4 ms·

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 (bu

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.
      - commoner 4y ago
        > I am not "inventing a new definition of ban evasion". Yes, you are. You've already admitted that your novel definition of "ban evasion" is not the usual use of the phrase (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34047933 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34047933) and that the phrase typically refers to something completely different (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34045113 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34045113). Twitter's own definition of "ban evasion" differs from what you are claiming the phrase to mean (https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/ban-evasion https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/ban-evasion). > I am using simple English words in a straight-forward way. No, you are taking a phrase that already has a defined meaning in the context of Twitter and making up a new definition for it to attempt to justify the suspension. As Twitter has already defined it, "ban evasion" is the circumvention of an existing ban or suspension. It is not something that can be done by an account that is not already suspended or banned. I have no idea why you are continuing to defend this unjustifiable suspension even after Twitter has already reversed it. The fact that your initial comment is flagged, downvoted, and hidden (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34044649 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34044649) shows that your argument has been firmly rejected on HN.

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.
    - commoner 4y ago
      > I am not "inventing a new definition of ban evasion". Yes, you are. You've already admitted that your novel definition of "ban evasion" is not the usual use of the phrase (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34047933 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34047933) and that the phrase typically refers to something completely different (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34045113 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34045113). Twitter's own definition of "ban evasion" differs from what you are claiming the phrase to mean (https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/ban-evasion https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/ban-evasion). > I am using simple English words in a straight-forward way. No, you are taking a phrase that already has a defined meaning in the context of Twitter and making up a new definition for it to attempt to justify the suspension. As Twitter has already defined it, "ban evasion" is the circumvention of an existing ban or suspension. It is not something that can be done by an account that is not already suspended or banned. I have no idea why you are continuing to defend this unjustifiable suspension even after Twitter has already reversed it. The fact that your initial comment is flagged, downvoted, and hidden (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34044649 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34044649) shows that your argument has been firmly rejected on HN.