Hacker News Reader

Comment by Ferrotin | Hacker News Reader

Possibly malicious enforcement by Twitter staff in light of https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1604593057676300288

“Casually sharing occasional links is fine, but no more relentless advertising of competitors for free, which is absurd in the extreme”

View on HN

Where interpretation of "casually" and "occasional" is left to the Emperor.

there was always an emperor

No, in the past there was a committee. There is zero evidence that the previous CEO of Twitter personally judged who was and who was not to be banned.

We know that was Vijaya and Roth. Bringing up Dorsey is transparent sleight of hand.

The previous CEO of Twitter barely did any work. It was frequent to hear chickens and birds in the background of Jack's video calls.

> The previous CEO of Twitter barely did any work.

I wished the current one was half as clever.

And what interpretation of 'absurd in the extreme' should we take?

The first word that came to mind when I read the new rule was "arbitrariness". I did not expect to be proven right this fast, honestly.

How many malicious employees do you think would be left at this point? There have been massive layoffs, and anyone who didn't like Musk or the "extreme hardcore" could have taken the severance.

> anyone who didn't like Musk or the "extreme hardcore" could have taken the severance

If they aren't held hostage by a H-1B visa.

Right, but if you're still there because you can't leave, then you're not going to do something stupid to get yourself immediately fired, like going rogue and suspending Paul Graham's account.

Content moderators can’t switch jobs so easily.

Which is why they won't go rogue: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34044705

Content moderators aren’t on H1-B’s.

Sigh. Just completely missing the point.

If an employee couldn't afford to leave before — for whatever reason! — then they can't magically afford to leave today either.

Sure they could. They could have lined up a job or impulsively lashed out, or think enforcing the policy gives them cover. It’s the sort of thing I might do.

This is just a probability you may have a different weight on.

I keep hearing "maybe it was a rogue employee" or "maybe it was automation" about everything Twitter does lately... until Musk comes out and defends the thing. I don't know why the benefit of the doubt should be granted at this point.

The benefit of doubt is for yourself, to have an accurate understanding of what you know and what you assume.

The new lot are probably sitting in Kolkata applying for them

The content moderators were fired some time ago.

"competitors" ? I thought that Lonnie was bringing us Twitter: The True Public Square? How can there be any competitors for a public square?

It's just "enforcement", there's nothing malicious about it. Elon Musk is the CEO and policymaker of Twitter now, he's responsible for the actions his company takes.

I wouldn't be surprised if the employee who did this gets fired as a result of this. In fact, I'd be shocked if @paulg isn't reinstated within 48 hours (as they did with Taylor Lorenz a few hours ago.) All of Musk's previous interactions with Graham suggests that their relationship is friendly. And if there's one thing we've seen from Elon Musk's Twitter, it's that he's not hesitant to fire Twitter employees.

> > All of Musk's previous interactions with Graham suggests that their relationship is friendly.

Mohammed bin Salman invited 30 of his closest friends to discuss public projects before arresting them and torturing them in the Ritz Carlton

Don’t ever fall into the trap of anthropomorphism of autocrats

That'd be extremely unfair. It was extremely dangerous to Mr. Musk's estate that Paul Graham used his clout to entice people to switch to Mastodon. This was nothing but a display of unswerving loyalty and adherence to Mr. Musk's vision.

> I'd be shocked if @paulg isn't reinstated within 48 hours

The only reasonable comment in this thread. He was reinstated a few minutes ago.

The written policy contradicts his statement.

Malicious? Elon Musk wants employees to have utmost loyalty to him, what's malicious to risk taking the fall by clicking the ban button on the rich, famous and powerful to safeguard the vision of the visionary CEO? This was fulfillment of orders beyond the call of duty.

Graham was a threat to the Master, what's a loyal servant to do?

Staff?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com