5 ms·

Unmentioned in the article is that accounts parodying Musk, clearly labeled as parodies, are being suspended and banned: https://twitter.com/PopCrave/status/15

Unmentioned in the article is that accounts parodying Musk, clearly labeled as parodies, are being suspended and banned: https://twitter.com/PopCrave/status/1589499887900819457 https://twitter.com/PopCrave/status/1589499887900819457 https://twitter.com/xor/status/1589402790732128256 https://twitter.com/xor/status/1589402790732128256

adql 4y ago
To be entirely fair "it's in my profile" isn't exactly visible if you just browse twitter and don't explicitly click on the user
- MallocVoidstar 4y ago
  "Elon Musk (parody)" as a display name is very visible and yet apparently violates Twitter's rules.
- mandmandam 4y ago
  If we're "being fair", having to label every thought you tweet with "PARODY" to not be banned is fucking bananas. And it's nearly 180 degrees from what any reasonable person would call "free speech".
  - kibwen 4y ago
    "Comedy is now legal on Twitter" ~ Elon Musk, 2022-10-28 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1586104694421659648 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1586104694421659648 Sounds like he forgot to label this one as a parody, eh?
  - ta8903 4y ago
    From what I understand, it's just meant for parody accounts.
  - scarygliders 4y ago
    To be fair, the people who labelled themselves as "Elon Musk" should have labelled themselves as "Elon Musk (parody)" or similar. That way, they automatically label their tweets as parody, and don't have to include such sentences as "this tweet was a parody" as implied in your post. In fact I'm pretty sure that's what is meant when the Twitter TOS states "To avoid confusing others about an account’s affiliation, parody, commentary, and fan accounts must distinguish themselves in BOTH their account name and bio." Exercising their free speech by clumsily painting "pArOdY" in mspaint on their Twitter account banner picture, but not including "(Parody)" in their account name, is in breach of the TOS.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - alphabettsy 4y ago
      Having to put parody so visibly kinda defeats the purpose of this type of comedy. There was a guy in my hometown who made an account the seemed to be a local police department. It was hilarious. If you somehow didn’t catch that the police would never say these things, you could go to the profile and see that it’s a parody. What’s the issue with that?
  - garbagetime 4y ago
    I'm staunchly in favour of freedom of speech and I do not have a problem with Twitter's current position on parody accounts. I'm in favour of freedom of speech because I believe it is important that ideas must be shared and debated freely and that no one should be beyond criticism. Being allowed to impersonate others simply doesn't seem to be an important part of that.
    - pjc50 4y ago
      See upthread the Onion amicus brief on parody and free speech https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33503929 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33503929
      - garbagetime 4y ago
        Seems weak. Poorly written and based on plainly false assumptions. I agree with IV that no one should be prosecuted under law for impersonation as long as nothing actually fraudulent has occurred.
    - piva00 4y ago
      > Being allowed to impersonate others simply doesn't seem to be an important part of that. You forgot the "allowed to impersonate others to do parodies" part of it. I don't understand how you can be staunchly in favour of freedom of speech while holding the position that this kind of speech, blatant parody humour using impersonation as a delivery tool, is not protected under freedom of speech. If I somehow managed to register the domain "gooogle.com" and use it for humour, to take jabs at Google by displaying loads of fake ads instead of search results, showing on purpose unrelated results to the search query, etc., should my website be banned? Impersonation for scams and straight up deception are already punishable under other laws, why is that impersonation for parody and humour should be punished? I thought that was... Speech.
      - garbagetime 4y ago
        You speak of "blatant parody humour using impersonantion". That seems a confused phrase. If an account is blatantly a parody, then it is not committing impersonation, because if someone knows that an account is a parody of a person, they also know it is not the person itself. If you want to make a blatant parody account, you may do so according to the current Twitter TOS. However, if you want to impersonate someone, you may not do that. Your gooogle.com example doesn't seem to connect to the situation at hand, which is about whether it is against the principles of freedom of speech to place limits on impersonation even in such cases where no fraud is being committed. My goal is that people should be allowed to express all views and criticise all people. If for whatever reason impersonation must be outlawed, so be it - it may in fact further the goals for which I support freedom of speech.
  - taneq 4y ago
    Yeah but think about what could happen if you tweeted something you thought was obviously a joke and then everyone took it seriously? You might end up having to buy Twitter or something.
garbagetime 4y ago
Twitter's TOS[0]: "To avoid confusing others about an account’s affiliation, parody, commentary, and fan accounts must distinguish themselves in BOTH their account name and bio." Ethan Klein's account wasn't noted as a parody in its name. Its name was Elon Musk. Klein's account had Elon's account's profile picture and name, and had a verification badge. I think its totally sensible that the account got banned. [0]https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/parody-account-policy https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/parody-accoun...
- threeseed 4y ago
  > I think its totally sensible It is. And inline with Twitter's long standing position of banning people for violating their ToS. I wonder if over time Musk will realise that maybe his utopic vision of limitless free speech is actually unworkable and harmful and maybe he should've left Twitter's moderation approach the same as when he bought it.
neuronic 4y ago
The decisions are seemingly rooted in Elon's personal insecurity more than in actual consistent policy that people can get accustomed to if they choose. After all, Elon was just projecting when he complained about accounts getting unjustly banned due to hurting feelings of <INSERT BOGEYMAN>.
pjc50 4y ago
I think people who do this know what's coming. It achieves two things: it "burns their boats" on the way out of Twitter, quitting in the most irrevocable fashion, and points out the limitations of a pure free speech (except for exceptions decided by the supreme leader) approach.

adql 4y ago

To be entirely fair "it's in my profile" isn't exactly visible if you just browse twitter and don't explicitly click on the user

MallocVoidstar 4y ago
"Elon Musk (parody)" as a display name is very visible and yet apparently violates Twitter's rules.
mandmandam 4y ago
If we're "being fair", having to label every thought you tweet with "PARODY" to not be banned is fucking bananas. And it's nearly 180 degrees from what any reasonable person would call "free speech".
- kibwen 4y ago
  "Comedy is now legal on Twitter" ~ Elon Musk, 2022-10-28 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1586104694421659648 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1586104694421659648 Sounds like he forgot to label this one as a parody, eh?
- ta8903 4y ago
  From what I understand, it's just meant for parody accounts.
- scarygliders 4y ago
  To be fair, the people who labelled themselves as "Elon Musk" should have labelled themselves as "Elon Musk (parody)" or similar. That way, they automatically label their tweets as parody, and don't have to include such sentences as "this tweet was a parody" as implied in your post. In fact I'm pretty sure that's what is meant when the Twitter TOS states "To avoid confusing others about an account’s affiliation, parody, commentary, and fan accounts must distinguish themselves in BOTH their account name and bio." Exercising their free speech by clumsily painting "pArOdY" in mspaint on their Twitter account banner picture, but not including "(Parody)" in their account name, is in breach of the TOS.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - alphabettsy 4y ago
    Having to put parody so visibly kinda defeats the purpose of this type of comedy. There was a guy in my hometown who made an account the seemed to be a local police department. It was hilarious. If you somehow didn’t catch that the police would never say these things, you could go to the profile and see that it’s a parody. What’s the issue with that?
- garbagetime 4y ago
  I'm staunchly in favour of freedom of speech and I do not have a problem with Twitter's current position on parody accounts. I'm in favour of freedom of speech because I believe it is important that ideas must be shared and debated freely and that no one should be beyond criticism. Being allowed to impersonate others simply doesn't seem to be an important part of that.
  - pjc50 4y ago
    See upthread the Onion amicus brief on parody and free speech https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33503929 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33503929
    - garbagetime 4y ago
      Seems weak. Poorly written and based on plainly false assumptions. I agree with IV that no one should be prosecuted under law for impersonation as long as nothing actually fraudulent has occurred.
  - piva00 4y ago
    > Being allowed to impersonate others simply doesn't seem to be an important part of that. You forgot the "allowed to impersonate others to do parodies" part of it. I don't understand how you can be staunchly in favour of freedom of speech while holding the position that this kind of speech, blatant parody humour using impersonation as a delivery tool, is not protected under freedom of speech. If I somehow managed to register the domain "gooogle.com" and use it for humour, to take jabs at Google by displaying loads of fake ads instead of search results, showing on purpose unrelated results to the search query, etc., should my website be banned? Impersonation for scams and straight up deception are already punishable under other laws, why is that impersonation for parody and humour should be punished? I thought that was... Speech.
    - garbagetime 4y ago
      You speak of "blatant parody humour using impersonantion". That seems a confused phrase. If an account is blatantly a parody, then it is not committing impersonation, because if someone knows that an account is a parody of a person, they also know it is not the person itself. If you want to make a blatant parody account, you may do so according to the current Twitter TOS. However, if you want to impersonate someone, you may not do that. Your gooogle.com example doesn't seem to connect to the situation at hand, which is about whether it is against the principles of freedom of speech to place limits on impersonation even in such cases where no fraud is being committed. My goal is that people should be allowed to express all views and criticise all people. If for whatever reason impersonation must be outlawed, so be it - it may in fact further the goals for which I support freedom of speech.
- taneq 4y ago
  Yeah but think about what could happen if you tweeted something you thought was obviously a joke and then everyone took it seriously? You might end up having to buy Twitter or something.

garbagetime 4y ago

Twitter's TOS[0]: "To avoid confusing others about an account’s affiliation, parody, commentary, and fan accounts must distinguish themselves in BOTH their account name and bio." Ethan Klein's account wasn't noted as a parody in its name. Its name was Elon Musk. Klein's account had Elon's account's profile picture and name, and had a verification badge. I think its totally sensible that the account got banned. [0]https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/parody-account-policy https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/parody-accoun...

threeseed 4y ago
> I think its totally sensible It is. And inline with Twitter's long standing position of banning people for violating their ToS. I wonder if over time Musk will realise that maybe his utopic vision of limitless free speech is actually unworkable and harmful and maybe he should've left Twitter's moderation approach the same as when he bought it.

neuronic 4y ago

The decisions are seemingly rooted in Elon's personal insecurity more than in actual consistent policy that people can get accustomed to if they choose. After all, Elon was just projecting when he complained about accounts getting unjustly banned due to hurting feelings of <INSERT BOGEYMAN>.

pjc50 4y ago

I think people who do this know what's coming. It achieves two things: it "burns their boats" on the way out of Twitter, quitting in the most irrevocable fashion, and points out the limitations of a pure free speech (except for exceptions decided by the supreme leader) approach.