4 ms·

You're misreading the policy. It defines the subsequent bullet points as "private information", it does not restrict the scope of those bullet points to some ot

You're misreading the policy. It defines the subsequent bullet points as "private information", it does not restrict the scope of those bullet points to some other external definition of "private information". More explicitly, legally speaking, "the following types of private information" means "the following list of things, which we are calling private information", not "the following list of things, when they are considered as private information (defined elsewhere)".

jjulius 4y ago
It's painfully obvious reading through the entire document that comments akin to, "I'm at [venue] seeing [performer]!" are allowed. Beyond what I've already shared, there is also... >What is not a violation of this policy? >sharing information that is publicly available elsewhere, in a non-abusive manner (with the exception of live location information) "I'm at [venue] seeing [performer]!" is non-abusive, and the information is available through advertising for the show, signage on the venue itself, the venue's website, the venue's social media profiles, the ticketing company's website, the artist's website, the artist's social media profiles, the promoter's social media pages, media stories, the list goes on. It's hastily written, yes, but in the context of the broader happenings at Twitter, and what people generally use it for (eg, musicians are gonna want to tell people where they are, and they're gonna want people to tell other people they saw them, and the venue is gonna want the promotion, etc.), this is pretty obvious.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  C’mon, you even cited the “with the exception of live location information” bit. That parenthetical says “you can’t share live location information even in a non-abusive fashion”.
  - jjulius 4y ago
    I think that the two of you know a good deal about what is happening with Twitter right now, why these terms are in place, what they actually target and what they don't. And with all that in mind, I'd wager that the two of you are being willfully obtuse here. Edit: Oh, look! Twitter themselves have specifically supported my read of this[1]: >Content that shares location information related to a public engagement or event, such as a concert or political event, is also permitted. [1]https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/1603165967453868032 https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/1603165967453868032
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      The fact that this is attempting to specifically target one account is exactly why it's so badly written. It's trying to walk an impossible line of "Elon wants no censorship, but he wants this censored". re: your edit; find that statement in the "full policy" link at the end of the thread. It's not documented there.
      - jjulius 4y ago
        >The fact that this is attempting to specifically target one account is exactly why it's so badly written. It's trying to walk an impossible line of "Elon wants no censorship, but he wants this censored". Yup! That's why I even mentioned that it was clearly hastily written in an earlier comment. For what it's worth, I think I share your sentiment, re: Musk/freedom of speech. It's hastily written because it's reactionary and, assuming Musk/Twitter can ever actually get their house in order, I'd anticipate that it will be more clearly written into the terms over time. But in spite of it not being written clearly... >re: your edit; find that statement in the "full policy" link at the end of the thread. It's not documented there. ... I've still managed to demonstrate in this comment chain that I was able to understand the intent of the poorly-written "full policy" link, based on my assertion yesterday followed by the confirmation Tweet that I shared this morning. And I'm fairly certain you did, too. This comment chain is feeling incredibly cyclical, so I'm gonna bounce.

jjulius 4y ago

It's painfully obvious reading through the entire document that comments akin to, "I'm at [venue] seeing [performer]!" are allowed. Beyond what I've already shared, there is also... >What is not a violation of this policy? >sharing information that is publicly available elsewhere, in a non-abusive manner (with the exception of live location information) "I'm at [venue] seeing [performer]!" is non-abusive, and the information is available through advertising for the show, signage on the venue itself, the venue's website, the venue's social media profiles, the ticketing company's website, the artist's website, the artist's social media profiles, the promoter's social media pages, media stories, the list goes on. It's hastily written, yes, but in the context of the broader happenings at Twitter, and what people generally use it for (eg, musicians are gonna want to tell people where they are, and they're gonna want people to tell other people they saw them, and the venue is gonna want the promotion, etc.), this is pretty obvious.

ceejayoz 4y ago
C’mon, you even cited the “with the exception of live location information” bit. That parenthetical says “you can’t share live location information even in a non-abusive fashion”.
- jjulius 4y ago
  I think that the two of you know a good deal about what is happening with Twitter right now, why these terms are in place, what they actually target and what they don't. And with all that in mind, I'd wager that the two of you are being willfully obtuse here. Edit: Oh, look! Twitter themselves have specifically supported my read of this[1]: >Content that shares location information related to a public engagement or event, such as a concert or political event, is also permitted. [1]https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/1603165967453868032 https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/1603165967453868032
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    The fact that this is attempting to specifically target one account is exactly why it's so badly written. It's trying to walk an impossible line of "Elon wants no censorship, but he wants this censored". re: your edit; find that statement in the "full policy" link at the end of the thread. It's not documented there.
    - jjulius 4y ago
      >The fact that this is attempting to specifically target one account is exactly why it's so badly written. It's trying to walk an impossible line of "Elon wants no censorship, but he wants this censored". Yup! That's why I even mentioned that it was clearly hastily written in an earlier comment. For what it's worth, I think I share your sentiment, re: Musk/freedom of speech. It's hastily written because it's reactionary and, assuming Musk/Twitter can ever actually get their house in order, I'd anticipate that it will be more clearly written into the terms over time. But in spite of it not being written clearly... >re: your edit; find that statement in the "full policy" link at the end of the thread. It's not documented there. ... I've still managed to demonstrate in this comment chain that I was able to understand the intent of the poorly-written "full policy" link, based on my assertion yesterday followed by the confirmation Tweet that I shared this morning. And I'm fairly certain you did, too. This comment chain is feeling incredibly cyclical, so I'm gonna bounce.