3 ms·
Have you considered reading the TOS instead of insulting me?
by oauea 4y ago
Have you considered reading the TOS instead of insulting me?
- coldpie 4y agoYes, obviously I have read it. The technical limitations are that you can post 250 characters and up to four images. There are no technical limitations being violated by posting an image containing more than 250 characters. People use images all the time to communicate longer text portions in a single post. Do you really think Twitter's intent by saying users may not work around technical limitations is to clamp down on this extremely common behavior?
- oauea 4y agoI'm not talking about their intent, I'm not a mind reader, I'm talking about their published TOS.
- coldpie 4y agoYes, I regret putting those last two sentences in there. Please ignore them and just respond to the first two: > The technical limitations are that you can post 250 characters and up to four images. There are no technical limitations being violated by posting an image containing more than 250 characters.
- jolux 4y agoPosting images of text is not posting text. It is posting images. Posting an image of a dog is posting an image, not posting a dog. (Ceci n’est pas un pipe) If you posted an image that triggered an injection bug in their backend and filled a tweet with more than 280 characters, that would be circumvention. But there is no technical limitation preventing people from posting images of text, or dogs. Similarly, the alt text box allowing up to 1000 characters is not a circumvention of tweets only allowing 280 characters. You are allowed to write up to 1000 characters of alt text. You are allowed to post images.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago"People use images all the time to communicate longer text portions in a single post. " People also post porn, or use bots, both are against TOS. So its not obvious or clrar, and they interpret their own TOS however it suits them every day. Its intentionally vague