The policy says comments like, "follow me @ on Instagram" are explicitly forbidden. One could very easily argue linking to ones own Facebook post could fall afoul.
> What is not a violation of this policy?
> We recognize that certain social media platforms provide alternative experiences to Twitter, and allow users to post content to Twitter from these platforms. In general, any type of cross-posting to our platform is not in violation of this policy, even from the prohibited sites listed above.
> Additionally, we allow paid advertisement/promotion for any of the prohibited social media platforms.
To be clear, I think it's a stupid policy. But it seems like they added this section to expressly address the very concern you are raising.
The policy is...not at all clear. I don't know what they mean by posting content "from" a prohibited site. They don't specifically mention a link.
> "In general, "
That's all you need to know. Those two words imply "but for -specific cases- there are other criteria".
Looking at the positive side: Now you get to police yourself and/or get to know yourself: will you bend your will to yet another digital tyrant and self-police your self-expression? Will every time you are ready to press that "send" button on a post with links give you pause, thinking "I think, "in general", I am toeing the line, o Supreme Leader, please please let me stay. Monetize me, do with me as you will, but please, just let me tweet!"
We're making a society of digital sheep, "are you in?"
p.s. all these efforts by various tech giants, including those who hold your 'email address' hostage such as Alphabet, are infringing on your digital identity, which they believe they own and control.
And without a durable independent identity, who are you in digital "society"? How could there ever be "democracy" in a "digital society" when people can be erased just like that?
I very much agree, however doing that first requires that one is able to perceive reality without making errors, and that is a lot harder than it seems.
As for censorship: all platforms have it, including HN, and opinions (aka: reality) vary on which approach is best.
At the end of the day as far as i am concerned its a dead platform -- just the ad reductions against the 1bn + interest means the runway is on fire. Whatever elon does at this point is just pretending to do work effort while juggling balls in the air. It is clear he will not only tank twitter but given he has already hit a sell off cliff on tesla shares he will be licky to have any relevent input on that corp in the near future.
I do share your prediction that given the ambiguous wording of the cross posting section this will likely involve the feelings of the supreme leader of twitter.
There is at least arguably value in defending/pursuing the truth though.
> Clearly what will happen is highly capricious enforcement based on who he personally likes and dislikes.
Visions of the future are sometimes not as accurate as they appear due to shortcomings in the simulator.
> There is at least arguably value in defending/pursuing the truth though.
Indeed, it seems to simply be the case that the company is supporting “paid speech”.
If no one breaks character (so far so good in this thread), it works out really good, ignoring the consequences of course.
I think the "cross-posting" that the article is referring to is e.g. downloading a TikTok to reupload it to Twitter, or screenshotting Instagram or whatever. Elon can't risk LibsOfTikTok's entire account falling under violation.
I could be wrong about that interpretation of the policy though, because the wording is probably intentionally vague.
Of course this is also banned under EU law. (of course it is, everything is banned under EU law)
> At both the Tweet level and the account level, we will remove any free promotion of prohibited 3rd-party social media platforms, such as linking out (i.e. using URLs) to any of the below platforms on Twitter, or providing your handle without a URL.
The fact that the first explanatory paragraph calls these other platforms "prohibited 3rd-party social media platforms" is confusing at best.
It does make sense for a paid-speech platform, though.
Also, as a thought experiment, if Twitter were a part of the fediverse, wouldn’t this policy essentially be the same as defederating from the prohibited sites?
I’m new to the concept of the fediverse, so I welcome edification or enlightenment on that thought experiment.
What is a "paid-speech platform" exactly? Twitter is just going to be for press releases and advertisers now?
It would also be absurd for a node that claims to implement free-speech absolutism to defederate from any particular node. It would also be absurd to stay federated with nodes that you claim are prohibited while telling people on your node to still cross-post content from these nodes.
It wasn't already?
The problem with arguing this way is it can't possibly ever convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you. It's a great way to get both sides arguing past each other.
If you're in the right then you can be charitable to the other side and still make your points. That's the only way you'll be heard. Unless all you care about is preaching to the choir. Then go ahead, but I won't join you. It's a good way to farm karma, but a bad way to argue.
Is it not vague and poorly worded in a fashion that could give the impression that sharing links to other platforms might be prohibited? Is this ambiguity perhaps a feature and not a bug?
I find faux-free-speech supporters rely on ambiguity to mask their actual intentions. I would much rather people focus on asking more explicit questions and requesting explicit answers.
I don't think it takes too much brain effort to figure out the problematic nature of the policy given the context of Twitter. If someone cannot, I am not really here to coddle them, or try to convince them otherwise. The only person who can actually answer these questions & clarify the policy is Musk, and I doubt he has any genuine interest in doing so.