked.
As a theory worth exploring: Is it because India's government matches Musk's far-right politics (or do they have any direct relationship), and Brazil's does not? Are there other data points we can use?
Yet Brazil's speech laws he publicly flouted and attacked.
As a theory worth exploring: Is it because India's government matches Musk's far-right politics (or do they have any direct relationship), and Brazil's does not? Are there other data points we can use?
> Are there other data points we can use?
Yes, he has censored information on Erdogan's request as well. He never calls out the censorship from strongmen authoritarians but loves attacking nations with strong democracies.
Yes, he has censored information on Erdogan's request as well. He never calls out the censorship from strongmen authoritarians but loves attacking nations with strong democracies.
Thanks. We should be careful of confirmation bias, of course: How many authoritarians / far-right causes has Musk obstructed based on free speech? How many non-far right and liberal causes has Musk enabled?
At a certain point, if Musk consistently blocks things favoring one party and not another does X risk losing its Common Carrier status and start opening itself up to more liability?
If you're referring to US law, Twitter was never a telecommunications common carrier. So it can't lose that status through any sort of moderation decisions.
Twitter (I still refuse to call it X) doesn't have "Common Carrier" status, no website or platform does. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 protects platforms from liability for user content even if they display bias towards that content.
No. This is not a thing.
[deleted]
It is absolutely fair to continue to point out his ongoing hypocrisy.
“If we have a choice of either our people go to prison or we comply with the laws, we will comply with the laws.” in 2023.
Here he is on Brazil just a few months ago [1]:
“We are lifting all restrictions. This judge has applied massive fines, threatened to arrest our employees and cut off access to in Brazil.
As a result, we will probably lose all revenue in Brazil and have to shut down our office there.
But principles matter more than profit.”
If we have to risk employees going to jail, then we will follow the law.
We risk employees going to jail, so we will ignore the law on principle.
Literal opposites. He is just a free speech opportunist who realized that you can say “free speech” to get people to overlook your selfish goals and get the benefit of the doubt when you deserve strict scrutiny.
[1] https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1776739518240170254
“If we have a choice of either our people go to prison or we comply with the laws, we will comply with the laws.” in 2023.
Here he is on Brazil just a few months ago [1]:
“We are lifting all restrictions. This judge has applied massive fines, threatened to arrest our employees and cut off access to in Brazil.
As a result, we will probably lose all revenue in Brazil and have to shut down our office there.
But principles matter more than profit.”
If we have to risk employees going to jail, then we will follow the law.
We risk employees going to jail, so we will ignore the law on principle.
Literal opposites. He is just a free speech opportunist who realized that you can say “free speech” to get people to overlook your selfish goals and get the benefit of the doubt when you deserve strict scrutiny.
[1] https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1776739518240170254
You must realize this document doxxes JD Vance. Including birthdate, phone number, most of SSN, his home address, criminal history, etc. The dude will have to move now.
>Musk has already retracted his claim[1] that he's a "free speech absolutist
The article you link shows that his subsequent actions are inconsistent with that claim, but not that he's 'retracted' it.
Musk has repeatedly said that Twitter will allow 'all legal speech'. There's nothing illegal about sharing links to this document in most jurisdictions (certainly not in the US).
The article you link shows that his subsequent actions are inconsistent with that claim, but not that he's 'retracted' it.
Musk has repeatedly said that Twitter will allow 'all legal speech'. There's nothing illegal about sharing links to this document in most jurisdictions (certainly not in the US).
I don’t think you and I disagree! I agree that Musk is being a hypocrite and that his actions are inconsistent both with (1) being a ‘free speech absolutist’ and with (2) allowing all legal speech.
But (2) is definitely not (1). He used to say he supported (1), now he says (2). I guess you could say that that isn’t retraction, and that he still claims he’s a free speech absolutist, but as much as I think he’s a hypocrite I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and allow him to change his mind.
It’s also legal to post flight tracker information, but Musk opposes that in contradiction to (2) as well. That’s also incredibly hypocritical.
I get the feeling you and many others didn’t finish reading my comment before concluding that I’m an Elon Musk fan when in fact I’m the opposite :P I’m guessing people stopped around the first quote, before I point out that what he’s doing here is also hypocritical: blocking documents on JD Vance while having been vocally against blocking documents on Hunter Biden.
Such is HN!
But (2) is definitely not (1). He used to say he supported (1), now he says (2). I guess you could say that that isn’t retraction, and that he still claims he’s a free speech absolutist, but as much as I think he’s a hypocrite I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and allow him to change his mind.
It’s also legal to post flight tracker information, but Musk opposes that in contradiction to (2) as well. That’s also incredibly hypocritical.
I get the feeling you and many others didn’t finish reading my comment before concluding that I’m an Elon Musk fan when in fact I’m the opposite :P I’m guessing people stopped around the first quote, before I point out that what he’s doing here is also hypocritical: blocking documents on JD Vance while having been vocally against blocking documents on Hunter Biden.
Such is HN!
I think the main issue that people took with your original comment is just that it makes a false claim (the 'retraction').
Even if we accept the alleged retraction, it doesn't really make sense in this context to say that it's unfair to come after Musk for saying (1) because he's subsequently said (2), given that (2) is equally inconsistent with banning posts sharing this dossier.
Even if we accept the alleged retraction, it doesn't really make sense in this context to say that it's unfair to come after Musk for saying (1) because he's subsequently said (2), given that (2) is equally inconsistent with banning posts sharing this dossier.
I mean, I'll accept your interpretation with as much charity as I take Musk's public statements, even though I think both are wrong :) Hope to chat again in a happier context!
>But blocking links to hacked documents regarding JD Vance seems a little suspect considering that, as the article mentions, he was opposed to blocking links to hacked documents about Hunter Biden
Per X, the links were blocked because they included un-redacted personal information such as address and SSN.
Per X, the links were blocked because they included un-redacted personal information such as address and SSN.
If that’s true I would say blocking is credible. I’d rather err on the side of caution on exposing potential privacy information.
If there was no private info - obviously the block is b.s. But considering they’ve mentioned privacy details in the doc I’m prepared to give them the benefit of doubt for a few days or ask the initial poster to send a redacted version.
If there was no private info - obviously the block is b.s. But considering they’ve mentioned privacy details in the doc I’m prepared to give them the benefit of doubt for a few days or ask the initial poster to send a redacted version.
I'm not gonna spend an hour poring over the thing for an SSN, but it does have his unredacted home addresses in both Ohio and DC.
it does have his unredacted home addresses in both Ohio and DC.
In the United States, the addresses of politicians are public records.
It's how journalists and the general public verify that they live in the districts they are elected to represent.
In the United States, the addresses of politicians are public records.
It's how journalists and the general public verify that they live in the districts they are elected to represent.
The policies of the United States government really have nothing to do with the policies a social media website can or should enact. I'm honestly not sure what I think of this precise situation, but it's not crazy to think that nothing good will come from running around posting the home addresses of unpopular politicians.
His address is public info, available on dozens of state and local election sites.
For comparison, Elon previously leaked "the Twitter files" to reporter Matt Taibbi, who posted the address of prior Twitter executives. Needless to say, Taibbi was not banned.
For comparison, Elon previously leaked "the Twitter files" to reporter Matt Taibbi, who posted the address of prior Twitter executives. Needless to say, Taibbi was not banned.
I couldn't find an SSN but my regex is mid
Per Elon, photos of Hunter Bidens penis was a public interest story.
The vibe I am getting here is that if somebody enables people who criticize government decisions and policies in a way that the government considers "dangerous", he's an evil idiot and doesn't understand what "free speech" is and something "needs to be done" about him. But if somebody publishes his political opponent's home address, phone number, SSN and other details who have absolutely no bearing to any political discussion, but may seriously jeopardize their personal safety in an environment where trying to shoot a presidential candidates is becoming a routine event - then in the name of free speech this must be allowed to be published, no restrictions.
I think people that take such position care very little about free speech and a lot about hurting people who have different politics than they do. And they are part of what is wrong with the politics today.
I think people that take such position care very little about free speech and a lot about hurting people who have different politics than they do. And they are part of what is wrong with the politics today.
No, the issue people are having is musk claims he has to allow nazis, transphobes, homophobes, racism, sexism, fake pornography of people, etc because otherwise it would be censorious and an attack on free speech.
But things that attack or are damaging to him or his beliefs are frequently censored.
The issue is not what he chooses to censor or not censor. The issue is that he claims that the reason he chooses not to censor horrific abuse and attacks on minorities is because he’s a free speech absolutist and all censorship is bad.
He hides behind the claim of the sanctity of free speech as the justification for what he allows, publishes, and promotes, when he very clearly holds, and enforces, no such belief.
Posts like this that claim that people are just disagreeing about politics, when the political viewpoint on one side is that the other side has no right to exist are entirely demonstrative of people who are so bigoted that they don’t see their own bigotry as that, because it could only be bigotry if the targets of their bullshit were people, which to them they aren’t.
But things that attack or are damaging to him or his beliefs are frequently censored.
The issue is not what he chooses to censor or not censor. The issue is that he claims that the reason he chooses not to censor horrific abuse and attacks on minorities is because he’s a free speech absolutist and all censorship is bad.
He hides behind the claim of the sanctity of free speech as the justification for what he allows, publishes, and promotes, when he very clearly holds, and enforces, no such belief.
Posts like this that claim that people are just disagreeing about politics, when the political viewpoint on one side is that the other side has no right to exist are entirely demonstrative of people who are so bigoted that they don’t see their own bigotry as that, because it could only be bigotry if the targets of their bullshit were people, which to them they aren’t.
> he has to allow <all the people you disagree with and despise> because otherwise it would be censorious and an attack on free speech
Yes. Because all these people, however unpleasant their speech may be for you or me, have the same right to speak their mind on the questions of public importance as you and me. Yes, even racists.
However, publishing somebody's private information that can easily lead to deadly attack on him or his family is in entirely different class of speech. It does not contribute to any public discussion or does anything positive, just endangers people and enables violence. It is not severe enough to make the law involved, but it is going far enough that restricting it on social media is summarily a positive thing.
The owner of the social media platform has to draw the line, which speech is allowed on the platform and which is not. Some would draw it on "anything legal is allowed". Some would even do "anything is allowed" but those will find themselves in trouble with the law pretty quickly. Some would say "some legal speech - like porn - is not allowed", or "some legal speech - like revealing private information of public figures and their relatives - is not allowed", etc. These are valid choices (as it is valid to criticize them), and they are not inconsistent at all. You can support free speech without supplying your platform to organize attacks on public figures or hurting their families. You do not have to be "all or nothing" - and in fact, nobody has advocated "all or nothing" policy towards Twitter or Facebook or any of the social media platforms ever, before Musk. Now, because Musk is also not "all or nothing" - as is everybody else - how is he any special? His line is such that publishing private information about people that can hurt them is not ok, good for him I say.
> when the political viewpoint on one side is that the other side has no right to exist
Yes, I know, you only have to be bad because your opponents are so much worse. Always a good excuse. It is totally OK for good people to be bad to bad people, after all, we are good people and they are bad people, that makes it right when we do it to them, but wrong when they do it to us!
Yes. Because all these people, however unpleasant their speech may be for you or me, have the same right to speak their mind on the questions of public importance as you and me. Yes, even racists.
However, publishing somebody's private information that can easily lead to deadly attack on him or his family is in entirely different class of speech. It does not contribute to any public discussion or does anything positive, just endangers people and enables violence. It is not severe enough to make the law involved, but it is going far enough that restricting it on social media is summarily a positive thing.
The owner of the social media platform has to draw the line, which speech is allowed on the platform and which is not. Some would draw it on "anything legal is allowed". Some would even do "anything is allowed" but those will find themselves in trouble with the law pretty quickly. Some would say "some legal speech - like porn - is not allowed", or "some legal speech - like revealing private information of public figures and their relatives - is not allowed", etc. These are valid choices (as it is valid to criticize them), and they are not inconsistent at all. You can support free speech without supplying your platform to organize attacks on public figures or hurting their families. You do not have to be "all or nothing" - and in fact, nobody has advocated "all or nothing" policy towards Twitter or Facebook or any of the social media platforms ever, before Musk. Now, because Musk is also not "all or nothing" - as is everybody else - how is he any special? His line is such that publishing private information about people that can hurt them is not ok, good for him I say.
> when the political viewpoint on one side is that the other side has no right to exist
Yes, I know, you only have to be bad because your opponents are so much worse. Always a good excuse. It is totally OK for good people to be bad to bad people, after all, we are good people and they are bad people, that makes it right when we do it to them, but wrong when they do it to us!
> However, publishing somebody's private information that can easily lead to deadly attack on him or his family is in entirely different class of speech.
Got it, encouraging people to execute gay and trans people is completely fine, and is clearly nowhere near as bad as publishing information sent by a person running for vice president. I get your point, on the one hand the people saying "LGBT/black/hispanic people are not actually people and don't have the right to exist" are only causing harm to people who aren't really people. On the other hand you have the emails and information about a major public figure running for political office with secret service protection who is running on a platform of "brown people are illegal and killing your pets, and lgbt people should be illegal" while encouraging bomb threats against minorities.
> The owner of the social media platform has to draw the line,
His entire justification for not restricting attacks on minorities is free speech, he actively promotes false information about political groups he does not like, while actively censoring things like this that are, again, a dossier about a public figure running for a major office.
So his line is "anything, no matter how wretched, gross, false, or fraudulent, as long as it doesn't attack my political friends".
Stop pretending these are equivalent.
> > when the political viewpoint on one side is that the other side has no right to exist > Yes, I know, you only have to be bad because your opponents are so much worse.
The idea that a leaked "dossier" about a public figure is somehow "bad" is so fucking bullshit.
The fact that you consider this equivalent to promoting violence against minorities tells me everything I need to know about your world view. The fact that you think leaking a dossier about a political candidate is "bad" tells me that your opinion is free speech ends once it hurts political figures, which means I don't give a shit about your position.
I'm glad I'll never meet you, and I hope you're never in a position where someone vulnerable depends on you.
Got it, encouraging people to execute gay and trans people is completely fine, and is clearly nowhere near as bad as publishing information sent by a person running for vice president. I get your point, on the one hand the people saying "LGBT/black/hispanic people are not actually people and don't have the right to exist" are only causing harm to people who aren't really people. On the other hand you have the emails and information about a major public figure running for political office with secret service protection who is running on a platform of "brown people are illegal and killing your pets, and lgbt people should be illegal" while encouraging bomb threats against minorities.
> The owner of the social media platform has to draw the line,
His entire justification for not restricting attacks on minorities is free speech, he actively promotes false information about political groups he does not like, while actively censoring things like this that are, again, a dossier about a public figure running for a major office.
So his line is "anything, no matter how wretched, gross, false, or fraudulent, as long as it doesn't attack my political friends".
Stop pretending these are equivalent.
> > when the political viewpoint on one side is that the other side has no right to exist > Yes, I know, you only have to be bad because your opponents are so much worse.
The idea that a leaked "dossier" about a public figure is somehow "bad" is so fucking bullshit.
The fact that you consider this equivalent to promoting violence against minorities tells me everything I need to know about your world view. The fact that you think leaking a dossier about a political candidate is "bad" tells me that your opinion is free speech ends once it hurts political figures, which means I don't give a shit about your position.
I'm glad I'll never meet you, and I hope you're never in a position where someone vulnerable depends on you.
The hypocrisy of Musk around 'free speech' has been on full display since he bought Twitter. It's wild to me that you're still having to argue with people on this point. Twitter is a Musk Speech platform, and has very little to do with free speech.
> Got it, encouraging people to execute gay and trans people is completely fine,
Please stop it. Nobody advocated executing gay and trans people here, and nobody said it is "completely fine". Stop lying, please.
> on the one hand the people saying "LGBT/black/hispanic people are not actually people and don't have the right to exist"
There are no such people, at least not in the numbers worth mentioning, in the US (there are in other countries, but curiously you don't care about that at all, do you?). You are just whipping yourself into a frenzy by imagining something that doesn't exist but it would be nice if they did because that would justify you hurting your political opponents - after all, they are so, so bad!
> So his line is "anything, no matter how wretched, gross, false, or fraudulent, as long as it doesn't attack my political friends".
Again, this is a lie. X prohibits a lot of content that has nothing to do with "attacks" on supposed Musk's "political friends". I just recently personally saw one prominent political article "restricted" on X because it mentioned (in a quote) certain slur word, for example. And I witness a lot of fraud deleted (not 100%, true, but that's impossible). Again, you are being completely false here.
> The idea that a leaked "dossier" about a public figure is somehow "bad" is so fucking bullshit.
Yes, it is bad, in this particular case. It does nothing but hurting people, including people that are not related to any political involvement, and does not contribute in any way to the society. You can not name any cause or any group that would be better off by the fact that these private details are public. How would publishing Vance's SSN be useful? Does it protect "LGBT/black/hispanic people" somehow? No. The only way one could use them is to commit personal attacks on his person and the persons of his relatives. I am hoping you would at least stop before advocating that. Though these days one can't be sure anymore.
> The fact that you think leaking a dossier about a political candidate is "bad" tells me that your opinion is free speech ends once it hurts political figures,
And again, you keep ignoring the fact we're talking about private information, like home addresses, SSNs and so on. You try to present it as if it a purely political dossier of political nature that has some societal value. It might be the case if the leaker bothered to redact out the private information - but they didn't, and they probably didn't because beyond that, this document contains pretty much nothing interesting. It's as boring and mundane as the content of my "old bills" drawer. The only purpose to publish something like this could be to personally hurt a political opponent - no other goal is achieved by it. And the fact that you are consistently refuse to address this issue - the issue of publishing private information, having no significance in public discussion - makes me suggest you are actually ok with it. Your belligerent tone and baseless false accusations confirm it quite nicely. If you want to know what's wrong with the politics today - look at the mirror, it's you and your hate. I hope you find a way to move beyond it one day.
Please stop it. Nobody advocated executing gay and trans people here, and nobody said it is "completely fine". Stop lying, please.
> on the one hand the people saying "LGBT/black/hispanic people are not actually people and don't have the right to exist"
There are no such people, at least not in the numbers worth mentioning, in the US (there are in other countries, but curiously you don't care about that at all, do you?). You are just whipping yourself into a frenzy by imagining something that doesn't exist but it would be nice if they did because that would justify you hurting your political opponents - after all, they are so, so bad!
> So his line is "anything, no matter how wretched, gross, false, or fraudulent, as long as it doesn't attack my political friends".
Again, this is a lie. X prohibits a lot of content that has nothing to do with "attacks" on supposed Musk's "political friends". I just recently personally saw one prominent political article "restricted" on X because it mentioned (in a quote) certain slur word, for example. And I witness a lot of fraud deleted (not 100%, true, but that's impossible). Again, you are being completely false here.
> The idea that a leaked "dossier" about a public figure is somehow "bad" is so fucking bullshit.
Yes, it is bad, in this particular case. It does nothing but hurting people, including people that are not related to any political involvement, and does not contribute in any way to the society. You can not name any cause or any group that would be better off by the fact that these private details are public. How would publishing Vance's SSN be useful? Does it protect "LGBT/black/hispanic people" somehow? No. The only way one could use them is to commit personal attacks on his person and the persons of his relatives. I am hoping you would at least stop before advocating that. Though these days one can't be sure anymore.
> The fact that you think leaking a dossier about a political candidate is "bad" tells me that your opinion is free speech ends once it hurts political figures,
And again, you keep ignoring the fact we're talking about private information, like home addresses, SSNs and so on. You try to present it as if it a purely political dossier of political nature that has some societal value. It might be the case if the leaker bothered to redact out the private information - but they didn't, and they probably didn't because beyond that, this document contains pretty much nothing interesting. It's as boring and mundane as the content of my "old bills" drawer. The only purpose to publish something like this could be to personally hurt a political opponent - no other goal is achieved by it. And the fact that you are consistently refuse to address this issue - the issue of publishing private information, having no significance in public discussion - makes me suggest you are actually ok with it. Your belligerent tone and baseless false accusations confirm it quite nicely. If you want to know what's wrong with the politics today - look at the mirror, it's you and your hate. I hope you find a way to move beyond it one day.
> There are no such people, at least not in the numbers worth mentioning, in the US (there are in other countries, but curiously you don't care about that at all, do you?)
That is literally a campaign point for multiple candidates. Maybe the problem is you're a delusional bigot.
And guess what, I do care about what happens in those countries as well, but this article is about someone in the US and involves a candidate for US political office. I feel the same way about bigots in other countries, and make the same complaints about them, just not in a context where they aren't relevant.
> The only way one could use them is to commit personal attacks on his person and the persons of his relatives.
You mean the dude, and family, with secret service protection? None of which required this magic dossier.
Also, I looked at that dossier, the overwhelming majority of which was details about his variable political positions and personal history - all of which seem super relevant to a political candidate.
But, I understand, there is much more danger in a leak that happens to include information about where he lives and his family - which are not secret - than calling for criminalization of and violence LGBT people.
> If you want to know what's wrong with the politics today - look at the mirror, it's you and your hate
I'm not the person saying "these people don't have the right to exist", you're trying disingenuous "paradox of tolerance" bs. Claiming the problem is "my hate towards people that deny the rights of others to exist" is classic white surpremacist BS.
Again, I hope no one vulnerable ever needs you for anything, because you're the kind of person who would ask a victim if they've considered the harm that speaking up would do to their abuser.
We don't need to continue this thread. We clearly disagree on some fundamental issues, I think that bigotry has no place in a civil society, and you think I'm an evil hater for not lovingly accepting people's choice to decide who has a right to exist.
That is literally a campaign point for multiple candidates. Maybe the problem is you're a delusional bigot.
And guess what, I do care about what happens in those countries as well, but this article is about someone in the US and involves a candidate for US political office. I feel the same way about bigots in other countries, and make the same complaints about them, just not in a context where they aren't relevant.
> The only way one could use them is to commit personal attacks on his person and the persons of his relatives.
You mean the dude, and family, with secret service protection? None of which required this magic dossier.
Also, I looked at that dossier, the overwhelming majority of which was details about his variable political positions and personal history - all of which seem super relevant to a political candidate.
But, I understand, there is much more danger in a leak that happens to include information about where he lives and his family - which are not secret - than calling for criminalization of and violence LGBT people.
> If you want to know what's wrong with the politics today - look at the mirror, it's you and your hate
I'm not the person saying "these people don't have the right to exist", you're trying disingenuous "paradox of tolerance" bs. Claiming the problem is "my hate towards people that deny the rights of others to exist" is classic white surpremacist BS.
Again, I hope no one vulnerable ever needs you for anything, because you're the kind of person who would ask a victim if they've considered the harm that speaking up would do to their abuser.
We don't need to continue this thread. We clearly disagree on some fundamental issues, I think that bigotry has no place in a civil society, and you think I'm an evil hater for not lovingly accepting people's choice to decide who has a right to exist.
Update: I guess someone at Twitter reads Hacker News, because they finally forced me to delete the posts containing those links, a few hours later.