Twitter handles engaging in impersonation will be permanently suspended
twitter.com
twitter.com
- Many people don't care enough to pay $8, and with their content downranked, just mostly stop posting.
- Even some legitimate users who'd be willing to pay for a checkmark are reluctant, since it acts as something like tacit approval for Musk himself, in a time when public opinion is low.
- Spammers on the other hand all have blue checkmarks and are sorted to the top, having bought them from countries where they're dirt cheap[0].
- Remaining users get into the habit of scrolling past blue-checkmark responses altogether, as if they're a series of banner ads before the real content.
- Twitter briefly tries to fix the new spam issue by downranking countries where checkmarks are cheap, generating outraged headlines.
- Twitter briefly tries to fix the issue by making checkmarks $8 worldwide, generating outraged headlines.
- Twitter tries again to fix the issue with some sort of multi-tiered subscription system or something but it doesn't matter because the site is a shell of its former self by now anyway.
- Twitter messes with the UI a bunch of times.
- Twitter sells for $18.3 million to Automattic.
> - Even some legitimate users who'd be willing to pay for a checkmark are reluctant, since it acts as something like tacit approval for Musk himself, in a time when public opinion is low.
The virtue signalling will go both ways - some will pay $8 in the sad hope that Elon will notice them. Some will refuse for the reasons you outlined above. Nobody sane will actually give a shit.
No one said most would, not even Elon. But twitter has 450 million active users. If 5% of people care, we are talking additional yearly revenue of 2 billion dollar. Obviously 5% number isn't backed by anything and could be one order of magnitude smaller or larger.
This is a great point that I hadn’t thought of. $8 is already not a lot for scammers, and it could be even less.
I suspect the same to happen for people who obviously are not famous enough to have pre-bought check marks.
https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/15893968441317826...
> For Facebook and YouTube, it was white nationalist terror
Or you know, colluding with the government to censor facts they don’t like.
what a ridiculously narrow view of what constitutes speech! is this message, which isn't discussing the merits of any law, not speech? speech is all encompassing, not just the limited topics you personally approve of.
If he really had a problem with depictions of minors in hentai he would have done something about it a long time ago.
"Going forward, any Twitter handles engaging in impersonation without clearly specifying “parody” will be permanently suspended" – Elon on 11/6/2022
I don't think he has a good grasp on the concept of comedy and satire.
He doesn't even seem to have a good grasp of communication these rules to Twitters moderation team
https://twitter.com/xor/status/1589402790732128256?s=20&t=K4...
Edit: Also appears only for Elon Musk parody accounts
https://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrote/status/15894167789205053...
Most SNL skits are comedians pretending to be real people. There’s no need for SNL to declare that “the following skit is a parody”, it’s obvious.
On Twitter, it’s certainly less obvious, but the absurdity of the parody should give it away without having to state “parody ->”, which punctures the whole setup.
Plus, there’s all kinds of other comedic speech that’s not parody that can have similar misleading connotations for comedic effect. If those have to be clearly labeled “jokes”, then you’ve neutered comedy.
We all knew Musk wouldn't actually allow all legal speech. He censors Tesla owners trying to show people how "FSD" breaks in alarming ways. He also knows Twitter can't have rampant racism.
But now we have to wonder where his arbitrary line really is, since he has no discernible principles.
As long as the media keeps treating Twitter like the most important discussion platform, we should be worried about where exactly Musk will draw the line.
1. https://www.npr.org/2022/06/16/1105608659/elon-musk-twitter-...
Parody works because you don’t signal ahead of time.
And I know you are echoing what The Onion wrote - and guess what, if you go to The Onion about page, it's pretty obvious they are satire.
Obvious, yes, but not explicitly called out. That's kind of the point.
He's got a lot to learn.
> This will be clearly identified as a condition for signing up to Twitter Blue.
Okay, what's wrong with giving a warning though? Are people supposed to be afraid now?
I don't see what this meaningfully changes, except to serve as a demonstration of how heavily the new management relies on authoritarianism as his only source of power and influence.
i know people love hating on elon but twitter has always been a terribly run company. they've been a joke for a long time. why not give the guy 3-months and then we can judge?
We've got no say in the matter :) waiting and watching is the only option on this ride.
Up to this point it's been a spectacular and entertaining disaster to observe. I do feel bad for all the Twitter employees, didn't expect he'd really lay so many off, because it's an insane (and monumentally short-sighted) move. People are a hugely valuable resource, the most valuable a company can have!
I think those roles are put in place simply because the companies are already successful so they can afford to reap whatever little rewards the jobs provide. Based on SpaceX and Tesla, Elon doesn’t work that way.
The art of persuasion (and inspiration) is an effective tool when competently employed. Being a strong / good leader requires self-control and mastery.
The argument is that the setup of believing the content is true is essential to parody comedy which then pulls the rug out from underneath the reader with an absurdity, and that an average reader would understand the absurdities to be comedy. But that labeling it as a parody defeats the comedic effect.
HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33481989
Highly recommend reading the hilarious brief as well: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/242292/2022...
I don’t understand the issue with evading fraudulent accounts. Do you people really think 1000 fake Kanye’s floating around makes Twitter a better place simply because it’s more free?
Interestingly, the case the court is deciding is about a parody police department account on Facebook, which I assume would run afoul of Twitter's rule.
[0]: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/242292/2022...
To me, free speech means anyone can say anything they like. Not anyone can pretend to be anyone they like.
Identity theft is using someone else’s identity for the purpose of committing fraud. I think the fraud is the actual crime, not impersonation.
For example, there are professional impersonators of famous actors. I don’t think it’s illegal in any way.
> “This is a work of fiction. Any similarity to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events, is purely coincidental.”
I don't believe comedians use any disclaimer, but the context of their show and usually the exaggerated portrayal of the real life person caricatured makes it clear that it is a parody.
In an online forum where some people are representing themselves under their real names, and where verification is offered on those real name accounts, then I think it's reasonable for people who are using the real name of a person so as to parody them are required to make the parody explicit, and people who don't can be removed to prevent fraudulent impersonation. And I don't see that as a restriction of free speech (anyone can still comment, including pseudonymously, but not by fraudulently pretending to be another, real life, person).
[1] https://slate.com/culture/2016/08/the-bizarre-true-story-beh...
This issue of being required to label parody is headed to the Supreme Court, so perhaps it’ll be settled there (on a public level — Twitter is a private company and can implement whatever custom rules they want).
The Onion filed an amicus brief on this specific issue of the necessity of labeling parody.
Their argument is that believing the content is true is essential to the comedic function of parody. Parody progresses into a mocking absurdity and the force of this pivot can only happen to its maximum extent if the viewer thinks if only for a brief moment that the content might be real. Labeling it as a parody effectively takes all the energy out of the joke to follow.
HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33481989
And the hilarious Supreme Court brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/242292/2022...
*https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1507777261654605828?s=20...
They’re saying that the free speech emperor has no clothes.
The fact you'd so rarely see parody accounts that looked too real shows they always enforced that. (TikTok could do this better)
Musk has clarified the rules now everyone can be a blue check. Obviously they can't verify someone that's ambiguous.
> This will be clearly identified as a condition for signing up to Twitter Blue.
That fact most comments here can't think this through shows HN could do with some Blue Checks. (And since the comments are of so low quality, I'll clarify for them that was parody)
The fact HN defends an era where Julian Assange was not verified despite his requests and next week will support Wikileaks shows a real lowbrow IQ here. Remember the days it was frowned upon to be middlebrow?