“We will remove any free promotion of prohibited 3rd-party social media platforms.”
I don’t see how “I have an account on Mastodon and here’s how you can find it” doesn’t violate that. The policy doesn’t require the promotion to be direct. If there was any doubt, the policy explicitly includes linktr.ee.
It’s a ludicrous policy for sure!
>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*
Notice that *all* definitions and examples of "promotion" specifically involve having your URL or username in a tweet.
The "non-technical means" of bypassing policy are still about communicating the username in a tweet.
It is a ludicrous policy, but alleging that it prohibits even mentioning existence of other accounts is a ludicrous interpretation of the ludicrous policy.
"You can find my contact info on my website" is a violation under this interpretation.
As is stating "Twitter isn't the only way to reach me"... and having any off-twitter links (God forbid your FB account is reachable via some sequence of clicks from there!).
So much for the "free speech absolutist" though.
Hey, can we have this discussion without referring to disagreements as “ludicrous”? It’s a moot point now, but still.
It was listed as a forbidden platform.
Paul Graham's personal website was not listed as a forbidden platform.
* We can't infer from the policy that Paul Graham's personal website can't be linked to, or mentioned.
* We can't infer from the policy that merely talking about forbidden platforms (including Mastodon and Link Tree) is a violation, unless a link or a username is provided.
* Therefore, Paul G saying that he has a website with a Mastodon link on it isn't a violation of the policy.
Generalizing from LinkTree to any website is unwarranted.
Further, such a generalization effectively prohibits links outside Twitter (since Facebook can be reached from nearly every page out there via some sequence of clicks). But that's beside the point.
Those methods are presented as non-exhaustive examples. "Technical or non-technical means" resolves to every possible method.
Or simply having an account on Mastodon, and other people Googling it.
It's absurd.
But that is still certainly absurd.
He expressly said you can find his mastodon, a prohibited social media site as outlined by Twitter, on his website.
So he was promoting his mastodon with non-technical means and circumvented the new policy. While linking to the new policy... showing moderators he was well aware of it.
Much like when Elon said he wouldn't ban Sweeney and that he's a free speech absolutionist, followed by him:
- banning Sweeney without justification
- unbanning some of Sweeney's accounts
- banning linking to Sweeney's other social media
- putting links to any mastodon instances behind a warning
- rolling out new policy to justify banning Sweeney and links to his other social media
- walking back the permabanns after a bunch of journalists get roped up in the Elonjet fallout
- this new policy, presumably to justify the continued banning of Sweeney. You can put other reasoning here, like making it harder to migrate off Twitter. Other commentors mentioned in previous discussions that linking your mastodon in your profile allowed mastodon users to more easily find/recreate their Twitter network automatically.
I do agree that there’s a discrepancy there, to be clear, and I think the policy is ridiculous no matter how you read it. I also think it’s bad that Musk is shooting from the hip in confusing ways.
Given that PG got suspended, the weight of evidence seems to be that my interpretation is correct. If Elon clarifies, I’ll certainly edit!
And these beliefs become opportunistic and change as soon as its convenient. Just a few hours ago when the promotion was first announced, most people were claiming that it was extremely expansive and that John Carmack could get banned for crossposting (which the terms say is allowed). People who disagreed were downvoted. Now that someone has been banned, the comments start claiming it's _not_ expansive, and people who disagree are getting downvoted.
That's one thing that makes it hard to follow this saga. It seems like Musk is doing pretty bad things, but there's so much hyperbole and inconsistency coming from his loudest critics that it's hard to have a grounded discussion on the matter.
You'd certainly be justified in saying that a rule banning the letter A is ridiculous. But you wouldn't be justified in then going on to claim that a Tweet that contains the letter A doesn't contain it, and downvoting anyone who points out it does.
[Edit: Not just downvoting. Now the post that said they thought it went against the new terms of service has been flagged and removed.]
There's this unsettling trend where once someone thinks they're on the right side, the truth no long matters. Or worse, should be considered verboten if it doesn't back up maximalist claims. And when enough people are doing this, measured discussion is no longer possible.
> Casually sharing occasional links is fine, but no more relentless advertising of competitors for free, which is absurd in the extreme.
That was very casual and not at all an example of relentless advertising for competitors. It's also extremely dubious that PG was trying to evade Twitter enforcement.
>> Casually sharing occasional links is fine, but no more relentless advertising of competitors for free, which is absurd in the extreme.
Also, something Elon Musk says isn't policy, even when he owns Twitter.
The policy specifically talks about linking out and usernames, nothing about generally "promoting other platforms".
Musk-defenders are getting absurd here.
Is the new policy bullshit? Sure. But clearly this is against the spirit of it.
No it's not, and it's absurd to equate the two.
This is like the time someone post a link with "here is someone calling you a cunt" (not on HN, another forum) and then try to defend that by claiming "I didn't call them I cunt, I merely linked to someone who did". That didn't fly either.
Whether these rules are good or bad is an entirely different matter.
I didn't call them I cunt, I merely linked to someone who did
Actually this is even more ridiculous since El No decreed that accounts dedicated to promoting competitors would be banned. Honestly, I don't even know who "pg" is at this point and I couldn't possibly care less (presumably he's one of those Joe Rogaine types). However it's pretty clear that this twitter account was used to post all sorts of content. Even with a tweet about Mastodon, or two, or like twenty that means there are multiple reasons for that twitter account to exist. It is not dedicated to promoting Mastodon. This is just El No throwing a very expensive tantrum because his massive ego is bruised.
This is the issue you're trying to forcibly inject.
This is the issue you're trying to forcibly inject.
You know why these threads tend to derail? Stuff like this. I don't even care all that much about the entire thing, but you know, it's kind of interesting. "Replies" such as yours make it impossible to have an interesting conversation.
You are clearly uninterested in having any sort of conversation
You're making excuses for a guy who tweets Nazi images and quotes while slamming the ban hammer down on professional journalists merely trying to interview him. Rationalize your cognitive dissonance all you want, but that doesn't change that this has nothing to do with whatever the rules are at Twitter. The rules don't matter because the rules change at El No's every whim. Therefor what matters is El No's whim, and El No's whim claimed (unironically) to be a "freeze peach absolutist".
It's pretty telling that "zingers" offend you while El No's penchant for tweeting Nazis and vilifying journalists doesn't. If anything you're attempting to derail meaningful discourse by falling back on the so-called rules… rules written in quicksand.
If your argument is so weak that the "wrong" nouns derail it, you didn't have much of an argument in the first place.
All I said was that Graham's actions were against the spirit of a rule on Twitter. Nothing more, nothing less. You've managed to escalate this beyond any reasonable proportion.
It is straight up the EXACT scenario that the policy was put in place for.
`And only ONE for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'
`I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't-- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.
`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less.'To anyone who missed it, this is in reference to Elon Musk slandering a rescue diver, who called BS on Musk's grand idea du jour, by saying the diver is a "pedo guy".
PSA: By the precedent set in the argument of his defense in the defamation case[1], a "pedo guy" just means a "creepy old man" to Elon Musk and the court — especially so if such a man is into younger women[2].
Therefore, by his own admission,...
> Elon Musk is a pedo guy. <
Feel free to copypaste/cite/link this comment, or simply refer to the Twitter CEO as "The famous pedo guy Elon Musk" from now on.
Thanks in advance for respecting me for stating the facts.
[1] https://nypost.com/2019/09/16/elon-musk-says-pedo-guy-insult...
[2]https://www.indiatvnews.com/entertainment/celebrities/tesla-...
Imagine if somebody said this about a high school teacher.
I would be very surprised if Elon doesn't realize how infuriated this will make everyone.
If I had to bet at this point, I'd say it's a mistake caused by a poorly articulated spur-of-the-moment policy.
I don't believe this was the intent of the policy, but that doesn't mean it's not the way it's being implemented in the absence of clear guidelines.
Musk's lack of clear articulation is the biggest problem Twitter faces.