5 ms·

Twitter bans account highlighting Nancy Pelosi stock trades

63 points by yesbut 5y ago

joelbondurant0 5y ago
[dead]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
rosndo 5y ago
They forgot to mention why the account was banned, and it wasn’t banned for “highlighting Nancy Pelosi stock trades”. This is such a bullshit article, it’s entirely built around the premise that there could be no acceptable reason to ban these accounts. And I bet the “free press foundation” they speak of, isn’t a real foundation. In fact, the person running the twitter accounts didn’t even start using that name until his twitters got banned. Before that he went by the qanon-esque “patriotone”.
- yucky 5y ago
  >They forgot to mention why the account was banned, and it wasn’t banned for “highlighting Nancy Pelosi stock trades”. Why was it banned?
  - rosndo 5y ago
    Why should twitter explain this particular ban over any others?
- anamax 5y ago
  The reason it was banned is so good that it wasn't worth mentioning... What's a "real foundation"? Is the fact that it is a "not real foundation" a good reason to ban? Does Twitter try to ban all "not real foundations" or was this one special? Is the fact that the person behind it is guilty of "bad think" a good reason to ban or was it something s\he posted?
  - rosndo 5y ago
    Given that the “foundation” didn’t exist pre-ban, I’m not sure why that would have anything to do with this. > Is the fact that the person behind it is guilty of "bad think" a good reason to ban or was it something s\he posted? Do you think that it is a bad thing for twitter to ban people who use bots to artificially add more followers and retweets to their accounts?
    - anamax 5y ago
      > Given that the “foundation” didn’t exist pre-ban, I’m not sure why that would have anything to do with this. Yet, you wrote "And I bet the “free press foundation” they speak of, isn’t a real foundation." suggesting that foundation status or lack thereof meant that the ban was a good thing. > Do you think that it is a bad thing for twitter to ban people who use bots to artificially add more followers and retweets to their accounts? Your other posts suggest that you don't know why the account was banned, so why is that question relevant?
      - rosndo 5y ago
        > suggesting that foundation status or lack thereof meant that the ban was a good thing. Obviously not, I was talking about the shit article and not the ban. They speak of “the free press foundation” like as if it’s a real thing and not a substack page some guy renamed a week ago. > Your other posts suggest that you don't know why the account was banned, so why is that question relevant? That’s the reason Twitter gave to the account holder. Obviously this guy was botting his accounts in order to gain more visibility for his paid zerohedge clone they’re all promoting https://www.alphaletter.co/ https://www.alphaletter.co/ Check out the “uncensored” Gab posts, most of them are pushing his sketchy paid newsletters https://gab.com/NancyTracker https://gab.com/NancyTracker Some other twitter accounts belonging to the same guy that were simultaneously banned: https://twitter.com/redditinvestors https://twitter.com/redditinvestors https://twitter.com/readalphaletter/ https://twitter.com/readalphaletter/ https://twitter.com/HermanHughPP https://twitter.com/HermanHughPP Oh, and the thread from the guy himself where he discusses his business https://web.archive.org/web/20211230221325/https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1476667596409872393.html https://web.archive.org/web/20211230221325/https://threadrea... It’s all a part of his marketing play idiots are falling for > Every day I would tweet about how Twitter is going to ban me to exposing political corruption. My newsletter exploded.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  > it wasn’t banned for “highlighting Nancy Pelosi stock trades”. It wasn't? Where can I verify that?
  - rosndo 5y ago
    Where can I verify that you’ve stopped beating your wife Joseph?

63 points by yesbut 5y ago

joelbondurant0 5y ago

[dead]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

rosndo 5y ago

They forgot to mention why the account was banned, and it wasn’t banned for “highlighting Nancy Pelosi stock trades”. This is such a bullshit article, it’s entirely built around the premise that there could be no acceptable reason to ban these accounts. And I bet the “free press foundation” they speak of, isn’t a real foundation. In fact, the person running the twitter accounts didn’t even start using that name until his twitters got banned. Before that he went by the qanon-esque “patriotone”.

yucky 5y ago
>They forgot to mention why the account was banned, and it wasn’t banned for “highlighting Nancy Pelosi stock trades”. Why was it banned?
- rosndo 5y ago
  Why should twitter explain this particular ban over any others?
anamax 5y ago
The reason it was banned is so good that it wasn't worth mentioning... What's a "real foundation"? Is the fact that it is a "not real foundation" a good reason to ban? Does Twitter try to ban all "not real foundations" or was this one special? Is the fact that the person behind it is guilty of "bad think" a good reason to ban or was it something s\he posted?
- rosndo 5y ago
  Given that the “foundation” didn’t exist pre-ban, I’m not sure why that would have anything to do with this. > Is the fact that the person behind it is guilty of "bad think" a good reason to ban or was it something s\he posted? Do you think that it is a bad thing for twitter to ban people who use bots to artificially add more followers and retweets to their accounts?
  - anamax 5y ago
    > Given that the “foundation” didn’t exist pre-ban, I’m not sure why that would have anything to do with this. Yet, you wrote "And I bet the “free press foundation” they speak of, isn’t a real foundation." suggesting that foundation status or lack thereof meant that the ban was a good thing. > Do you think that it is a bad thing for twitter to ban people who use bots to artificially add more followers and retweets to their accounts? Your other posts suggest that you don't know why the account was banned, so why is that question relevant?
    - rosndo 5y ago
      > suggesting that foundation status or lack thereof meant that the ban was a good thing. Obviously not, I was talking about the shit article and not the ban. They speak of “the free press foundation” like as if it’s a real thing and not a substack page some guy renamed a week ago. > Your other posts suggest that you don't know why the account was banned, so why is that question relevant? That’s the reason Twitter gave to the account holder. Obviously this guy was botting his accounts in order to gain more visibility for his paid zerohedge clone they’re all promoting https://www.alphaletter.co/ https://www.alphaletter.co/ Check out the “uncensored” Gab posts, most of them are pushing his sketchy paid newsletters https://gab.com/NancyTracker https://gab.com/NancyTracker Some other twitter accounts belonging to the same guy that were simultaneously banned: https://twitter.com/redditinvestors https://twitter.com/redditinvestors https://twitter.com/readalphaletter/ https://twitter.com/readalphaletter/ https://twitter.com/HermanHughPP https://twitter.com/HermanHughPP Oh, and the thread from the guy himself where he discusses his business https://web.archive.org/web/20211230221325/https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1476667596409872393.html https://web.archive.org/web/20211230221325/https://threadrea... It’s all a part of his marketing play idiots are falling for > Every day I would tweet about how Twitter is going to ban me to exposing political corruption. My newsletter exploded.
josephcsible 5y ago
> it wasn’t banned for “highlighting Nancy Pelosi stock trades”. It wasn't? Where can I verify that?
- rosndo 5y ago
  Where can I verify that you’ve stopped beating your wife Joseph?