4 ms·

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 le

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.
      - commoner 4y ago
        The CEO's statement (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1604593057676300288 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1604593057676300288) interpreted the deleted policy to mean that occasionally sharing links to other social media platforms is "fine". The suspended account's tweet did not even include a link to Mastodon, it only mentioned that a Mastodon account exists without directly naming the handle. Because the tweet did even less than what the CEO claimed was "fine", the suspension was unjustified. You are inventing a completely different definition of "ban evasion" that has not been used in any Twitter policy page to try to justify the suspension, even after the suspension has been reversed for its unreasonableness.
        garbagetime 4y ago
        If you read carefully the thread you linked you will see that Elon affirmed the following statement: > You just can’t create or turn (my emphasis) your account into a free advertising unit for one of the listed competing platforms. This is what PG was doing (you can argue that he actually wasn't - but he was according to Elon's standards, which is the important sense). One Tweet buried deep in a thread that could possibly be misinterpreted to support your position is not convincing. I am not "inventing a new definition of ban evasion". I am using simple English words in a straight-forward way.
        4y ago

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.
    - commoner 4y ago
      The CEO's statement (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1604593057676300288 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1604593057676300288) interpreted the deleted policy to mean that occasionally sharing links to other social media platforms is "fine". The suspended account's tweet did not even include a link to Mastodon, it only mentioned that a Mastodon account exists without directly naming the handle. Because the tweet did even less than what the CEO claimed was "fine", the suspension was unjustified. You are inventing a completely different definition of "ban evasion" that has not been used in any Twitter policy page to try to justify the suspension, even after the suspension has been reversed for its unreasonableness.
      - garbagetime 4y ago
        If you read carefully the thread you linked you will see that Elon affirmed the following statement: > You just can’t create or turn (my emphasis) your account into a free advertising unit for one of the listed competing platforms. This is what PG was doing (you can argue that he actually wasn't - but he was according to Elon's standards, which is the important sense). One Tweet buried deep in a thread that could possibly be misinterpreted to support your position is not convincing. I am not "inventing a new definition of ban evasion". I am using simple English words in a straight-forward way.
        4y ago