The amount of sarcasm, triteness, and personally directed anger in the comments here is disappointing.
If someone keeps shooting themselves in the foot, at some point you have to throw in the towel and call a moron a moron.
Promotion of alternative social platforms policy
401–410 of 790 posts
Re: Promotion of alternative social platforms policy
#402Wow. How will the free speech absolutists twist this as being pro free speech? This policy makes Twitter the least free speech social media platform available. I wonder how this will work for official Twitter accounts for those other social media platforms? Will @facebook be banned/blocked? Also what about news services that link to a longer form story on alternative platforms?
As part of the Tesla community (which unfortunately overlaps with the "drink Elon's piss" fanboy community) for a long time, I can tell you right now:
"Well, of course he can ban links to competitors if he wants to. Anyone would. This is genius 5d chess."
Re: Promotion of alternative social platforms policy
#403Earlier quoted context omitted.
Destroying Twitter should be a liberal effort. It's frankly sickening to step back and consider how much influential public discourse took place on a private platform. If you're a classical liberal, implementing protocols like ActivityPub is essential to promote competition across apps and platforms. Even if you're a conservative, it should be readily apparent how centralizing our communications power is a bad idea.…
If you're a "classical liberal", whatever that means, surely you're not in favour of randomly destroying things that work and that people are happily using, by state action, in favour of an unpopular alternative?
The random destruction is already done by the market. We gave them an opportunity to out-innovate each other and now it's a warzone. Do we set things straight or let opportunists pick up the pieces? It doesn't really matter to me, but I think the liberal sentiment favors a corrected implementation.
Elon plays a mean game, but it's a board we built and he's using rules we made. IMO, the proper response is not to change the rules, but use powerful technology to make his control irrelevant. Writing bespoke legislation for Twitter is truly unthinkable, there are better ways to approach this.
Re: Promotion of alternative social platforms policy
#404Earlier quoted context omitted.
Carmack was clearly cross-posting, not promoting Facebook. Twitter doesn't generally allow long form posts like that, so it clearly falls under the cross-posting part of the policy. I don't like this policy either, but let's not make up reasons for it to be bad. There are plenty of real reasons.
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.
One could argue that but one would be wrong because cross-posting is clearly allowed if you read the whole policy instead of just the first section.
Re: Promotion of alternative social platforms policy
#405Earlier quoted context omitted.
aren't they a private company anyway? To claim that they have a dominant position is very ovestated. Twitter is no bigger than reddit.
Twitter has - or rather, had - outside influence compared to Reddit due to the number of professionals in the media using it.
If that was even a valid argument it's extremely undemocratic to silence individual entities because they are influential.
Re: Promotion of alternative social platforms policy
#406Earlier quoted context omitted.
> mostly because they don’t have dominance in any market. Keep in mind that at least the FTC generally considers a market to be, roughly, goods and services that are close substitutes for one another[1]. That is, if one good or service can be substituted for another, those may be in the same market. However, as the FTC's summary says, "evidence that customers highly value certain product attributes may limit their wi…
Twitter’s inclusion of Facebook points to the idea that they consider it a competitor, and would be one far larger.
That doesn't mean Facebook is a substitute for Twitter (it obviously isn't).
Re: Promotion of alternative social platforms policy
#407Earlier quoted context omitted.
I genuinely believed that he would try to allow more free speech on Twitter. There was a small chance that the experiment will succeed. I guess he never wanted that: he just lied. But why?
I don’t think he lied. I don’t think it’s even hypocrisy - he just put very little thought into his previous belief and changed his mind. He’ll do it again later. That’s why you shouldn’t believe what he says. It’s _not_ that he’s _lying_ - he believes what he says when he says it - he just has no care for consistency and will change his mind whenever it looks prudent, without regard for others. I am not defending th…
> he just put very little thought into his previous belief and changed his mind.
The sad thing is he'd probably only need to sit down and read a dozen or so books in order to figure out how to make Twitter actually successful, but you know he's going to be too lazy to ever actually do this.
Re: Promotion of alternative social platforms policy
#408Anyone want to take bets on how long it'll be before Twitter prohibits listing your pronouns in your bio? Elon has a real axe to grind about pronouns and it'd be an effective way to antagonize people he doesn't like for no reason, which increasingly appears to be his entire business plan for Twitter.
Punching down seems to be a conservative value.
Re: Promotion of alternative social platforms policy
#409Earlier quoted context omitted.
If he wishes to support free speech, as he so often claims, then yes, that carries that obligation. But he clearly does not actually care about free speech.
Any non-abserd definition of free speech concerns the expression of ideas rather than allowing hyperlinks to competitor platforms. I don't see this as a violation of free speech at all
Bookmarking this comment to remind myself in the future how far people will twist their logic to fit their narrative. Thank you for making this so clear for me.
Re: Promotion of alternative social platforms policy
#410Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is always how it goes. Free speech absolutists that run web communities basically always stop short the moment they feel like they are under threat (regardless of any actual threat). Even the most infamous of free speech platforms will just ban users who hurt the admins feelings. Back when Gab switched over to using a hostile fork of Mastodon for a backend[0], Torba banned the users of FreeSpeechExtremist (a Ple…
> Even the most infamous of free speech platforms will just ban users who hurt the admins feelings. Out of curiosity: did 4chan ever try to ban anyone for talking about moot?
4chan surprisingly is not a free speech platform, nor did it ever pretend to be.
It has fairly bog-standard rules about not being a hateful jerk, it's just that enforcement of those rules is pretty spotty so the sites users consist mostly of hateful jerks.
For a more specific example; 4chan remains the only site to actually ban discussion of gamergate (and then discussion of the subsequent user blowback towards moot) due to it being a harassment campaign.