> 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.
So you can incite and insurrection or be antisemitic and be reinstated, but you can't post a link to a competitor. These rules are arbitrary - Twitter is an absolute clown show now
Let me get this straight. Troll buys Twitter, says Twitter will promote "free speech". Re-instates scumbag accounts because people have the right to be scumbags. BUT you can't talk about 1) his jet, 2) other websites that are you know kind of similar to Twitter, 3) coke fiend laptops.
He didn't just casually share a link to his site though; he said "you can find my Mastodon account on my site". That's basically just posting a link to your Mastodon account, but with an extra step.
Is the new policy bullshit? Sure. But clearly this is against the spirit of it.
What about it? I make no attempt to justify any of Twitter's policies or say they good or even consistent. All I'm saying that any honest good faith interpretation of the stated rules will say that this is clearly against it. Whether these rules are good or bad is an entirely different matter.
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.
The issue isn't whether the rules are good or bad, the issue is that El No decreed that he was a freeze peach absolutist. If something is absolute there's no room for exceptions.
I didn't call them I cunt, I merely linked to someone who did
No. It's like El No saying that you can absolutely call him naughty names, someone calls him a cunt, and El No throws a tantrum.
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.
Well, no. Nobody forced El No, the current emperor of Twitter, to declare himself under no uncertain circumstances to be a "freeze peach absolutist". As the current grand poobah of tweeting his very public decrees are entirely relevant.
You are clearly uninterested in having any sort of conversation and merely wish to ram though your own conversation to score "zingers", never mind the pathetic childish namecalling, so good day to you.
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
What is debatable about the following quote from the chief executive of Twitter? "Sorry to be a free speech absolutist."
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.
> You're making excuses for a guy who tweets Nazi images
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.
This absolutely was not casually sharing a link that happened to be on another platform. It was an announcement about quitting twitter and an advertisement on where he could be found on a competing platform.
It is straight up the EXACT scenario that the policy was put in place for.
Mr Dumpty had something of Mr Musk's way with words in "Through the Looking Glass":
`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.'
There are no rewards to be reaped here by defending him. There is nothing beneficial being achieved by Musks actions on Twitter as of late who is banning whoever is clearly against him personally. Not you, not me or anyone else is gaining anything. Love Tesla, love SpaceX but understand when something else is clearly wrong.
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.
Elon Musk went on to elaborate that the rescue worker specifically has sex with underaged Thai boys. Elon wanted to completely destroy the rescue worker.
Imagine if somebody said this about a high school teacher.
> 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.