7 ms·

You have misunderstood what Elon and I are referring to by 'ban evasion'. You may disagree with the policy of banning the promotion of alternative social platf

You have misunderstood what Elon and I are referring to by 'ban evasion'. You may disagree with the policy of banning the promotion of alternative social platforms, but that is the rule. Trying to break that rule while not getting banned is blatantly ban evasion.

dm319 4y ago
Ok, what do you think of that rule?
- garbagetime 4y ago
  I strongly dislike it (and I believe Elon has now changed it), but that's another conversation.
jacquesm 4y ago
Elon and you? Really?
commoner 4y ago
That's not what ban evasion means. Ban evasion is the attempt to circumvent an existing ban or suspension. Posting content that does not benefit Twitter, without violating Twitter's rules, is not ban evasion. Here is Twitter's policy on ban evasion: https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/ban-evasion https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/ban-evasion In case Twitter changes this policy, here's an archived copy of the current version (October 2020): https://web.archive.org/web/20221218225353/https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/ban-evasion https://web.archive.org/web/20221218225353/https://help.twit...
- garbagetime 4y ago
  You're mistaken about the situation. PG did violate Twitter's rules (although I believe Elon has since had a change-of-heart about the rule he broke). Specifically, its rules on the promotion of alternative social platforms policy. You can find these rules on Twitter's page on Rules and Policies[0]. This is not the usual use of the phrase "ban evasion", but it is a literally correct use of it. [0]https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/social-platforms-policy https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/social-platfo...
  - commoner 4y ago
    If I'm mistaken, then go ahead and quote the part of the policy that was supposedly violated. You may have to find an archived copy, since the page you linked currently does not exist: > Sorry, this page doesn't exist. > Try using the search bar, or return to the Help Center. https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/social-platforms-policy https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/social-platfo... Your redefinition of the phrase "ban evasion" would implicate anyone who follows the platform's rules but is not wholly devoted to the interests of the platform's owners.
    - garbagetime 4y ago
      Sure (please note that this is a quotation from the policy as it was when PG was suspended, and that the policy has since been changed): > At both the Tweet level and the account level, we will remove any free promotion of prohibited 3rd-party social media platforms, such as linking out (i.e. using URLs) to any of the below platforms on Twitter, or providing your handle without a URL:
      - commoner 4y ago
        That policy has been deleted in response to backlash, not just changed. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34050283 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34050283 As you are aware, the formerly suspended account did not link out to Mastodon or directly name any Mastodon handle. The tweet that led to the suspension was also compliant with how the CEO claimed the policy should have been interpreted: > Casually sharing occasional links is fine, but no more relentless advertising of competitors for free, which is absurd in the extreme. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1604593057676300288 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1604593057676300288
        garbagetime 4y ago
        Whether that rule has since been deleted is of course interesting, but it is not directly relevant to my point, which is that PG did violate Twitter's rules (but, to be clear, the rule was indeed deleted). Yes, I am aware that PG did not provide a hyperlink. In fact, that's the core of my claim about PG attempting to violate Twitter's rules while evading a ban (the kind of action which Elon and I have referred to as 'ban evasion'). I believe you have misinterpreted Elon's Tweet. But I'm not interested in debating the interpretation of the poorly written Tweet. What is clear is that it was known that linking to Mastodon accounts was not allowed on Twitter, which is why PG, attempting to evade a ban, did not provide such a link.
drakmo 4y ago
Elon and garbagetime pretty much go together hand in hand
- jacquesm 4y ago
Terretta 4y ago
> is ban evasion FWIW, that's not the definition of ban evasion. Specifically, ban evasion is attempting to evade an active ban already in effect, e.g., registering an alt. A fit of pique doesn't redefine a term.
- garbagetime 4y ago
  Sure, at least in my experience, that's what the phrase usually refers to. But that's not what Elon and I are using it to refer to.
  - Terretta 4y ago
    The exact moral equivalent of a policy saying "no drinking and driving" then you and Elon desperately redefining drinking as a glass of water. That, as much as anything else, would lead to everyone having drinking problems: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl4plPGRG8o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl4plPGRG8o But I get it now, you're doing comedy.
    - garbagetime 4y ago
      Nah. Maybe if PG was banned for ban evasion there would be an equivilance. But PG was banned for something else.
arrow7000 4y ago
"The rules are that I get to do what I want. you may disagree with that policy but that _is_ the rule." Just because it's now apparently official policy doesn't make it any less juvenile and mercurial
eCa 4y ago
Apparently me and Elon agree that it wasn’t ban evasion, since pg’s account now has been re-instated.
- garbagetime 4y ago
  And the Tweet was not deleted, which suggests that the suspension was reversed rather than merely lifted. I suspect it's simply a case of Twitter changing its policy in real time.

dm319 4y ago

Ok, what do you think of that rule?

garbagetime 4y ago
I strongly dislike it (and I believe Elon has now changed it), but that's another conversation.

jacquesm 4y ago

Elon and you? Really?

commoner 4y ago

That's not what ban evasion means. Ban evasion is the attempt to circumvent an existing ban or suspension. Posting content that does not benefit Twitter, without violating Twitter's rules, is not ban evasion. Here is Twitter's policy on ban evasion: https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/ban-evasion https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/ban-evasion In case Twitter changes this policy, here's an archived copy of the current version (October 2020): https://web.archive.org/web/20221218225353/https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/ban-evasion https://web.archive.org/web/20221218225353/https://help.twit...

garbagetime 4y ago
You're mistaken about the situation. PG did violate Twitter's rules (although I believe Elon has since had a change-of-heart about the rule he broke). Specifically, its rules on the promotion of alternative social platforms policy. You can find these rules on Twitter's page on Rules and Policies[0]. This is not the usual use of the phrase "ban evasion", but it is a literally correct use of it. [0]https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/social-platforms-policy https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/social-platfo...
- commoner 4y ago
  If I'm mistaken, then go ahead and quote the part of the policy that was supposedly violated. You may have to find an archived copy, since the page you linked currently does not exist: > Sorry, this page doesn't exist. > Try using the search bar, or return to the Help Center. https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/social-platforms-policy https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/social-platfo... Your redefinition of the phrase "ban evasion" would implicate anyone who follows the platform's rules but is not wholly devoted to the interests of the platform's owners.
  - garbagetime 4y ago
    Sure (please note that this is a quotation from the policy as it was when PG was suspended, and that the policy has since been changed): > At both the Tweet level and the account level, we will remove any free promotion of prohibited 3rd-party social media platforms, such as linking out (i.e. using URLs) to any of the below platforms on Twitter, or providing your handle without a URL:
    - commoner 4y ago
      That policy has been deleted in response to backlash, not just changed. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34050283 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34050283 As you are aware, the formerly suspended account did not link out to Mastodon or directly name any Mastodon handle. The tweet that led to the suspension was also compliant with how the CEO claimed the policy should have been interpreted: > Casually sharing occasional links is fine, but no more relentless advertising of competitors for free, which is absurd in the extreme. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1604593057676300288 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1604593057676300288
      - garbagetime 4y ago
        Whether that rule has since been deleted is of course interesting, but it is not directly relevant to my point, which is that PG did violate Twitter's rules (but, to be clear, the rule was indeed deleted). Yes, I am aware that PG did not provide a hyperlink. In fact, that's the core of my claim about PG attempting to violate Twitter's rules while evading a ban (the kind of action which Elon and I have referred to as 'ban evasion'). I believe you have misinterpreted Elon's Tweet. But I'm not interested in debating the interpretation of the poorly written Tweet. What is clear is that it was known that linking to Mastodon accounts was not allowed on Twitter, which is why PG, attempting to evade a ban, did not provide such a link.

drakmo 4y ago

Elon and garbagetime pretty much go together hand in hand

jacquesm 4y ago

Terretta 4y ago

> is ban evasion FWIW, that's not the definition of ban evasion. Specifically, ban evasion is attempting to evade an active ban already in effect, e.g., registering an alt. A fit of pique doesn't redefine a term.

garbagetime 4y ago
Sure, at least in my experience, that's what the phrase usually refers to. But that's not what Elon and I are using it to refer to.
- Terretta 4y ago
  The exact moral equivalent of a policy saying "no drinking and driving" then you and Elon desperately redefining drinking as a glass of water. That, as much as anything else, would lead to everyone having drinking problems: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl4plPGRG8o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl4plPGRG8o But I get it now, you're doing comedy.
  - garbagetime 4y ago
    Nah. Maybe if PG was banned for ban evasion there would be an equivilance. But PG was banned for something else.

arrow7000 4y ago

"The rules are that I get to do what I want. you may disagree with that policy but that _is_ the rule." Just because it's now apparently official policy doesn't make it any less juvenile and mercurial

eCa 4y ago

Apparently me and Elon agree that it wasn’t ban evasion, since pg’s account now has been re-instated.

garbagetime 4y ago
And the Tweet was not deleted, which suggests that the suspension was reversed rather than merely lifted. I suspect it's simply a case of Twitter changing its policy in real time.