3 ms·

I’d agree with you except that linktr.ee was also referenced as a violation. That’s the part that makes me pretty sure that his original intention was to cover

I’d agree with you except that linktr.ee was also referenced as a violation. That’s the part that makes me pretty sure that his original intention was to cover links to links. Hey, can we have this discussion without referring to disagreements as “ludicrous”? It’s a moot point now, but still.

romwell 4y ago
>I’d agree with you except that linktr.ee was also referenced as a violation. It was listed as a forbidden platform. Paul Graham's personal website was not listed as a forbidden platform. * We can't infer from the policy that Paul Graham's personal website can't be linked to, or mentioned. * We can't infer from the policy that merely talking about forbidden platforms (including Mastodon and Link Tree) is a violation, unless a link or a username is provided. * Therefore, Paul G saying that he has a website with a Mastodon link on it isn't a violation of the policy. Generalizing from LinkTree to any website is unwarranted. Further, such a generalization effectively prohibits links outside Twitter (since Facebook can be reached from nearly every page out there via some sequence of clicks). But that's beside the point.