[ThunderSizzle]

Yes, if (1) you had confidence Biden was on the plane at the time, and (2) if you posted it in order to cause physical harm.

Most doxxing that people worry about isn't just "oh look, biden is coming to town! cool!". It's more like "Supreme Court justice lives here with family. Go outside their house and start 'threatening' them now", followed by some sort of fake "no violence" post to CYA.

[Volundr]

(2) is not required to violate this policy, in fact most if not all of the suspensions and bans we know of from this new policy didn't involve (2).

[Pxtl]

Neither is (1), really, since the whole thing happened because Elon's son was harrassed by a man who Elon assumes got his location from ElonJet.

[ThunderSizzle]

I wasn't referring to the policy, but the concept of "doxxing" at large. Twitter's specific rules can be whatever they want, but most people know doxxing when they see, no matter where or when it happens.

[JumpinJack_Cash]

> Most doxxing that people worry about isn't just "oh look, biden is coming to town! cool!". It's more like "Supreme Court justice lives here with family. Go outside their house and start 'threatening' them now", followed by some sort of fake "no violence" post to CYA.

The whole debate about the killing of JFK is less about Oswald or his motives and 100% focused on the failures to protect the President.

Musk is not special, he occupies the same 10 square feet as everybody, and he has the resources to enforce a physical perimeter of security way larger than that around himself and/or whoever he might be interested in.

People have the right to know where he is and what he is up to, that comes with his position, if he doesn't like it he can start offloading his billions to the less fortunate.

Musk failed to protect his family (btw what family?) in the physical world and now wants to have his vengence in the online world. Doesn't work that way, he should start spending on security like any other billionaire to ensure safety for himself and people he cares about in the physical world and leave the online world alone, including the ability to track him (and dare I say it?) make fun of him.

But it will never happen because this guy doesn't care about common sense, he only cares about being a Techno-God among mortals , in a world where rules don't apply to him and everybody genuflects to him.

[PM_me_your_math]

"People have the right to know where he is and what he is up to, that comes with his position, if he doesn't like it he can start offloading his billions to the less fortunate."

Total rubbish.

What right? And where is that right enumerated? I've read the federalist papers twice, the USC countless times, and know my way around the US Code. Nowhere is it defined that YOU have a fundamental right to keep track of people ...ostensibly because they are more successful than you?

Why can't we track losers, too? Make sure they are going to work or school and not just draining the retirement accounts of their parents?

You have no fundamental right to anyone's privacy. Full stop.

[JumpinJack_Cash]

> Why can't we track losers, too? Make sure they are going to work or school and not just draining the retirement accounts of their parents?

Doesn't work that way, poor people have no power by definition.

The separation of powers isn't just something between a handful of elites such as Congress members who can impeach and convict the POTUS, or a bunch of judges, generals, chiefs etc.

The ultimate separation of powers is that there are ultimately 8 billion of us keeping an eye on each other and preventing an individual from going rogue and engage in selfish and anti-social behavior, and that is true whether you are a journalist, President, judge, general, chief...whatever and also billionaires.

It's pretty much an accepted concept, by everybody, except from your guy , the guy you are defending so much who'd absolutely love to be the unchallenged and undisputed dictator of the online world, and tomorrow the physical world.