Meta’s Suspension of Jet-Tracking Accounts Sparks Free Speech Debate

[Social Media]

 

Meta, the parent company of Instagram and Threads, recently suspended accounts that tracked the private jets of public figures, including Meta’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg and former president Donald Trump. This move mirrors actions taken by Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter), which sparked controversy over the balance between privacy and free speech.

 

Meta's decision to block these accounts comes after they posted publicly available flight data about the private jets of well-known figures like Zuckerberg, Musk, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Kim Kardashian, Kylie Jenner, and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. Alongside this data, the accounts also shared estimates of the carbon emissions generated by these flights. However, the posts did not disclose who was on the planes or the purpose of the flights. 

 

Meta's spokesperson Andy Stone stated that the accounts were disabled for “violating our privacy policy” and posing a “risk of physical harm to individuals.” According to Stone, this decision was based on a recommendation from Meta’s Oversight Board. However, the board’s 2022 guidance primarily addressed the sharing of private residential information, such as home addresses, and did not reference flight or travel data. This leaves ambiguity around the platform's rules for posting information about public figures’ travel.

 

The flight information tracked by these accounts, though publicly available, has been used by journalists and researchers to report on public figures. For instance, details about Elon Musk’s private jet flights have been included in news stories that documented his travels across Pennsylvania during the 2020 U.S. presidential election to attend rallies in support of Donald Trump.

 

Jack Sweeney, a college student from the University of Central Florida, ran many of these jet-tracking accounts, including those on Instagram and Threads. He said that Meta provided no warning or explanation before suspending his accounts. "This is exactly what Elon did," Sweeney remarked, referencing Musk’s earlier move to block his X accounts.

 

Sweeney defended the accounts, stating that “this information has journalistic value. It lets you see what these people are working on with the businesses they run. It brings awareness to the climate, that these people are flying all around the world.”

 

Sweeney was also critical of Meta’s justification, arguing that the planes he tracks are not private residences. “The jets I track are not ‘private residences’ even if you claimed they sleep on the plane,” he said. 

 

After X suspended Sweeney’s accounts in 2022, the platform also temporarily suspended several journalists, including one who reported on the account suspensions. While X now prohibits real-time location sharing, Sweeney continues to post about Musk's jet on X, but with a 24-hour delay.

 

Alex Howard, a government transparency advocate, criticized Meta's decision on Threads, writing, “Meta has just created an opaque offline privacy policy for certain oligarchs & public figures that [Zuckerberg] will enforce when & how he wishes.” 

 

Meta sought advice from its Oversight Board on broader privacy concerns but did not ask specifically about flight data. The board suggested that Meta consider suspensions for serious violations where sharing private residential information leads to threats of violence or harassment. Stone declined to comment on whether any specific incidents of physical harm were linked to the jet-tracking accounts or if anyone had requested the suspension of the accounts. 

 

In a related incident, representatives of singer Taylor Swift threatened to sue Sweeney for “stalking and harassing behavior” earlier this year, though no legal action has been taken. An account tracking Swift’s private jet had already been suspended. Musk, Bezos, and Swift’s representatives did not respond to requests for comment. 

 

Meta’s decision, much like Musk’s, has reignited debates over the tension between protecting privacy and allowing public access to information that can hold powerful figures accountable.

 

Based on a report from the WP | X 2024-10-24

 

 

 

[Danderman123]

No free speech protection on a private platform.

[Purdey]

Agree. Freedom of speech is protected against government action but not the private sector. 

I remember No shirt, no shirt, no service in California was disliked but perfectly legal.

[impulse]

37 minutes ago, Purdey said:

Agree. Freedom of speech is protected against government action but not the private sector. 

I remember No shirt, no shirt, no service in California was disliked but perfectly legal.

 

The problem, of course, is that the social media companies have immunity under Section 230 because they, in theory, are only a conduit for other people's speech.  If they're putting their thumb on the conversation, that immunity should be rescinded.

 

[Purdey]

1 hour ago, impulse said:

 

The problem, of course, is that the social media companies have immunity under Section 230 because they, in theory, are only a conduit for other people's speech.  If they're putting their thumb on the conversation, that immunity should be rescinded.

 

Understood, but don't business owners have any rights? If they want to ban a customer isn't it their free speech or right important?

If a business is politically on one side of the spectrum, customers can always go elsewhere. 

Edited October 24 by Purdey

[impulse]

2 minutes ago, Purdey said:

Understood, but don't business owners have any rights? If they want to ban a customer isn't it their free speech or right important?

If a business is politically on one side of the spectrum, customers can always go elsewhere. 

 

They do have that right.  But then they need to be like the rest of us and take responsibility for their decisions.  Which means they lose their immunity, like the rest of us.  Like Alex Jones, like Guiliani, like everyone else that's being sued (and prosecuted) for what they choose to say.

 

Unless they want to be neutral conduits for what their users post.  But they're not.

 

[theblether]

To me this is action rather than speech. 

 

"That guy you don't like will be at that bar at 7pm" has a sinister undertone compared to "I don't like that guy." 

 

I'm open to argument. 

[WDSmart]

IMO, if these flight details are available to the public, they should not be prohibited from being posted on public sites such as Meta/Facebook. It shouldn't be up to the public site to determine what public information can and cannot be shared on their platform.

[Scott Tracy]

My view is I don't care enough to get invested.