3 ms·

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 the

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.
    - garbagetime 4y ago
      The situation is very simple: 1. PG broke Twitter's rules 2. Twitter suspended PG's account 3. Twitter changed its rules 4. Twitter reinstated PG's account Whether you like my use of the words 'ban' and 'evasion' ultimately isn't super relevant to my point. I'm not 'defending' Twitter's actions. I'm interpreting reality. I'm discussing a matter of fact. The question is: did PG break Twitter's rules? The answer: yes. You may dislike Elon Musk. You may dislike me. You may dislike Twitter's (now deleted) rule. But this basic factual claim will remain correct. HN has an infinite track record of being very wrong. I take my comment being flagged as a much greater endorsement of it than had it been "upvoted". You can find countless HN users in this thread getting the basic facts of the situation wrong (yourself included). And it's not just that these are ignorant people searching for the truth. These are not enquiring minds. Any amount of sincere reflection would have revealed the truth. These are people actively claiming clear untruths as the truth. Why should I care about being downvoted, if these are the people downvoting me? Any time I am upvoted I should take it only as a sign to take a step back and think: "have I made some kind of blatant logical error?"

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.
  - garbagetime 4y ago
    The situation is very simple: 1. PG broke Twitter's rules 2. Twitter suspended PG's account 3. Twitter changed its rules 4. Twitter reinstated PG's account Whether you like my use of the words 'ban' and 'evasion' ultimately isn't super relevant to my point. I'm not 'defending' Twitter's actions. I'm interpreting reality. I'm discussing a matter of fact. The question is: did PG break Twitter's rules? The answer: yes. You may dislike Elon Musk. You may dislike me. You may dislike Twitter's (now deleted) rule. But this basic factual claim will remain correct. HN has an infinite track record of being very wrong. I take my comment being flagged as a much greater endorsement of it than had it been "upvoted". You can find countless HN users in this thread getting the basic facts of the situation wrong (yourself included). And it's not just that these are ignorant people searching for the truth. These are not enquiring minds. Any amount of sincere reflection would have revealed the truth. These are people actively claiming clear untruths as the truth. Why should I care about being downvoted, if these are the people downvoting me? Any time I am upvoted I should take it only as a sign to take a step back and think: "have I made some kind of blatant logical error?"