4 ms·

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 reaso

by 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.

by anamax 5y ago

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.