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

681–690 of 790 posts

Re: Promotion of alternative social platforms policy

#681

Post by [deleted] »

macNchz wrote: post #151
MonkeyMalarky wrote: post #27

Banning links to Facebook? Really? This flying by the seat of the pants moderation style reminds me of friends in highschool running their own phpBB instances and IRC channels.. Also, Telegram, Discord, Tumblr aren't listed? Lol.

I had the same thought recently, this reminds me of old-school forums where the single admin would just make ridiculous arbitrary rules based on specific random things that bothered them. “No more posts about doughnuts ever, after what pwnyb0y86 did last week”, “if you post a question that has been asked in the last 24 hours you get a 3 day ban” etc etc.

[deleted]

Re: Promotion of alternative social platforms policy

#682

Post by bonzini »

photochemsyn wrote: post #635
jrmg wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Washington Post removing all investigative journalism into the CIA / NSA while AWS seeks large services contracts from those government entities That happened?

The last major work of investigative journalism of that nature at the post was "Top Secret America" with lead reporters Dana Priest and William Arkin (2010): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Secret_America Feel free to point to anything even vaguely similar since Bezos took over the post.

When was the one before? They also didn't publish one for 3 years after 2010 and before Bezos bought the Post.

Re: Promotion of alternative social platforms policy

#683

Post by loo »

klabb3 wrote: post #588
bmarquez wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since they're banning Linktree (which exists primarily for that purpose) it sounds like they are. I hate that Twitter is turning into a closed platform like Instagram.

To be fair, this started way before Elon. Yes you could link to individual posts but as soon as you read through the direct reply a soft paywall comes up. Your experience as signed out user was - and still is - awful.

Didn't Elon say he was gonna stop those walls?

Re: Promotion of alternative social platforms policy

#684

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

ttepasse wrote: post #342
zetazzed wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Post ( https://post.news ) is probably the closest to a well funded Twitter clone that I’ve seen. Very similar UX. Supposed to have more emphasis on publishers but that’s not very apparent yet in my feed there. Right now I use sigmoid.social for tech stuff and Post for mainstream chatter.

> well funded Twitter clone In a way that are the failure modes of Twitter itself. Centralized, funded by VCs, susceptible to the whims of the millionaire owners. Wasn’t Post the clone where, according to their TOS, you couldn’t "discriminate by net worth"?

That's the one.

https://mastodon.social/@taylorlorenz/109422846935825930

But they might have changed that "no criticising the rich" policy now. Since it's such a bad look.

Re: Promotion of alternative social platforms policy

#685

Post by srcreigh »

At least it’s explicit policy. FB messenger likes to fail to send signal URLs, mark PushBullet URLs as unsafe. Deprioritize YT links in the FB feed too. It’s not an official policy, just plausible denial secret policy.

I respect Elon for making decisions quickly. I’m sure with good hypotheses behind them. And especially how he is always doing it very much in the open.

Transparent, decisive, opinionated leadership won’t make everyone happy but at least it’s a short feedback loop with someone who cares.

And if you think this is anti competitive, I ask you to reconsider your priorities. How about the digital advertising industry eliminating most other software industries by taking giant losses to provide complete suites of apps for free?

Re: Promotion of alternative social platforms policy

#687

Post by bydo »

sneak wrote: post #165
es7 wrote: post #93

Thats got to be the worst possible decision for Twitter to possibly make. What good is a social media platform that prohibits links to other platforms? I use FB, Twitter, Insta, TikTok, LinkedIn, Discord, etc for a variety of purposes and find and share great content across platforms.

Instagram prohibits links, period, not just to other platforms. This is where "link in bio" comes from. They hate the web.

"Another thing is also bad!" does not justify the first thing being bad.

Re: Promotion of alternative social platforms policy

#688

Post by RustyRussell »

shubhamkrm wrote: post #106
afandian wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, what a great way to find out about alternatives. I'd never heard of "Post" and "Nostr".

The irony is Jack has invested in and actively promotes nostr.

"donated to" not "invested in". It's just a plain FOSS project.

Re: Promotion of alternative social platforms policy

#689

Post by Klinky »

modeless wrote: post #671
Klinky wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Is the policy not from a place of bad intentions? It's clearly a ploy to try to trap users on Twitter, preventing them from promoting their presence on alternative platforms.

Is it not vague and poorly worded in a fashion that could give the impression that sharing links to other platforms might be prohibited? Is this ambiguity perhaps a feature and not a bug?

I find faux-free-speech supporters rely on ambiguity to mask their actual intentions. I would much rather people focus on asking more explicit questions and requesting explicit answers.

Re: Promotion of alternative social platforms policy

#690

Post by [deleted] »

ttepasse wrote: post #342
zetazzed wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Post ( https://post.news ) is probably the closest to a well funded Twitter clone that I’ve seen. Very similar UX. Supposed to have more emphasis on publishers but that’s not very apparent yet in my feed there. Right now I use sigmoid.social for tech stuff and Post for mainstream chatter.

> well funded Twitter clone In a way that are the failure modes of Twitter itself. Centralized, funded by VCs, susceptible to the whims of the millionaire owners. Wasn’t Post the clone where, according to their TOS, you couldn’t "discriminate by net worth"?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN