6 ms·

In a slightly related topic to blocking people on twitter, Elon Musk is being investigated by the SEC for a whole whack of things he shouldn't have done. 1) Re

In a slightly related topic to blocking people on twitter, Elon Musk is being investigated by the SEC for a whole whack of things he shouldn't have done. 1) Release material information without alerting the exchange to stop trading and 2) and this is the tie in, releasing said information on his personal twitter account. Now this is normally fine based on RegFD but he has blocked people on twitter and RegFD is very clear that information can't not be disseminated in a way that isn't available to everyone at the same time. being the two major ones pertinent to twitter. Other things like claiming "funding secured" when your board, bankers and supposed funders all claim otherwise are also bad and likely to get him in more trouble, but are not important to the twitter disclosure. The solution to this is to use the newswire like everyone else in the US stock market but if he wants to use twitter, and it looks like he may no longer be able to after the SEC is done, then he'll most likely not be able to block anyone from seeing his tweets. I'm not sure how else you can fulfill the very reasonable requirement of equal disclosure to everyone otherwise.

HeadsUpHigh 8y ago
This is pushing it sooo much that makes me wonder if you have an agenda here. Tweets can be viewed without signing in( including replies) so anyone actually has access to them. Additionally there is legal text in the Tesla shares saying "expect updates on social media".
compsciphd 8y ago
I think one can make the argument that Trump and Musk might be different. Trump by blocking users doesn't prevent the users from seeing the content (i.e. they can log out and see the content). What it does do is prevent the user from easily engaging with the president (i.e. why its a free speech issue). It's basically saying that users A, B, and C can easily engage, but by blocking D, we are going to put a road block that makes it difficult for D. In the case of Musk, if one is claiming that blocking is discriminating who can see the content, one can make the claim that this really isn't true, all blocking does is make it more difficult to interface with musk, not to see the content.
- xienze 8y ago
  >What it does do is prevent the user from easily engaging with the president They can’t just make another account with which to tell Trump “you suck”? Ah but how will everyone else know _I_ tweeted something at Trump if _my_ handle isn’t attached to it? That’s what these people are mad about. Not that they can’t reply to Trump (they can), but that other people won’t know about that sick burn they once made that was drowned out by 30000 others.
  - toast0 8y ago
    Does Twitter permit multiple accounts for a single legal person in their terms of service? Do they permit creating additional accounts for the purpose of communicating with someone who blocked you on your other account? Petitioning the government, regardless of how effective a petition it is, shouldn't require violating a contract.
dwringer 8y ago
[deleted because I was misinformed, as pointed out by a below comment]
- dfxm12 8y ago
  Spicer's statements as press secretary represent neither a legal precedent nor necessarily the opinion of the Justice Department, though. I know you didn't specify "legal precedent", but that's the only precedent that would've mattered here. This is why this case had to be sorted out in the courts. On the topic of Musk, the SEC has protocols that need to be followed. Even if Musk blocked 0 people, I'm sure he'd be under investigation.
- chollida1 8y ago
  > A potentially crucial difference is that Donald Trump's White House Press Secretary said in a press conference in June 2017 that Trump's twitter statements should be construed as official statements by the president's office. I'm not aware of a similar precedent involving Musk. Well Tesla has gone on record with an 8-k form that indicates that Elon's personal twitter account is able to speak for Tesla officially. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/000119312513427630/d622890d8k.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/000119312513... Sorry, I should have put this in my original comment so you didn't have to make your comment:(
  - oarsinsync 8y ago
    Can anyone who has downvoted this comment explain why? The link to the 8-K provided very clearly states: > For additional information, please follow Elon Musk’s and Tesla’s Twitter accounts: twitter.com/elonmusk and twitter.com/TeslaMotors Which is in line with what the GP is stating. Various other financial reporting outfits have reported on this same document referencing the same line, and indicated that it may be considered justification as an official channel of distribution. Whether or not it actually is concluded that way remains to be seen, but I'm not sure what's wrong with @chollida1's comment
- mortenjorck 8y ago
  If you identify yourself as an executive of a publicly-traded company and make statements that would fall under SEC regulation, I’m pretty sure they don’t care whether or not you identify those comments as “official.”
mortenjorck 8y ago
With Twitter’s gradual shift from chronological timeline to overeager algorithmic shuffle, even if Musk unblocks everyone, users could conceivably not be served a tweet that would fall under SEC regulation based solely on the algorithm deciding they would “engage” more with other content.
- josteink 8y ago
  > With Twitter’s gradual shift from chronological timeline to overeager algorithmic shuffle .... deciding they would “engage” more with other content. Ironically, every time I notice a platform I use doing this, it immediate reduces my engagement for it. I can’t be the only one, can I?
  - TheJoYo 8y ago
    https://mastodon.social/@HackerNewsBot https://mastodon.social/@HackerNewsBot Mastodon is always chronological.
  - jonknee 8y ago
    > I can’t be the only one, can I? No, but as long as more people go the opposite direction it is a net positive. Considering it's seemingly the natural progression of timelines I am guessing the numbers show that this is the case.
    - Retric 8y ago
      Companies do dumb stuff all the time. As long as the numbers look good in the short term you can end up with stuff like open office plans becoming common even if they are a large net loss.
      - jonknee 8y ago
        And tech nerds do dumb stuff all the time too like wanting to nerotically "finish" a timeline of tweets. I think it makes tons of sense that Twitter wants to show its best content to more people than whoever happens to be on the timeline at the exact moment it's posted. It's frustrating sometimes, but you can use TweetDeck and get a firehose anytime you'd like.
yosito 8y ago
In traditional media, there are different rules for public figures than there are for private citizens. I think the same thing should apply to Twitter. Verified accounts should not be able to block anyone.
- egypturnash 8y ago
  Oh I like that. Might get Twitter to actually do something about how uncivil they've let the general standard of discussion become if having that precious little checkmark meant it was impossible to block anyone.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    In reality, those people would just leave Twitter.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - egypturnash 8y ago
      That works too.
- slg 8y ago
  In hindsight it is a little weird that blocking exists as a concept at all. When you tweet from a public account you are putting that information out into the public. It seems silly to try to prevent certain people from seeing that content and it is trivially easy for a user to circumvent that block by logging out or creating a new account. Muting seems like the most logical way for people to control who they interact with on Twitter.
  - danbolt 8y ago
    Wasn’t it removed at some point? I remember the nature of it changing but then being reversed due to negative responses. At the time I realized people were starting to use Twitter in ways not originally intended.
AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> and this is the tie in, releasing said information on his personal twitter account. Now this is normally fine based on RegFD but he has blocked people on twitter and RegFD is very clear that information can't not be disseminated in a way that isn't available to everyone at the same time. How does that work when the account is public and can be read by anyone (presumably including any blocked users) by just not signing in?
- sieabahlpark 8y ago
  Lawyering is fun
- MichaelBurge 8y ago
  If it's a reply, you can't browse their full timeline without signing in.
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    Was it a reply? I can see the one that says "funding secured" without signing in. Even for a reply, can't you still read it without signing in starting from the tweet it's a reply to?
benmowa 8y ago
if i can access the tweets via twitter without logging in, how can someone block me?
- username3 8y ago
  They can make their tweets private.
kbenson 8y ago
> Release material information without alerting the exchange to stop trading This whole incident sort of blows my mind. It seems like this should be Operating a Public Company 101 level knowledge, and the fact that he failed so spectacularly leads me to believe either someone at Tesla or the exchanges screwed up royally with the timing of some preliminary work and Musk didn't make sure it was done ahead of time, or he was drugged out of his mind on Sudafed or something (either because he thought it was okay or thought he could get away with it). I'm honestly not sure what's more likely given how stupidly obvious the error is.
- URSpider94 8y ago
  He’s all but admitted that he completely winged it, while driving down the highway to the airport nonetheless.
brownbat 8y ago
> he has blocked people on twitter and RegFD is very clear that information can't not be disseminated in a way that isn't available to everyone at the same time. I thought blocking just prevented you from seeing their replies. Per this article, but it's super old: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/12/twitter-blocking-pointless-now/356103/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/12/twitt... Did they change how blocking works after this?
- SpaceManiac 8y ago
  Yes, I can't speak to when but Twitter displays a very obvious "You have been blocked by this user"-type message instead of their tweets if you attempt to view their profile.
blockedTwitter 8y ago
has blocked people on twitter information must not be disseminated in a way that isn't available to everyone at the same time Okay, but one needs to understand the difference between an authenticated account being BLOCKED, versus a public account's tweets being accessible to non-authenticated users. If a twitter account posts public tweets, access to view and read is effectively unrestricted. There is no practical reason a person would be unable to view them, blocked or not, other than their choice to authenticate with twitter. Being "blocked" just means you can't reply, while logged in as an identifiable twitter user id. A flow chart of choices available, for how to look at a twitter feed would likely resolve this conundrum. To argue about this is to say something like: "I could not read the disclosure, because it was on page 39 of the Wall Street Journal and page 27 of the New York Times. It needs to be on the front page, because that's the only page my clipping service sends me." If you couldn't find a way to view a public twitter feed, how is that different from failing to take the initiative to turn to page 27 of the news paper, that can be perused for free at a news stand? Where do you draw the line? Does not having internet access count as a restriction? What about not having a twitter account? What about not owning a computer? What about not owning a smart phone? Is making an announcement on a website not a technical restriction by default? Why or why not?

HeadsUpHigh 8y ago

This is pushing it sooo much that makes me wonder if you have an agenda here. Tweets can be viewed without signing in( including replies) so anyone actually has access to them. Additionally there is legal text in the Tesla shares saying "expect updates on social media".

compsciphd 8y ago

I think one can make the argument that Trump and Musk might be different. Trump by blocking users doesn't prevent the users from seeing the content (i.e. they can log out and see the content). What it does do is prevent the user from easily engaging with the president (i.e. why its a free speech issue). It's basically saying that users A, B, and C can easily engage, but by blocking D, we are going to put a road block that makes it difficult for D. In the case of Musk, if one is claiming that blocking is discriminating who can see the content, one can make the claim that this really isn't true, all blocking does is make it more difficult to interface with musk, not to see the content.

xienze 8y ago
>What it does do is prevent the user from easily engaging with the president They can’t just make another account with which to tell Trump “you suck”? Ah but how will everyone else know _I_ tweeted something at Trump if _my_ handle isn’t attached to it? That’s what these people are mad about. Not that they can’t reply to Trump (they can), but that other people won’t know about that sick burn they once made that was drowned out by 30000 others.
- toast0 8y ago
  Does Twitter permit multiple accounts for a single legal person in their terms of service? Do they permit creating additional accounts for the purpose of communicating with someone who blocked you on your other account? Petitioning the government, regardless of how effective a petition it is, shouldn't require violating a contract.

dwringer 8y ago

[deleted because I was misinformed, as pointed out by a below comment]

dfxm12 8y ago
Spicer's statements as press secretary represent neither a legal precedent nor necessarily the opinion of the Justice Department, though. I know you didn't specify "legal precedent", but that's the only precedent that would've mattered here. This is why this case had to be sorted out in the courts. On the topic of Musk, the SEC has protocols that need to be followed. Even if Musk blocked 0 people, I'm sure he'd be under investigation.
chollida1 8y ago
> A potentially crucial difference is that Donald Trump's White House Press Secretary said in a press conference in June 2017 that Trump's twitter statements should be construed as official statements by the president's office. I'm not aware of a similar precedent involving Musk. Well Tesla has gone on record with an 8-k form that indicates that Elon's personal twitter account is able to speak for Tesla officially. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/000119312513427630/d622890d8k.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/000119312513... Sorry, I should have put this in my original comment so you didn't have to make your comment:(
- oarsinsync 8y ago
  Can anyone who has downvoted this comment explain why? The link to the 8-K provided very clearly states: > For additional information, please follow Elon Musk’s and Tesla’s Twitter accounts: twitter.com/elonmusk and twitter.com/TeslaMotors Which is in line with what the GP is stating. Various other financial reporting outfits have reported on this same document referencing the same line, and indicated that it may be considered justification as an official channel of distribution. Whether or not it actually is concluded that way remains to be seen, but I'm not sure what's wrong with @chollida1's comment
mortenjorck 8y ago
If you identify yourself as an executive of a publicly-traded company and make statements that would fall under SEC regulation, I’m pretty sure they don’t care whether or not you identify those comments as “official.”

mortenjorck 8y ago

With Twitter’s gradual shift from chronological timeline to overeager algorithmic shuffle, even if Musk unblocks everyone, users could conceivably not be served a tweet that would fall under SEC regulation based solely on the algorithm deciding they would “engage” more with other content.

josteink 8y ago
> With Twitter’s gradual shift from chronological timeline to overeager algorithmic shuffle .... deciding they would “engage” more with other content. Ironically, every time I notice a platform I use doing this, it immediate reduces my engagement for it. I can’t be the only one, can I?
- TheJoYo 8y ago
  https://mastodon.social/@HackerNewsBot https://mastodon.social/@HackerNewsBot Mastodon is always chronological.
- jonknee 8y ago
  > I can’t be the only one, can I? No, but as long as more people go the opposite direction it is a net positive. Considering it's seemingly the natural progression of timelines I am guessing the numbers show that this is the case.
  - Retric 8y ago
    Companies do dumb stuff all the time. As long as the numbers look good in the short term you can end up with stuff like open office plans becoming common even if they are a large net loss.
    - jonknee 8y ago
      And tech nerds do dumb stuff all the time too like wanting to nerotically "finish" a timeline of tweets. I think it makes tons of sense that Twitter wants to show its best content to more people than whoever happens to be on the timeline at the exact moment it's posted. It's frustrating sometimes, but you can use TweetDeck and get a firehose anytime you'd like.

yosito 8y ago

In traditional media, there are different rules for public figures than there are for private citizens. I think the same thing should apply to Twitter. Verified accounts should not be able to block anyone.

egypturnash 8y ago
Oh I like that. Might get Twitter to actually do something about how uncivil they've let the general standard of discussion become if having that precious little checkmark meant it was impossible to block anyone.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  In reality, those people would just leave Twitter.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - egypturnash 8y ago
    That works too.
slg 8y ago
In hindsight it is a little weird that blocking exists as a concept at all. When you tweet from a public account you are putting that information out into the public. It seems silly to try to prevent certain people from seeing that content and it is trivially easy for a user to circumvent that block by logging out or creating a new account. Muting seems like the most logical way for people to control who they interact with on Twitter.
- danbolt 8y ago
  Wasn’t it removed at some point? I remember the nature of it changing but then being reversed due to negative responses. At the time I realized people were starting to use Twitter in ways not originally intended.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago

> and this is the tie in, releasing said information on his personal twitter account. Now this is normally fine based on RegFD but he has blocked people on twitter and RegFD is very clear that information can't not be disseminated in a way that isn't available to everyone at the same time. How does that work when the account is public and can be read by anyone (presumably including any blocked users) by just not signing in?

sieabahlpark 8y ago
Lawyering is fun
MichaelBurge 8y ago
If it's a reply, you can't browse their full timeline without signing in.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  Was it a reply? I can see the one that says "funding secured" without signing in. Even for a reply, can't you still read it without signing in starting from the tweet it's a reply to?

benmowa 8y ago

if i can access the tweets via twitter without logging in, how can someone block me?

username3 8y ago
They can make their tweets private.

kbenson 8y ago

> Release material information without alerting the exchange to stop trading This whole incident sort of blows my mind. It seems like this should be Operating a Public Company 101 level knowledge, and the fact that he failed so spectacularly leads me to believe either someone at Tesla or the exchanges screwed up royally with the timing of some preliminary work and Musk didn't make sure it was done ahead of time, or he was drugged out of his mind on Sudafed or something (either because he thought it was okay or thought he could get away with it). I'm honestly not sure what's more likely given how stupidly obvious the error is.

URSpider94 8y ago
He’s all but admitted that he completely winged it, while driving down the highway to the airport nonetheless.

brownbat 8y ago

> he has blocked people on twitter and RegFD is very clear that information can't not be disseminated in a way that isn't available to everyone at the same time. I thought blocking just prevented you from seeing their replies. Per this article, but it's super old: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/12/twitter-blocking-pointless-now/356103/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/12/twitt... Did they change how blocking works after this?

SpaceManiac 8y ago
Yes, I can't speak to when but Twitter displays a very obvious "You have been blocked by this user"-type message instead of their tweets if you attempt to view their profile.

blockedTwitter 8y ago

has blocked people on twitter information must not be disseminated in a way that isn't available to everyone at the same time Okay, but one needs to understand the difference between an authenticated account being BLOCKED, versus a public account's tweets being accessible to non-authenticated users. If a twitter account posts public tweets, access to view and read is effectively unrestricted. There is no practical reason a person would be unable to view them, blocked or not, other than their choice to authenticate with twitter. Being "blocked" just means you can't reply, while logged in as an identifiable twitter user id. A flow chart of choices available, for how to look at a twitter feed would likely resolve this conundrum. To argue about this is to say something like: "I could not read the disclosure, because it was on page 39 of the Wall Street Journal and page 27 of the New York Times. It needs to be on the front page, because that's the only page my clipping service sends me." If you couldn't find a way to view a public twitter feed, how is that different from failing to take the initiative to turn to page 27 of the news paper, that can be perused for free at a news stand? Where do you draw the line? Does not having internet access count as a restriction? What about not having a twitter account? What about not owning a computer? What about not owning a smart phone? Is making an announcement on a website not a technical restriction by default? Why or why not?