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

671–680 of 790 posts

Re: Promotion of alternative social platforms policy

#671

Post by modeless »

Klinky wrote: post #662
modeless wrote: post #638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> the policy seems to be from a place of bad intentions, I wouldn't grant the benefit of the doubt.

The problem with arguing this way is it can't possibly ever convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you. It's a great way to get both sides arguing past each other.

If you're in the right then you can be charitable to the other side and still make your points. That's the only way you'll be heard. Unless all you care about is preaching to the choir. Then go ahead, but I won't join you. It's a good way to farm karma, but a bad way to argue.

Re: Promotion of alternative social platforms policy

#672

Post by astrange »

Dreako wrote: post #490
troydavis wrote: post #49

(from another thread) Any attorneys want to weigh in on whether - or when - this becomes an anti-competitive/anti-trust concern, either in the US (FTC) or the EU? Related reading: * Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) Article 102, on abusive conduct by companies that have a dominant position in a market: https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/antitrust/procedures... . Any EU resident can file a co…

Instagram doesnt allow links in posts. this isnt a lot different from that imo Twitter honestly isn't big enough for regulators to give a damn, only like 20% of Americans use it monthly

This policy also forbids linktree in bio, the thing you’re allowed to do on IG.

Twitter is already under an FTC consent decree.

Re: Promotion of alternative social platforms policy

#673

Post by d23 »

jrmg wrote: post #229
tlogan wrote: post #117

Earlier 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 has repeatedly shown a proclivity for lying, so I don't know why it should be ruled out altogether. And regardless of what the intent or driving motivation was, it's still hypocrisy.

Re: Promotion of alternative social platforms policy

#674

Post by spaced-out »

photochemsyn wrote: post #656
codetrotter wrote: post #651

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would NSA stop using AWS just because WaPo wrote something about NSA? It doesn’t make sense, really. Only thing that should really matter to NSA in regards to using AWS is, does AWS offer the products they need, at the price they want to pay.

Maybe what matters to NSA bureaucrats making contracting decisions is knowing that Bezos will give them lucrative private sector jobs? Maybe exposing these public-private relationships between black-budget agencies and private tech outfits is something Post editors are now reluctant to examine in any detail? > "Amazon today elected Keith Alexander, a retired four-star general of the U.S. Army, as it newest board dire…

>Maybe what matters to NSA bureaucrats making contracting decisions is knowing that Bezos will give them lucrative private sector jobs?

So wouldn't that mean the last thing they'd do is raise a fuss about what some random WaPo reporter, that Bezos has almost certainly never met, wrote which has probably not even gone viral? Just ignore it and give AWS the contracts...no?

Re: Promotion of alternative social platforms policy

#675

Post by snowwrestler »

jacquesm wrote: post #607
snowwrestler wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t see how this is a legal problem for Twitter, at least in the U.S. They are not a dominant force on the Web or even in social media; they have little market power. And any data that shows lots of people leaving for other social media platforms would actually help prove that competition is strong (ironically). Free speech cuts both ways. It’s legal for Twitter to block links to Mastodon for the same reason it w…

Twitter is already actively regulated by the FCC and operating under a fairly strict regime.

Twitter is under a consent decree by the FTC related to user privacy, not market competition.

Re: Promotion of alternative social platforms policy

#677

Post by SahAssar »

noirscape wrote: post #410
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 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)…

Was the ban specifically around criticism of moot or gamergate in general?

Re: Promotion of alternative social platforms policy

#679

Post by dpkirchner »

concinds wrote: post #417
operator-name wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We recognize that certain social media platforms provide alternative experiences to Twitter, and allow users to post content to Twitter from these platforms. In general, any type of cross-posting to our platform is not in violation of this policy, even from the prohibited sites listed above. I think it would be classified as cross posting a newsworthy event.

Cross-posting can mean posting the same content on two platforms, not linking to content on another platform. Linking to Facebook would likely still earn him a ban.

The sheer quantity of posts on Twitter suggests to me that they will need to automatically ban folks for linking to some external sites. So I guess the question is would Twitter unban Carmack if they performed a manual review later?
Post reply on HN