6 ms·

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). Specifica

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.
      - commoner 4y ago
        > 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. The user avoided posting the link so that he would be compliant with the rules as the CEO interpreted them. Your expectation is for the user to avoid posting any content that runs against Twitter's financial interest, even if that content is compliant with the rules. That is not a reasonable expectation, and the unreasonableness of this expectation caused the backlash that led to the account being unsuspended.
        garbagetime 4y ago
        The Tweet very clearly violated the rule. > The user avoided posting the link so that he would be compliant with the rules as the CEO initially interpreted them Where did Elon interpret the rule as being that users can advertise prohibited 3rd-party social media platforms as long as they don't provide a hyperlink? > Your expectation is for the user to avoid posting any content that runs against Twitter's financial interest, even if that content is compliant with the rules. Why are you talking about my expectations? What I am doing here is pointing out that PG clearly violated Twitter's rules. My claim is a descriptive claim, not a normative one.
        4y ago

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.
    - commoner 4y ago
      > 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. The user avoided posting the link so that he would be compliant with the rules as the CEO interpreted them. Your expectation is for the user to avoid posting any content that runs against Twitter's financial interest, even if that content is compliant with the rules. That is not a reasonable expectation, and the unreasonableness of this expectation caused the backlash that led to the account being unsuspended.
      - garbagetime 4y ago
        The Tweet very clearly violated the rule. > The user avoided posting the link so that he would be compliant with the rules as the CEO initially interpreted them Where did Elon interpret the rule as being that users can advertise prohibited 3rd-party social media platforms as long as they don't provide a hyperlink? > Your expectation is for the user to avoid posting any content that runs against Twitter's financial interest, even if that content is compliant with the rules. Why are you talking about my expectations? What I am doing here is pointing out that PG clearly violated Twitter's rules. My claim is a descriptive claim, not a normative one.
        4y ago