Wow. PG did not even post any links, he pretty much just said "I have a Mastodon account." And just like that, banned.
Looks like now you're not allowed to so much as mention that you use other websites on the internet besides Twitter.
Looks like now you're not allowed to so much as mention that you use other websites on the internet besides Twitter.
Should I step down as head of Twitter? I will abide by the results of this poll - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34045423
There's no secret plan, he's just trying to "fix" whatever personally bothers him.
Making piles of money, inspiring a lot of people, while holding a questionable vision just isn’t something reactionary people do, usually. It’s something con-men do, but they usually try to save their image. Not go all Kurt Cobain on their kingdom…
Indeed. This one is funky. I’m open to outliers. Good call.
I'm not sure how you can have a "charismatic" individual run something like Twitter. Your charisma might be my anathema but a PR department waffling platitudes will probably work.
A dictator will always want to dabble. We are looking at some fundamentals here. Twitter run by whim and not rule. The world's media has basically gone all in on Twitter but it needs to get a grip.
I suspect the best thing for Twitter is to exclude the owner from participating. We all have far bigger fish to fry.
How many orders of magnitude is his NW from yours ? He’ll be ok no need to feel sorry for Elon
Unlike Tesla and SpaceX, where his has competent domain experts running things he knows less about, he has already fired everybody at Twitter with a backbone. Because he uses Twitter, he clearly (and wrongly) believes he understands it just fine. Twitter's also all software and mostly consumer-facing, so changes are both immediate and obvious. So I think with Twitter there's very little between his impulses and immediate impact on hundreds of millions of people.
It can be very disruptive to a company’s operations and stakeholders (employees, vendors, customers, etc.) for it to agree to sell itself. So it wants to have its deal, including price, locked down to the maximum extent possible. So if markets turn down in that interim period, 99.9999% of the time, it’s the buyer’s problem. And in any event, Twitter would have had to go back to the shareholders for another vote even if they had wanted to take a lower price.*
But there was no particular reason for them to, because they had a tight contract and there weren’t any compelling arguments that the buyer wasn’t required to close per its terms.
* An obvious question is, what if markets had gone up instead of down in that period? There was still a binding deal to acquire Twitter, but in this instance, it is at least theoretically possible that another buyer could have made an unsolicited offer for the company and the board would have had a fiduciary duty to the shareholders to accept that off. In that case, they can terminate the merger agreement, but then the buyer gets a termination fee and usually reimbursement of transaction expenses. But the reason for the asymmetry is that, barring a deeply distressed situation, a company doesn’t put itself up for sale without a high degree of certainty that a sale on the original or better terms will go through at the end of the day.
I stand by my opinion that he intended to close the deal one way or another, but wanted more favorable pricing. Your IPO profit is eaten away if you paid more than you could have when taking the company private.
I don't think Twitter truly was worth what the markets claimed it was worth, much the same as Tesla stock is still detached from the underlying asset. Mania in the markets will set the price at whatever people are willing to pay.
I firmly believe Musk saw a threat to the ability for healthy public discourse to be carried out and was willing to jump on the grenade that was an overvalued Twitter, until a point at which it became vastly overvalued.
That said: I do agree he has made a series of missteps at the helm of Twitter. He came in seeking to change far too much, far too quickly, and Twitter has a rough road ahead of it to get to even self sustaining, especially on the eve of an economic calamity.
It will show up in contract law books under what not to ever let your client do.
I suspect he wanted to cause problems and pain for Twitter, and that this was the bait used to hook him into ownership at an inflated price. He has flouted so many other laws, regulations, etc, he probably thought he had a good chance at getting away with this type of behaviour in a Delaware court.
What he didn’t realise is that in the real world, contracts can be enforced.
Courts didn't force this on him out of nowhere, he bought it then he wanted out when the tech market tanked, and courts just said no, you bought it.
He had a lot of time to back out with a penalty payment too and didn't do so.
He forced himself.
This is the problem of having core global communications infrastructure be centralized
Did he fall out with Larry Ellison as well? I've lost track at this point.
A quick look at some of the funding sources for the $44b, and the distinct direction Twitter took post-acquisition suggest (to me at least - personal opinion) that Musk is promoting certain (alt-right) agendas. It could also be that the goal is to burn Twitter to the ground, as it has been touted by the US government as a “freedom tool”.
I can easily imagine Mohammed Bone Saw solving potential outcries of future heinous acts, by making sure there’s no outlet to discuss them.
Again, just my private opinion.
It doesn't quite add up all the way to me, but almost; it looks like an act of sabotage.
The thought experiment is: if you wanted to destroy Twitter, what would you differently?
I mean you could do even worse, but... not if you didn't want to make it obvious. The "entitled born-rich manboy can't deal" is obviously a solid cover, because almost all of us already believe it!
https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-...
Example of the “don'ts” - Gatekeeper platforms may no longer:
- treat services and products offered by the gatekeeper itself more favourably in ranking than similar services or products offered by third parties on the gatekeeper's platform
- prevent consumers from linking up to businesses outside their platforms
From the regulation, Article 3:
1. An undertaking shall be designated as a gatekeeper if:
(a) it has a significant impact on the internal market;
(b) it provides a core platform service which is an important gateway for business users to reach end users; and
(c) it enjoys an entrenched and durable position, in its operations, or it is foreseeable that it will enjoy such a position in the near future.
2. An undertaking shall be presumed to satisfy the respective requirements in paragraph 1:
(a) as regards paragraph 1, point (a), where it achieves an annual Union turnover equal to or above EUR 7,5 billion in each of the last three financial years, or where its average market capitalisation or its equivalent fair market value amounted to at least EUR 75 billion in the last financial year, and it provides the same core platform service in at least three Member States;
(b) as regards paragraph 1, point (b), where it provides a core platform service that in the last financial year has at least 45 million monthly active end users established or located in the Union and at least 10 000 yearly active business users established in the Union, identified and calculated in accordance with the methodology and indicators set out in the Annex;
(c) as regards paragraph 1, point (c), where the thresholds in point (b) of this paragraph were met in each of the last three financial years.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...
("core platform service" is explicitly defined to include social networking services)
You might be more used to the more informal social media use of the word meaning busybodies that involve themselves unasked to police people's behaviors to their own arbitrary standards; this is not it.
> (by extension, slang, Internet) To limit another party's participation in a collective identity or activity, usually due to undue pettiness, resentment, or overprotectiveness.
But in the (today) rarer, less metaphorical sense... It's not that either? What is Twitter guarding access to? It's not, we're talking about Twitter itself.
From a straight up grammatical perspective, I'm not sure what you're saying makes sense, or really what you're trying to say. What you're saying "gatekeeper" means tracks just fine. But I'm getting thrown for a loop with "gatekeeping" because that's either a verb (e.g. "The dog is gatekeeping.") or an adjective (e.g. "The gatekeeping dog..."), but you're giving it a meaning that only works for a noun ("someone who doesn't have actual power but..."). Basically, I don't understand what you're trying to say, but what you're saying seems like something I'd like to understand.
Twitter was positioning itself as a major gatekeeper of information, and so I do think the EU should be looking into this carefully in hopes of preventing it from happening again.
Guess the question is what direction the sewage is flowing.
Also I strongly suspect that mastadon would have a lot of trouble complying with European laws (except I think some have company size minimums that mastadon instances would likely not reach).
This seems quite commonsensical. Isn't there already some other (less explicit) existing law that has the same effect?
The word “consumer” in the rule that gatekeeper platforms must not “prevent consumers from linking up to businesses outside their platforms” has a meaning, and that meaning is, in this case, “Elon Musk is wrong”.
> We recognize that many of our users are active on other social media platforms. However, we will no longer allow free promotion of certain social media platforms on Twitter.
> Specifically, we will remove accounts created solely for the purpose of promoting other social platforms and content that contains links or usernames for the following platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Mastodon, Truth Social, Tribel, Nostr and Post.
And from Elon Musk:
> Casually sharing occasional links is fine, but no more relentless advertising of competitors for free, which is absurd in the extreme.
This means he’d have failed to achieved his purpose, since TikTok is certainly a competitor even if the medium is video rather than text, but I also don’t think he understands social media all that well.
So much for free speech.
But if you really, truly believe in free speech and having a platform for sharing interesting ideas, then you want someone like Mr. Graham on the platform.
What I've noticed is that accounts tend to receive bans when a large number of users report them simultaneously (whether they are actually rule breaking has relatively little impact). It strikes me as possible that a bunch of Elon's fans reported the "I have a Mastodon account" post, and some moderator pulled the plug on the account on the assumption that that's what Elon would want.
To be clear, I'm not saying any of this would exonerate Elon. He put this stupid policy in place to begin with. If anything, the sheer scale of the pro-Elon toxicity I've seen in every Twitter link I've clicked today is a symptom of a much bigger problem that is slowly building on the platform.
Most platforms use some sort of automatic algorithm coupled with an army of people in "third world" countries doing actual first-level reviews and a smaller group people at HQ supervising/monitoring/working on the algorithms.
Well, except...he fired all those people. So now it's probably just "autoban and if there's enough noise, someone comes back and unbans."
When the elon jet reddit user got banned, it was probably the same thing - trolls/bots/muskies mass-reporting after a post hit the front page.
Twitter may have lost more than a million users since Elon Musk took over : https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/11/03/1062752/twitter-...
[1 hour ago - 4 comments] : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34046074
This does Not bode well;
links to Mastodon, including your Mastodon account in your profile or even the mere mention of Mastodon.
Is this action for the actual bleed? - Or paranoia at the current projected losses? - Competition?
Remember how Twitter has stopped paying rent on a bunch of its offices? And Musk just cashed $3.5B in Tesla stock? They probably couldn't pay the rent without people going unpaid.
Not paying your rent is one thing, but not paying employees results in immediate, we-gonna-fuck-you-in-the-ass attention from governments around the world. My state treats non-payment of wages as a criminal offense by the officers of the company.
True, however high profile account contents matter to both advertisers and other twitter uses.
>Stephen Fry, who last week tweeted an image of Scrabble letters spelling out ‘goodbye’, and abandoned his 12.5 million followers!
Stephen Fry quits Twitter following Elon Musk’s takeover : https://www.nme.com/en_au/news/tv/stephen-fry-quits-twitter-...
>(Update December 19, 2022, 8:40 AM IST):
Twitter has deleted the tweets announcing the policy that prohibited people from posting handles and links to other social networks.
The company has also silently removed the policy page that detailed these rules.
Feels like Amazon could eat Twitter's lunch here (especially since they, allegedly, run Twitter's servers now, meaning that they could handle the traffic).
Social media sites are a sort of grayweb at this point in history.
So why would Amazon or any other company want to invest in their own version of that?
Amazon, on the other hand, has no such dissonance and has a very profitable advertising arm that could happily benefit from yet more digital real estate. Of all the players out there, Amazon already does massive hosting AND competent ad scheduling across diverse device ecosystems. It just seems like they've got all of the technical side pretty much already up and running; they just need to strap it together in a specific package and ship it.
I know - easier said than done; and who knows what other priorities they're worried about that might not cooperate with owning a "digital town square". For all I know, there's some monopoly law that they'd have to screw with, too.
But all of this is to say: they seem well-positioned, so I'm just idling musing on why they haven't capitalized on it. Your reasoning is as good as any other I've heard. /shrug
Amazon has spent decades building the complete opposite culture of what it takes to successfully run a social network.
The fediverse is based on a protocol called ActivityPub, just like email is a based on SMTP. ActivityPub is designed from the ground up to allow any number of federated servers to share posts. Email servers can run Postfix or Exim (or others), and the fediverse servers can run Mastodon or Pleroma (or others).
One of the joys of the fediverse is that it's possible (and easy) to move your account (posts, followers etc) to another server. So when a particular server gets too busy, people simply migrate to another server, or even set one up themselves. Universities are already setting up their own fediverse servers for their staff and students, and I think we'll see companies following suit soon - again echoing the growth of email.
So that's the theory - what about real world? Thanks to Elon's unique management style, Mastodon active users (a good proxy for load) have gone from 370K to 2,500K in two months. I use it daily, and it's no slower with all those extra users.
I know it seems like a long way around for not really providing any "value", but the idea is that most people just want "next twitter". They simply aren't going to deal with server instances in the way that, say, the gaming public does. People running businesses, being "influencers", or developing journalistic followings do not get any value from caring about technical implementation. So Amazon's strength, here, is that they could pick up a ton of influential people just by being "easy" and then the followers come for their interests.
In contrast, the operator doesn't even have your phone number, nor demand a major corp email address, both things twitter required. You could log in via tor if you wanted.
Twitter could have sold your data, accidentally leaked it via an API or some cloud bucket, or it could have gone out with the help of a foreign intelligence operative employed there... And you have no hope of proving how or why. Their internal controls were incredibly lax. And the FBI would tell you to go away.
Just because you decentralize won’t make all kinds of scaling easy.
> Paul’s account will be restored shortly
And https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1604616863673208832
> Going forward, there will be a vote for major policy changes. My apologies. Won’t happen again.
Isn't he CEO of 2 or 3 other companies? I know a lot of people think that CEOs don't actually do anything important; Musk is not hurting their argument.
Yes but they aren’t ‘extremely hardcore’ over there.
Not.
I'm not sure a vote is the best option but it doesn't solve the problem either. There needs to be due process. You can't bring out a new policy and 5 mins later start banning accounts that have tweets older than the policy that also violate the policy.
Elon is big on move fast and break things but I think he is going to hard and will destroy Twitter if he continues at this pace.
Is there still any doubt about that?
The only way forward where I think Twitter may be salvaged is if Musk steps away from it right now but I don't think his ego would allow him to admit to such a failure. So down it is.
I think there is. Not so much because of Musk himself, but because network effects businesses are hard to kill. Exhibit A being Jack's years of vague, indifferent, part-time management.
I think he could continue to fuck it up for a while, find a reason to declare victory, and turn it over to a department-store mannequin to run while he goes back to his real job(s). It would slowly reconstitute itself and keep chugging along. As comparison, I note that Tumblr and Flickr are still going concerns.
That said, he's been far more diligent in breaking it than I ever expected, so he may well manage to destroy it.
That is true, but once it does go down it can go very fast, especially if there is a viable replacement. Digg, Slashdot, MySpace, AOL, Google+ etc. Network effects work to your advantage on the way up, but can work to your disadvantage on the way down.
Tumblr and Flickr are shadows of their former selves.
Does anyone think Elon can recover this situation? I think he'll have to re-float twitter and have an independent CEO, and sell another $15B of Telsa stock to pay back the debt and get some operating capital. With time and rational management, he might be able to then sell out, only losing ~$15B.
So far.
I think soon getting kicked off of Twitter will become a tech badge of honor. Like having a gmail address back when it was invitation-only.
Any hope for an improved Twitter is getting tossed out the window.
A stupid rule, but technically someone at Twitter has to enforce it. Since the people suspending accounts aren't in charge of what rules they enforce and which they don't.
How much you want to bet this ends up with the EU threatening Musk again?
Elon has made it clear that these blatant attempts at ban evasion are not allowed.
> 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:
PG broke the rule when he promoted a prohibited 3rd-party social media platform.
Twitter is Musk's fiefdom now and the rules are what he decides they are. Letter of the law is worthless here; it's will-of-the-baron rules.
If that’s not okay to Twitter, that’s extremely interesting. Brings Apple’s App Store rules to mind.
I don’t want to derail this conversation with App Store policies, but the notion of policing links isn’t great, especially for a social network.
The TOS also says any accounts which post a direct link to such sites will be found in violation.
It does not say anything about purely mentioning the fact you have another social media (especially without saying the username), nor linking to a personal website, nor does it say anything about referring to where to find such a thing
This is a very strange way to describe what's going on at Twitter.
Musk has loudly announced that you're not allowed to even link to your other profiles on any other social media sites, or even describe indirectly how to find them. No major social media site has ever done something quite this anticompetitive, and certainly not all this scale. I've been using the Internet since the Eternal September, and this is a ludicrous policy.
You may disagree with the policy of banning the promotion of alternative social platforms, but that is the rule. Trying to break that rule while not getting banned is blatantly ban evasion.
Here is Twitter's policy on ban evasion: https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/ban-evasion
In case Twitter changes this policy, here's an archived copy of the current version (October 2020): https://web.archive.org/web/20221218225353/https://help.twit...
This is not the usual use of the phrase "ban evasion", but it is a literally correct use of it.
[0]https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/social-platfo...
You may have to find an archived copy, since the page you linked currently does not exist:
> Sorry, this page doesn't exist.
> Try using the search bar, or return to the Help Center.
https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/social-platfo...
Your redefinition of the phrase "ban evasion" would implicate anyone who follows the platform's rules but is not wholly devoted to the interests of the platform's owners.
> 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:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34050283
As you are aware, the formerly suspended account did not link out to Mastodon or directly name any Mastodon handle. The tweet that led to the suspension was also compliant with how the CEO claimed the policy should have been interpreted:
> Casually sharing occasional links is fine, but no more relentless advertising of competitors for free, which is absurd in the extreme.
Yes, I am aware that PG did not provide a hyperlink. In fact, that's the core of my claim about PG attempting to violate Twitter's rules while evading a ban (the kind of action which Elon and I have referred to as 'ban evasion').
I believe you have misinterpreted Elon's Tweet. But I'm not interested in debating the interpretation of the poorly written Tweet. What is clear is that it was known that linking to Mastodon accounts was not allowed on Twitter, which is why PG, attempting to evade a ban, did not provide such a link.
The user avoided posting the link so that he would be compliant with the rules as the CEO interpreted them. Your expectation is for the user to avoid posting any content that runs against Twitter's financial interest, even if that content is compliant with the rules. That is not a reasonable expectation, and the unreasonableness of this expectation caused the backlash that led to the account being unsuspended.
> The user avoided posting the link so that he would be compliant with the rules as the CEO initially interpreted them
Where did Elon interpret the rule as being that users can advertise prohibited 3rd-party social media platforms as long as they don't provide a hyperlink?
> Your expectation is for the user to avoid posting any content that runs against Twitter's financial interest, even if that content is compliant with the rules.
Why are you talking about my expectations? What I am doing here is pointing out that PG clearly violated Twitter's rules. My claim is a descriptive claim, not a normative one.
You are inventing a completely different definition of "ban evasion" that has not been used in any Twitter policy page to try to justify the suspension, even after the suspension has been reversed for its unreasonableness.
> You just can’t create or turn (my emphasis) your account into a free advertising unit for one of the listed competing platforms.
This is what PG was doing (you can argue that he actually wasn't - but he was according to Elon's standards, which is the important sense). One Tweet buried deep in a thread that could possibly be misinterpreted to support your position is not convincing.
I am not "inventing a new definition of ban evasion". I am using simple English words in a straight-forward way.
Yes, you are. You've already admitted that your novel definition of "ban evasion" is not the usual use of the phrase (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34047933) and that the phrase typically refers to something completely different (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34045113). Twitter's own definition of "ban evasion" differs from what you are claiming the phrase to mean (https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/ban-evasion).
> I am using simple English words in a straight-forward way.
No, you are taking a phrase that already has a defined meaning in the context of Twitter and making up a new definition for it to attempt to justify the suspension. As Twitter has already defined it, "ban evasion" is the circumvention of an existing ban or suspension. It is not something that can be done by an account that is not already suspended or banned.
I have no idea why you are continuing to defend this unjustifiable suspension even after Twitter has already reversed it. The fact that your initial comment is flagged, downvoted, and hidden (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34044649) shows that your argument has been firmly rejected on HN.
1. PG broke Twitter's rules
2. Twitter suspended PG's account
3. Twitter changed its rules
4. Twitter reinstated PG's account
Whether you like my use of the words 'ban' and 'evasion' ultimately isn't super relevant to my point.
I'm not 'defending' Twitter's actions. I'm interpreting reality. I'm discussing a matter of fact. The question is: did PG break Twitter's rules? The answer: yes. You may dislike Elon Musk. You may dislike me. You may dislike Twitter's (now deleted) rule. But this basic factual claim will remain correct.
HN has an infinite track record of being very wrong. I take my comment being flagged as a much greater endorsement of it than had it been "upvoted". You can find countless HN users in this thread getting the basic facts of the situation wrong (yourself included). And it's not just that these are ignorant people searching for the truth. These are not enquiring minds. Any amount of sincere reflection would have revealed the truth. These are people actively claiming clear untruths as the truth. Why should I care about being downvoted, if these are the people downvoting me? Any time I am upvoted I should take it only as a sign to take a step back and think: "have I made some kind of blatant logical error?"
- The tweet did not link to Mastodon.
- The tweet did not name a Mastodon handle.
- The tweet is not similar to any of the examples provided in the deleted policy (“follow me @username on Instagram”, “username@mastodon.social”, “check out my profile on Facebook - facebook.com/username”).
- The tweet did not bypass restrictions on external links via means such as URL cloaking or plaintext obfuscation, with the example provided being “instagram dot com/username”.
- The CEO of Twitter stated that "casually sharing external links" to competing platforms is "fine" when the deleted policy was in place: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1604593057676300288
Even though the account did not break Twitter's rules, you believe that it should have broken Twitter's rules because the tweet said something that hurts Twitter's business prospects. This is what you are erroneously using the phrase "ban evasion" to describe, even though Twitter's policy on ban evasion (https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/ban-evasion) defines it as something done only by accounts that were previously banned or suspended.
HN does have it right this time. HN users are fully capable of seeing that the novel definition of "ban evasion" you invented specifically for your argument does not match the definition used in https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/ban-evasion.
Elon's phrase "casual sharing" is not inclusive of PG apparently denouncing Twitter and promoting his Mastodon account in its place. PG's Tweet was anything but casual. If PG had linked to some post he found interesting that happened to be on Mastadon, that might qualify as casual.
I never claimed that my use of the phrase 'ban evasion' matched the use in the Twitter user agreement. HN and I are in agreement on that count (as I have stated elsewhere in this thread).
Frankly, you have bad reading comprehension, most likely due to motivated interpretation i.e. you tend to see what you want to be there rather than what is actually there.
The expectation is that you either break the rule and get suspended, or you don't break the rule and don't get suspended. This acccount didn't break the rule (or the ban evasion policy) as it was written but still got suspended because Twitter still deemed the tweet to be against its interests, even though Twitter didn't bother to codify this in the rule. Twitter can suspend any account on its platform for any reason it wants, of course, but the resulting backlash led to the account being unsuspended.
You resorting to personal attacks shows that you have lost the argument. If you still want to discuss this, there are other comments in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34044151, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34040165, and a bunch of other threads and subthreads. I am disengaging. Merry Christmas.
You seem like someone who can read, so the charatable interpretation is that there is some kind of mental block that's stopping you from seeing the clear truth.
If you want to stop talking, OK. Either way I hope you have a merry Christmas.
FWIW, that's not the definition of ban evasion.
Specifically, ban evasion is attempting to evade an active ban already in effect, e.g., registering an alt.
A fit of pique doesn't redefine a term.
That, as much as anything else, would lead to everyone having drinking problems:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl4plPGRG8o
But I get it now, you're doing comedy.
Just because it's now apparently official policy doesn't make it any less juvenile and mercurial
I suspect it's simply a case of Twitter changing its policy in real time.
Let me be clear that I think Twitter's new social media sharing policy is ridiculous and likely to cause a Streisand effect for Mastodon and others. Twitter is really harming itself with these policies more than anything else, but time will tell whether they see their own errors and grow up in time to save themselves.
Having said that, what other forms of free speech are being prohibited? I haven't read too deeply into the situation around the ElonJet and related account suspensions, but the justifications they've made were related to individual safety regarding real time location sharing of people in the course of their private lives, one case of which led to someone attempting to attack a person based on their shared location.
I think it's clear that there is some justification for prohibiting public location sharing for controversial figures during the course of their private lives, as it holds little value in terms of expressing oneself freely. Meanwhile, the previous suspensions tended toward expressions which were far less likely to lead to physical harm.
People just use them fully randomly.
1. Are you just an advocate for following a website's terms?
2. Or do you think there is credibility in these terms?
1. PG broke one of Twitter's rules:
> 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:
2. Twitter suspended PG's account
3. Twitter got rid of the rule.
4. PG had his account reinstated.