A decent chunk of people in the previous thread were saying he’s doing it to kill the bot that tracks his plane’s movements.
In general, he seems to be an active enough user that there’s concerns he will use his new power as a way to shield himself from the consequences of his activity.
I don't think it's about that, but I am absolutely sure that Musk would sooner pay 100x the cost in order to send a "fuck you" to someone that rankled him rather than take the ego hit and pay the 50k even if it's a pittance to him.
No it's because it's extremly simple to setup another account to do the exact same thing. You'd have 10 new ones the next day asking for the same amount.
Yeah he spends 9 billion to be petty against a random kid with a twitter account that just republished public information. Again, that's literally an insane thing to believe. If you can't see how insane that is I can't help you.
You keep saying "that's insane" as if that's supposed to mean something. "Richest guy on the planet makes a capricious stock investment"... yeah, totally insane lol.
I won't go so far as to call you insane for not being able to imagine an edgy rich guy spending a lot of money for petty reasons, but I'll instead say that your refusal to even accept the idea as a possibility is a bit naive.
You really think getting rid of a twitter bot is that important? Seriously? Like wtf. I just can't even imagine how anybody can even consider that.
Musk clearly has much better other reason that make about 1000% more sense. He has been one of the biggest twitter accounts for a long time. He clearly cares about speech (whatever you may think about it) and he talks about that often in talks to governments around the world and so on. In your version that is all some elaborate front in order to take down some twitter bot?
If you think any non-insane person would spend 9 billion to ban a twitter account that just publishes public information I really don't know what to say anymore. Even if that bot was removed, anybody else could set up the same thing again.
Whatever you my think of Musk and calling 'edgy' or 'petty' or whatever, what you suggest is literally a 100% totally crazy thing to do. No human that is not insane would consider this a logic course of action.
If it was about that and he didn't want to pay the 50k publicly, there are about 1000 possible other ways that could have been achieved other becoming gigantic investor in twitter.
By "shield himself from the consequences of his activity" I think Elon literally meant "I don't want to get shot by some crazy person following my movements". No perfect solution, but I can get his motivation.
ADS data is public. Just because a Twitter bot puts it in a nice easy to digest format doesn't mean the data isn't out there, and there's nothing Elon or really anyone can do about it.
It is trivial to track a plane if you have its tail number and Elon only flies on a small number of jets.
And, no, by "shield himself from the consequences of his activities", I mean things like calling someone a pedophile on Twitter. He is one of the biggest Twitter drama quee s and it would be a lot easier to clean up his messes if he practically owns the company.
Doxxing is very specific-- you are revealing the link between the pseudonymous account and the holder. Elon Musk is a public figure, and posts under his own account.
Additionally, a jet plane, whether private or public, does not have any rights. You cannot "doxx" an airplane. Aside from the practical benefits that ADS-B provides, the public nature of it holds everyone accountable.
Doxxing isn't only for pseudonymous accounts. There are people with actual profiles that use their real names on Twitter and with a little bit of research you can publish all kinds of personal information about them like their current address which can be a real safety issue and would definitely violate Twitter's TOS.
> You cannot "doxx" an airplane.
I think it's pretty obvious that Elon Musks plane will most likely have Elon Musk inside of it. So by doxxing the plane you're doxxing the person. Just think about the same example with a car of someone who may be receive a lot of negative attention, you can tweet out the location of their car and that may put them in harms way. The car has no rights either but revealing the information is still a safety issue. It's just that for planes the data is public because the idea of a plane identifying an individual location is not a common one since so few people own private planes. Another analogy is a bus vs a car. I think most people would be fine with a bus having live tracking and in fact many people depend on that, but for an individual car it doesn't make sense.
