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

691–700 of 790 posts

Re: Promotion of alternative social platforms policy

#691

Post by astrange »

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 a good policy. You should discriminate by net assets instead.

Someone with a zero net worth because they have millions in assets and millions in debt is probably actually rich - otherwise how’d they get the loans?

Same for a new dentist who’s negative due to student debt but is about to have more than enough income to handle it.

Re: Promotion of alternative social platforms policy

#692

Post by nightfly »

srcreigh wrote: post #685

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…

He started off by acting like it was because links to the plane tracker existed on Mastodon though. This "transparency" is reluctant and lags behind the actual policy change.

Re: Promotion of alternative social platforms policy

#693

Post by pantalaimon »

twobitshifter wrote: post #558
strangattractor wrote: post #169

There is no money is promoting free speech or at least not the kind of money Twitter needs to pay back it's investors and creditors. There have been multiple poor business decisions since the buyout. The "burn it the ground and start over mentality" is effectively placing the company in a startup position. Given the risk of startups it would have likely been cheaper/smarter to start a new company than pursue a levera…

I was thinking of this and if you take TV news media there’s a clear political dichotomy with CNN and Fox News. If you look at that deeper, Fox News is the most watched station in the USA. Still more, the Fox News audience is profitable to advertisers offering Cash-For-Gold and worthless symbolic doodads. Until now online media has not followed the same course - TikTok, Facebook, and Twitter are all chasing Gen-Z and…

I’m not sure that crowd is tech-savvy enough to be on Twitter in the first place

Re: Promotion of alternative social platforms policy

#694

Post by srcreigh »

nightfly wrote: post #692
srcreigh wrote: post #685

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…

He started off by acting like it was because links to the plane tracker existed on Mastodon though. This "transparency" is reluctant and lags behind the actual policy change.

Again, you are benefiting from transparency of his opinions to form your own opinion. I think you being able to disagree is valuable, and I’m not really trying to change your mind either.

Re: Promotion of alternative social platforms policy

#695

Post by bigbillheck »

martythemaniak wrote: post #376

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah. Sorry, just last week a buddy said something like "Musk could inspire great, dedicated engineers to join because they'll be inspired by his free speech stance". I had a good laugh, but maybe my friend was not very up to date on Twitter drama. Surely after this past week's purges and this "policy" nobody could believe anything of the sort. Does anyone still think something like the sta…

> Surely after this past week's purges and this "policy" nobody could believe anything of the sort

Don't be absurd.

Re: Promotion of alternative social platforms policy

#696

Post by bigbillheck »

McDyver wrote: post #207

What I'm more surprised about is the Human behind the development of these changes. I don't think Twitter is full of Musk's fanboys, so people implementing these changes are still working there because they have bills to pay. How sad we are as a society that people need to put making money to survive in front of principles (assuming people know they are implementing rules against free-speech). Btw, I don't condemn pe…

> people implementing these changes are still working there because they have bills to pay.

More like they have severe visa issues.

Re: Promotion of alternative social platforms policy

#698

Post by modeless »

Klinky wrote: post #689
modeless wrote: post #671

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 m…

It's not a "ploy". Preventing people from promoting their presence on other platforms is the literal stated purpose of the policy. Clearly someone who agrees with the policy would not label that "a place of bad intentions". So if you were to argue with them charitably, you would have to understand why they think it's not bad and convince them that it is bad, not just state it. Of course I agree with you, and I think there are plenty of good arguments to be made! But starting off accusing people of having bad intentions is counterproductive if you want to convince them.

Re: Promotion of alternative social platforms policy

#699

Post by nightfly »

srcreigh wrote: post #694
nightfly wrote: post #692

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He started off by acting like it was because links to the plane tracker existed on Mastodon though. This "transparency" is reluctant and lags behind the actual policy change.

Again, you are benefiting from transparency of his opinions to form your own opinion. I think you being able to disagree is valuable, and I’m not really trying to change your mind either.

He lied, got caught since it was completely obvious what he was actually doing, and had to fess up to to. That's not transparency and calling it that is giving him way too much credit

Re: Promotion of alternative social platforms policy

#700

Post by jacquesm »

snowwrestler wrote: post #675
jacquesm wrote: post #607

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

True, but that means that they are not too insignificant to be regulated.
Post reply on HN