Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Promotion of alternative social platforms policy

help.twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

661–670 of 790 posts

Re: Promotion of alternative social platforms policy

#661

Post by runevault »

admax88qqq wrote: post #479
drexlspivey wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Musk should buy the debt himself for 40c on the dollar at this point

I don't think creditors will sell. Isn't a big chunk of the debt leveraged against his Tesla stock? Would be much easier to reclaim 90-100% of the debt against that You sell your debt at a discount if your chance of collecting goes down, but when the debtor is one of the richest people in the world, your odds of collecting I think are decent.

Last I knew the debt is now owned by twitter, not Elon/against Tesla stock. THAT is why the debtors are pissed right now, that $13 billion is sinking hard.

Re: Promotion of alternative social platforms policy

#662

Post by Klinky »

modeless wrote: post #638
Klinky wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One could argue a clear definition of "cross posting" should be provided before assuming it'd be allowed. A policy like this is going to have a chilling effect regardless, due to the ambiguity. It's also a quite absurd for a free-speech platform to even have such a policy in the first place, even if it's attempting to reign in "direct promotion" rather than sharing content across platforms. > At both the Tweet level…

I agree with you that the policy should be clearer and I agree there's a chilling effect and I agree that it's absurd. However I disagree that the policy is so unclear that Twitter would be at all likely to interpret it as applying to the specific case of Carmack's post , as OP is arguing. Using fallacious arguments like that weakens your position rather than strengthening it. We can do better.

I don't think it's a fallacious argument when the terms "prohibited sites" & "prohibited platforms" are used instead of "prohibited promotion" & what they deem to be cross-posting is not defined. We could assume best intentions, but given that the policy seems to be from a place of bad intentions, I wouldn't grant the benefit of the doubt.

Re: Promotion of alternative social platforms policy

#663

Post by nishs »

lynndotpy wrote: post #634
fencepost wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

people will realize that only 50 of their thousands of followers can be found on mastodon, and then move back in a few weeks This may vary by community. A big chunk of the Infosec community has migrated and seems quite happy about it. Other communities may do the same, particularly if they feel that Twitter isn't likely to be a safe place for them given Musk's increasingly Qbert attitudes.

This is my experience. Mastodon has absolutely replaced Twitter for many of my use cases, because many of the communities I follow have left Twitter.

+1, and it doesn't have the general toxicity that Twitter had. If someone is trolling, inflammatory, needlessly rude, or overly marketing themselves on the instance I'm on, it appears to me that they'll likely be quickly ostracized into oblivion, not encouraged with likes and retweets as they might have been on Twitter.

Re: Promotion of alternative social platforms policy

#664

Post by noirscape »

haberman wrote: post #652
noirscape wrote: post #360

Earlier 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…

> It's always "free speech for me, not for thee" with these people. That's what pretty much everybody is doing at this point. Elon's critics rightly point out the problems with his arbitrary rule by fiat, but who among his critics are proposing anything more principled than his behavior? By and large, people are calling him a hypocrite without articulating any more principled vision for how social media platforms sho…

> Elon's critics rightly point out the problems with his arbitrary rule by fiat, but who among his critics are proposing anything more principled than his behavior? By and large, people are calling him a hypocrite without articulating any more principled vision for how social media platforms should be run.

Most people aren't supplying anything more principled. The reality of it is that it's REALLY DIFFICULT to run a generic-purpose social media platform. Twitter, pre-Musk takeover, had a whole bunch of teams, working groups, councils and employees whose task was to basically try to reduce the effects of Masnick's Impossibility Theorem[0] as much as possible. It is an established fact that Musk threw out the majority of these groups shortly after he took over the site.

The main reason people call Musk a hypocrite is because he was also very vocal about what he wanted to replace those policies with: unbridled free speech, with the only limitation being the law. He has not publicly abandoned this principle yet and to the contrary, still occasionally barks up the accounts of some far right users about how he's going to "restore free speech" on Twitter. By all public accounts, he's still believing in that idea, whilst also transparently setting policies on stuff that very much doesn't align with that belief (see this policy change, the recent banning of ElonJet and so on and so forth).

> This sounds like basically codifying the current Elon Musk mode of governance. Are you really suggesting that the Internet would be better if every social media site was operated in this way, as long as it is explicit in the rules?

It probably would be. I think it would actually improve the general state of the internet if people were aware more that the sites they use are effectively ran on the whimsy of other people. A lot of people live under the illusion that one singular website is supposed to be their free room to dump whatever thoughts they want. This idea both goes against the original goal of the internet and does not line up with reality. Codifying this sort of thing matters more than you think. It means people know where they stand. Nowadays this stuff still largely exists in the Terms of Services of most sites (not to mention that a big part of free speech is not a requirement to host anyone else), but being more open about that would be a much better move for transparency reasons.

So uh... yes? I am explicitly advocating for the implosion of generic purpose social media, I think what it has done on a broader scale is extremely damaging to society.

[0]: https://www.techdirt.com/2019/11/20/masnicks-impossibility-t...

Re: Promotion of alternative social platforms policy

#665

Post by dredmorbius »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #535
est31 wrote: post #108

When MS bought github many people moved to gitlab and started to advertise their gitlab IDs. I too put my gitlab in there. But ultimately, gitlab didn't catch on on a permanent basis: most devs still are on github, thanks to network effects. People removed their gitlab mentions. I feel the same with the "find me on mastodon" twitter bios: people will realize that only 50 of their thousands of followers can be found o…

I have no plans to move to mastodon. I will just invest my time and energy elsewhere. I don't feel the functionality of Twitter is so critical that it needs to be somehow replicated.

We'd be happy to have you, just sayin'.

Re: Promotion of alternative social platforms policy

#668

Post by astrange »

kyle-rb wrote: post #514
modeless wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The policy states "content that contains links of usernames" will be subject to removal. I think the "cross-posting" that the article is referring to is e.g. downloading a TikTok to reupload it to Twitter, or screenshotting Instagram or whatever. Elon can't risk LibsOfTikTok's entire account falling under violation. I could be wrong about that interpretation of the policy though, because the wording is probably inten…

TikTok isn’t on the banned platforms at all, which they claim is because its content is different, but may really be because Elon can’t antagonize China.

Of course this is also banned under EU law. (of course it is, everything is banned under EU law)

Re: Promotion of alternative social platforms policy

#669

Post by SahAssar »

admax88qqq wrote: post #426
SahAssar wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 bans are notoriously ineffective. Since you don't have an account or identity worth banning, most bans are up blocks which are pretty easy to circumvent undetected.

That's why I said try. They could ban IPs or at the very least block tripcodes. I'm not aware of them trying to do so in response to criticism of moot or other owners.

Re: Promotion of alternative social platforms policy

#670

Post by haberman »

noirscape wrote: post #664
haberman wrote: post #652

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's always "free speech for me, not for thee" with these people. That's what pretty much everybody is doing at this point. Elon's critics rightly point out the problems with his arbitrary rule by fiat, but who among his critics are proposing anything more principled than his behavior? By and large, people are calling him a hypocrite without articulating any more principled vision for how social media platforms sho…

> Elon's critics rightly point out the problems with his arbitrary rule by fiat, but who among his critics are proposing anything more principled than his behavior? By and large, people are calling him a hypocrite without articulating any more principled vision for how social media platforms should be run. Most people aren't supplying anything more principled. The reality of it is that it's REALLY DIFFICULT to run a…

It sounds like a recipe for a world of unfettered tribalism, where every space has explicit in-groups and out-groups, and nobody ever has to come into contact with someone who will challenge their beliefs, and where group shibboleths (even grievously false ones) are never corrected.

The world needs places where people can discover new information that goes against their beliefs. For people to be receptive to taking in new information, it needs to happen in a forum where there is a basic modicum of civility and mutual respect, where people are rewarded for taking down the temperature rather than flaming. Otherwise we might as well write down our 2022 beliefs in stone, as closed to future revision.

Post reply on HN