Hacker News Reader

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1589414958508691456

He specifically said he would not ban it as part of his commitment to free speech.

That was before the account owner violated other rules.

I thought he was all about the law? And what are these other rules? There's not really any defense of musk here. Leaving up the other "jet tweeters" makes it clear. He's just thin skinned.

Everyone is energized by this situation because it's so obviously blatantly self serving.

What rules did he violate?

As BryantD posted further below, the most up-to-date info we have is this: https://mastodon.social/@JxckS/109513788818540405

"Violating [Twitter] rules against platform manipulation and spam."

lol, I would love to see the offending tweets that led to that generic pile of BS. Appreciate the link.

The owner of the ElonJet account published those leaked communications, and that account hasn’t been suspended, so there’s some inconsistency there. Zoe Schiffer, who has published many Twitter leaks this month, has not been suspended.

It would be useful if Musk adopted transparency and shared the rationale behind this banning, along with all internal communications regarding it.

This is no longer accurate: all of Jack Sweeney’s accounts have been banned, apparently permanently (despite Musk’s statement that permanent bans are wrong).

https://mastodon.social/@JxckS/109513788818540405

There is an explanation:

Violating our rules against platform manipulation and spam.

You may not use Twitter's services in a manner intended to artificially amplify or suppress information or engage in behavior that manipulates or disrupts people's experience on Twitter.

“Artificially amplify” probably covers it, since he wrote code to amplify information that was otherwise tricky to view. Interesting precedent, though.

Here’s another update (yes, I know nobody’s reading this far nested):

The rules and policies covering personal information have been changed to include “live location information, including information shared on Twitter directly or links to 3rd-party URL(s) of travel routes, actual physical location, or other identifying information that would reveal a person’s location, regardless if this information is publicly available.”

https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/personal-info...

I have confirmed via the Wayback Machine that this change occurred within the last 48 hours.

I am going to be non-neutral now: what a dumb policy. That means you could report someone for posting a photo of a sporting event, because it identifies the location of the players. I’m not even totally against the concept but that is a terrible, terrible implementation.

Remember how the people deciding whether or not to ban Trump were relying on nuances and intent rather than trying to write iron-clad rules? This is why.

I'm still reading! You're the only one in this thread saying anything valuable as far as I'm concerned.

Another update: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1603190155107794944

Musk claims an attempt was made to assault him: "Last night, car carrying lil X in LA was followed by crazy stalker (thinking it was me), who later blocked car from moving & climbed onto hood.

Legal action is being taken against Sweeney & organizations who supported harm to my family."

> The ElonJet account was violating rules for leaking internal company communications

First I've heard of this. The ElonJet person was a Twitter employee then? What communications did they leak?

>On the other hand, blacklisting Dr. Jay Bhattacharya for saying things about Covid that turned out to be far more correct than what the CDC was saying at the same time is indeed going far beyond the law and also harming all of society: https://www.foxnews.com/media/twitter-files-confirm-stanford...

This is textbook whataboutism, using Fox News no less. It's irrelevant to the discussion about Musk's hypocrisy on free speech, which you also ignored in your previous comment:

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1589414958508691456

This isn't "textbook whataboutism" which to you seems to be just a thought-terminating cliche.

They also never ignored "Musk's hypocrisy on free speech." Simply because he isn't being hypocritical here.

> This is textbook whataboutism

False.

> using Fox News no less.

Speaking of irrelevant to the discussion, this sentence fragment wins first prize for most irrelevant.

> It's irrelevant to the discussion about Musk's hypocrisy on free speech

False. I am comparing the type of speech that is "far beyond the law" that Elon Musk is now allowing versus the type of speech that he is not.