[HN Gopher] Meta suspends accounts tracking jets
___________________________________________________________________
Meta suspends accounts tracking jets
Author : perihelions
Score : 21 points
Date : 2024-10-22 20:24 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.washingtonpost.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.washingtonpost.com)
| WalterSobchak wrote:
| https://archive.is/4G3Uj
| bigfatkitten wrote:
| But they allow CSAM to more or less go unchecked on Facebook.
| What interesting priorities they have.
| bediger4000 wrote:
| Class solidarity with other billionaires and similarly rich
| folk explains it easily.
| loeg wrote:
| They absolutely do not.
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| How do you even come up with a conclusion like that?
| amatecha wrote:
| IMO, people who own and regularly fly in private jets are
| definitely worthy of the scrutiny -- not to mention the flight
| tracking data is public information.
|
| That said, to me it's redundant: social platforms owned by
| publicly-traded corporations are probably not worth enriching
| with your free content anyways. Every login, every post, every
| "favorite"/"like" is literally growing their profits.
| aeternum wrote:
| The tyranny of the majority. Doxing "me" should of course be
| illegal but for certain groups of "others", it's just fine.
| ForHackernews wrote:
| Don't like it? Fly commercial.
| aeternum wrote:
| Neighbor sets up a camera on your driveway that posts to
| socials whenever you come and go.
|
| Don't like it? Don't own a house or car.
| bsder wrote:
| Rules for thee but not for me.
|
| Zuck sure likes vacuuming up and aggregating everybody else's
| information but gets cranky when someone starts doing the
| same to him.
| BadHumans wrote:
| Others make billions selling every detail about your life. At
| the very least it's hypocritical.
| greatgib wrote:
| Now private companies are deciding of their own extrajudicial
| laws.
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| This is nonsensical, private companies (like individuals) can
| choose who they allow to use their products, just like they
| always have.
| fsflover wrote:
| They shouldn't be able to if they're monopolies.
| globular-toast wrote:
| You should say _services_ , not products. People who make
| products can't generally choose who gets to use them.
|
| But, in any case, private companies should never be both
| allowed to do what they like and allowed to be monopolies.
| Since we don't break up monopolies any more, that means they
| can't be allowed to do what they like.
| SllX wrote:
| Not extrajudicial laws. Terms of Service. Private companies
| can't pass laws and Facebook is not an unrestricted hosting
| provider. Never has been.
|
| You can disagree with Facebook's _choice_ without disputing
| their _ability_ to do something, in this case ban a bunch of
| jet tracking accounts.
| ryandrake wrote:
| > Andy Stone, a spokesman for Meta, which also owns Facebook,
| said the accounts were disabled for "violating our privacy
| policy," that they posed a "risk of physical harm of
| individuals," and that the decision followed the recommendation
| of Meta's independent Oversight Board.
|
| I love how they just spew vague nonsense, unchallenged. How
| exactly does knowing that Celebrity X traveled from LA to NYC
| yesterday "pose a risk of physical harm?" Show the cause and
| effect, Andy Stone. Paint a believable picture that connects the
| dots from this information to "harm." But, Andy Stone will never
| have to actually do that or be specific because journalists just
| publish corporate PR statements without pushback or probing.
| aeternum wrote:
| >How exactly does knowing that Celebrity X traveled from LA to
| NYC yesterday "pose a risk of physical harm?"
|
| It's not just "travelled" it's "travelling". You can track the
| jet in realtime and if on a flight plan (which is most of the
| time) you can determine their destination ahead of time along
| with a highly accurate arrival time.
|
| Paparazzi or more nefarious actors can then wait at the private
| airport terminal. It's also not theoretical as Elon's ex-wife +
| kids were attacked using this method and Paparazzi uses it
| regularly.
|
| The best argument against this is that Meta banning it doesn't
| do much as people can still query FAA data directly.
| mthoms wrote:
| >It's also not theoretical as Elon's ex-wife + kids were
| attacked using this method and Paparazzi uses it regularly.
|
| There's no evidence that this incident involved the jet
| tracking. It occurred in the neighbourhood where his ex-wife
| _lives_.
|
| https://archive.is/RWW4T
|
| (Washington Post)
| waffleiron wrote:
| We should not longer have music festivals with this
| argumentation (as a random example from millions). People
| exactly know where and what time famous are at a specific
| location. Sure it might not be "highly accurate timing" but
| lets be honest a stalker doesn't care about a bunch of hours
| more or less.
|
| https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1842048755169690103
|
| Oh no Musk revealed where he's going to be, someone could
| wait for him there.
|
| It's quite obvious that this is not about stalking as Elon
| loves being seen/heard and doesn't shy away from the public.
| 7e wrote:
| https://www.businessinsider.com/grimes-tracked-elon-musk-pri...
| is a hilarious related story.
|
| It's trivial for the ultra rich to avoid this tracking: just use
| jet shares.
| cadamsau wrote:
| Seems they could move the tracking to their own website, no?
| GuB-42 wrote:
| They are already in several places https://grndcntrl.net/links/
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-10-22 23:01 UTC)