4 ms·

X/Twitter should publicly provide a suspension reason - that would help a lot in verifying whether the account did/did not break TOS. A justification [0] of so

by nomilk 2y ago

X/Twitter should publicly provide a suspension reason - that would help a lot in verifying whether the account did/did not break TOS. A justification [0] of sorts is provided for the journalist suspensions: > Criticizing me all day long is totally fine, but doxxing my real-time location and endangering my family is not [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2022_Twitter_suspensions#Explanation_from_Twitter_and_Musk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2022_Twitter_suspensi...

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
_heimdall 2y ago
That's not a new problem though, platforms have been kicking people off with no clear reason for years.
- masklinn 2y ago
  Those platforms have not, however, been billing themselves as champions of unfettered free speech before handing out arbitrary unexplained bans when their feelings got hurt or they disliked the speech.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    Companies market themselves in ways that disagree with how the companies operate all the time. Marketing is frequently misaligned with what the company or product actually is.
    - masklinn 2y ago
      So your take on it is "oh he's a hypocritical liar but it's OK because he's not the only one"?
      - _heimdall 2y ago
        No, you're putting words in my mouth. My point here was simply that we should take any marketing as an accurate view of reality. Pick a company and you will almost certainly find contradictions in how they publicly represent themselves.
- nomilk 2y ago
  That's true, but there's no reason Twitter/X has to stay like that. Stack Overflow has a pretty good model. It does not remove suspended accounts nor their posts (except those directly related to the suspension). It subtly signals that an account is in suspension by reducing the account's 'reputation' (internet points) to 1 and placing a small notice on the profile, usually stating the reason for the suspension (e.g. suspicious voting etc).

by nomilk 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

_heimdall 2y ago

That's not a new problem though, platforms have been kicking people off with no clear reason for years.

masklinn 2y ago
Those platforms have not, however, been billing themselves as champions of unfettered free speech before handing out arbitrary unexplained bans when their feelings got hurt or they disliked the speech.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  Companies market themselves in ways that disagree with how the companies operate all the time. Marketing is frequently misaligned with what the company or product actually is.
  - masklinn 2y ago
    So your take on it is "oh he's a hypocritical liar but it's OK because he's not the only one"?
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      No, you're putting words in my mouth. My point here was simply that we should take any marketing as an accurate view of reality. Pick a company and you will almost certainly find contradictions in how they publicly represent themselves.
nomilk 2y ago
That's true, but there's no reason Twitter/X has to stay like that. Stack Overflow has a pretty good model. It does not remove suspended accounts nor their posts (except those directly related to the suspension). It subtly signals that an account is in suspension by reducing the account's 'reputation' (internet points) to 1 and placing a small notice on the profile, usually stating the reason for the suspension (e.g. suspicious voting etc).