7 ms·

Worth mentioning that this policy might have suspended John Carmack for this tweet a couple days ago, announcing his resignation from Meta: https://twitter.com

Worth mentioning that this policy might have suspended John Carmack for this tweet a couple days ago, announcing his resignation from Meta: https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/1603931899810004994?t=QcT1AJwAqLvIA7hSJJC9IQ&s=19 https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/1603931899810004994... This is a very, very, very bad policy and shows with absolute clarity that Twitter is far from a free speech platform. Which deeply saddens me. Imagine how absurd it would be for Reddit or Hacker News to have a policy like this. In fact, a similar policy on this site would get my account suspended for this very comment. More info in these tweets: https://twitter.com/TwitterSupport/status/1604531261791522817?s=20&t=IDF4v4VNtt_rylyQN7_2wA https://twitter.com/TwitterSupport/status/160453126179152281... Also, the policy is vague about whether merely linking to content on a competetive social network results in a ban, or whether the post has to "promote" another specific social network (whatever that means). They say "cross-posting" is allowed, but they don't provide a definition of "cross-posting". Whether the Carmack post would be allowed would hinge on that definition. Either way, it's a boneheaded policy.

EastSmith 4y ago
No, it will not get Carmack banned, because he is not promoting his FB account. He links to a news worthy post.
- jrmg 4y ago
  It is very clearly against the rules as written. They cover “…linking out (i.e. using URLs) to any of the below platforms on Twitter…”
  - oplav 4y ago
    > What is not a violation of this policy? > We recognize that certain social media platforms provide alternative experiences to Twitter, and allow users to post content to Twitter from these platforms. In general, any type of cross-posting to our platform is not in violation of this policy, even from the prohibited sites listed above. This looks like a cross post from John Carmack's Facebook post, which is not in violation.
  - cma 4y ago
    Reread the what is not prohibited section.
  - operator-name 4y ago
    > We recognize that certain social media platforms provide alternative experiences to Twitter, and allow users to post content to Twitter from these platforms. In general, any type of cross-posting to our platform is not in violation of this policy, even from the prohibited sites listed above. I think it would be classified as cross posting a newsworthy event.
    - concinds 4y ago
      Cross-posting can mean posting the same content on two platforms, not linking to content on another platform. Linking to Facebook would likely still earn him a ban.
      - jrmg 4y ago
        Yes - that’s what I interpreted it as. From the policy, Cross-posting covers when you “…post content to Twitter from these platforms…” (emphasis mine). Of course, I suspect the reality is that even people at Twitter don’t know if this falls under the policy or not. I’m not sure why people here keep talking about the post being ‘newsworthy’ - that is not mentioned in the policy at all.
      - davidbarker 4y ago
        This is how I understand it, also. e.g. "You may upload an image to Instagram and also upload that image to Twitter. However, you may not link to that image on Instagram."
      - dpkirchner 4y ago
        The sheer quantity of posts on Twitter suggests to me that they will need to automatically ban folks for linking to some external sites. So I guess the question is would Twitter unban Carmack if they performed a manual review later?
    - Klinky 4y ago
      "any type of cross-posting to our platform is not in violation of this policy, even from the prohibited sites listed above" sounds like doublethink. "Crossposting from prohibited sites is allowed."
- danShumway 4y ago
  I'm going through so much whiplash from the speed of Elon's transition from "it's wrong for Twitter to decide who's public/newsworthy enough for a checkmark" to "we'll allow crossposting if we decide it's a newsworthy piece of content." I guess we all expected this, but it's just wild how quickly it happened.
modeless 4y ago
Carmack was clearly cross-posting, not promoting Facebook. Twitter doesn't generally allow long form posts like that, so it clearly falls under the cross-posting part of the policy. I don't like this policy either, but let's not make up reasons for it to be bad. There are plenty of real reasons.
- ancapsfascists 4y ago
  The policy says comments like, "follow me @ on Instagram" are explicitly forbidden. One could very easily argue linking to ones own Facebook post could fall afoul.
  - modeless 4y ago
    One could argue that but one would be wrong because cross-posting is clearly allowed if you read the whole policy instead of just the first section.
    - Chinjut 4y ago
      There's no need to defend Elon here. Clearly what will happen is highly capricious enforcement based on who he personally likes and dislikes.
      - modeless 4y ago
        Don't ascribe motivations to me without evidence. This is not a defense of Elon Musk. I think this policy is stupid. But our criticisms of it should be correct. Otherwise we're no better than our opponents.
        ancapsfascists 4y ago
        There is tons and tons of evidence that Musk is moderating capriciously at this point.
        4y ago
inquirerGeneral 4y ago
Hoyadonis 4y ago
Reddit already does have a policy like this. Try writing a comment containing "rdrama.net" in it.
barbariangrunge 4y ago
> Imagine how absurd it would be for Reddit or Hacker News to have a policy like this. Some subreddits apparently ban you for linking to personal websites on them. Some forums ban links to other forums. There was a newsletter platform I recall that prevented you from exporting your mailing list (I forget it’s name). Many fiction websites ban you from linking to other sites where you share your fiction These policies are really lousy, but we can’t pretend they don’t exist elsewhere
- rhaksw 4y ago
  > Some subreddits apparently ban you for linking to personal websites on them. The "no self-promotion" policy originally came from Reddit. Reddit assuaged the wording in 2013 [1] but it's still used by the most popular subreddits as justification to remove whatever they [don't] want. For example, a pretty cool r/Minecraft Starry Night build [2] was #2 on Reddit when it was removed, perhaps due to Rule #11: Self-promotion must be kept to a minimum. To my knowledge, no explanation for that removal was ever provided. I discovered this the hard way while building Reveddit. I mention it in the FAQ under Why haven't I heard about this? [3] [1] https://old.reddit.com/wiki/selfpromotion?v=64baf14c-da98-11e2-bde1-12313d281d4a&v2=883a3974-de81-11e2-bf7f-12313d281d4a https://old.reddit.com/wiki/selfpromotion?v=64baf14c-da98-11... [2] https://www.reddit.com/r/Minecraft/comments/uvpkiz/i_built_starry_night_in_minecraft/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Minecraft/comments/uvpkiz/i_built_s... [3] https://www.reveddit.com/about/faq/#heard https://www.reveddit.com/about/faq/#heard

EastSmith 4y ago

No, it will not get Carmack banned, because he is not promoting his FB account. He links to a news worthy post.

jrmg 4y ago
It is very clearly against the rules as written. They cover “…linking out (i.e. using URLs) to any of the below platforms on Twitter…”
- oplav 4y ago
  > What is not a violation of this policy? > We recognize that certain social media platforms provide alternative experiences to Twitter, and allow users to post content to Twitter from these platforms. In general, any type of cross-posting to our platform is not in violation of this policy, even from the prohibited sites listed above. This looks like a cross post from John Carmack's Facebook post, which is not in violation.
- cma 4y ago
  Reread the what is not prohibited section.
- operator-name 4y ago
  > We recognize that certain social media platforms provide alternative experiences to Twitter, and allow users to post content to Twitter from these platforms. In general, any type of cross-posting to our platform is not in violation of this policy, even from the prohibited sites listed above. I think it would be classified as cross posting a newsworthy event.
  - concinds 4y ago
    Cross-posting can mean posting the same content on two platforms, not linking to content on another platform. Linking to Facebook would likely still earn him a ban.
    - jrmg 4y ago
      Yes - that’s what I interpreted it as. From the policy, Cross-posting covers when you “…post content to Twitter from these platforms…” (emphasis mine). Of course, I suspect the reality is that even people at Twitter don’t know if this falls under the policy or not. I’m not sure why people here keep talking about the post being ‘newsworthy’ - that is not mentioned in the policy at all.
    - davidbarker 4y ago
      This is how I understand it, also. e.g. "You may upload an image to Instagram and also upload that image to Twitter. However, you may not link to that image on Instagram."
    - dpkirchner 4y ago
      The sheer quantity of posts on Twitter suggests to me that they will need to automatically ban folks for linking to some external sites. So I guess the question is would Twitter unban Carmack if they performed a manual review later?
  - Klinky 4y ago
    "any type of cross-posting to our platform is not in violation of this policy, even from the prohibited sites listed above" sounds like doublethink. "Crossposting from prohibited sites is allowed."
danShumway 4y ago
I'm going through so much whiplash from the speed of Elon's transition from "it's wrong for Twitter to decide who's public/newsworthy enough for a checkmark" to "we'll allow crossposting if we decide it's a newsworthy piece of content." I guess we all expected this, but it's just wild how quickly it happened.

modeless 4y ago

Carmack was clearly cross-posting, not promoting Facebook. Twitter doesn't generally allow long form posts like that, so it clearly falls under the cross-posting part of the policy. I don't like this policy either, but let's not make up reasons for it to be bad. There are plenty of real reasons.

ancapsfascists 4y ago
The policy says comments like, "follow me @ on Instagram" are explicitly forbidden. One could very easily argue linking to ones own Facebook post could fall afoul.
- modeless 4y ago
  One could argue that but one would be wrong because cross-posting is clearly allowed if you read the whole policy instead of just the first section.
  - Chinjut 4y ago
    There's no need to defend Elon here. Clearly what will happen is highly capricious enforcement based on who he personally likes and dislikes.
    - modeless 4y ago
      Don't ascribe motivations to me without evidence. This is not a defense of Elon Musk. I think this policy is stupid. But our criticisms of it should be correct. Otherwise we're no better than our opponents.
      - ancapsfascists 4y ago
        There is tons and tons of evidence that Musk is moderating capriciously at this point.
        4y ago

inquirerGeneral 4y ago

Hoyadonis 4y ago

Reddit already does have a policy like this. Try writing a comment containing "rdrama.net" in it.

barbariangrunge 4y ago

> Imagine how absurd it would be for Reddit or Hacker News to have a policy like this. Some subreddits apparently ban you for linking to personal websites on them. Some forums ban links to other forums. There was a newsletter platform I recall that prevented you from exporting your mailing list (I forget it’s name). Many fiction websites ban you from linking to other sites where you share your fiction These policies are really lousy, but we can’t pretend they don’t exist elsewhere

rhaksw 4y ago
> Some subreddits apparently ban you for linking to personal websites on them. The "no self-promotion" policy originally came from Reddit. Reddit assuaged the wording in 2013 [1] but it's still used by the most popular subreddits as justification to remove whatever they [don't] want. For example, a pretty cool r/Minecraft Starry Night build [2] was #2 on Reddit when it was removed, perhaps due to Rule #11: Self-promotion must be kept to a minimum. To my knowledge, no explanation for that removal was ever provided. I discovered this the hard way while building Reveddit. I mention it in the FAQ under Why haven't I heard about this? [3] [1] https://old.reddit.com/wiki/selfpromotion?v=64baf14c-da98-11e2-bde1-12313d281d4a&v2=883a3974-de81-11e2-bf7f-12313d281d4a https://old.reddit.com/wiki/selfpromotion?v=64baf14c-da98-11... [2] https://www.reddit.com/r/Minecraft/comments/uvpkiz/i_built_starry_night_in_minecraft/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Minecraft/comments/uvpkiz/i_built_s... [3] https://www.reveddit.com/about/faq/#heard https://www.reveddit.com/about/faq/#heard