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

701–710 of 790 posts

Re: Promotion of alternative social platforms policy

#701

Post by BryantD »

photochemsyn wrote: post #194

I never understood the "public square" argument that so many people made about the role of Twitter or other social media platforms. They're really just private courtyards where permission to pass is controlled by the owner of the courtyard, within the constraints set out in the legal system on discrimination (i.e. the same as for restaurants, movie theaters, etc.). Here's the underlying legal basis of protected free…

To the best of my recollection, nothing published so far has shown the FBI directing Twitter to ban speech. If I am wrong, please do correct me.

What I've seen is the FBI saying that they think specific accounts and Tweets violate policy and/or asking for them to be reviewed. It's reasonable to wonder if reports have more weight when they come from a government agency, in the same way one might wonder if reports have more weight right now when they come from Andy Ngo, but "directing" seems incorrect.

It's interesting to me that the way Taibbi and Weiss are presenting this information leaves the impression that the FBI is giving Twitter orders.

Re: Promotion of alternative social platforms policy

#702

Post by [deleted] »

Klinky wrote: post #613
9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's also a quite absurd for a free-speech platform to even have such a policy in the first place It does make sense for a paid-speech platform, though. Also, as a thought experiment, if Twitter were a part of the fediverse, wouldn’t this policy essentially be the same as defederating from the prohibited sites? I’m new to the concept of the fediverse, so I welcome edification or enlightenment on that thought experi…

>It does make sense for a paid-speech platform, though. What is a "paid-speech platform" exactly? Twitter is just going to be for press releases and advertisers now? It would also be absurd for a node that claims to implement free-speech absolutism to defederate from any particular node. It would also be absurd to stay federated with nodes that you claim are prohibited while telling people on your node to still cross…

[deleted]

Re: Promotion of alternative social platforms policy

#704

Post by Klinky »

modeless wrote: post #698
Klinky wrote: post #689

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't think the policy actually explains its purpose (i.e. why banning these links is necessary), only its application. It discusses the "what", not the "why". This omission is probably also intentional.

I don't think it takes too much brain effort to figure out the problematic nature of the policy given the context of Twitter. If someone cannot, I am not really here to coddle them, or try to convince them otherwise. The only person who can actually answer these questions & clarify the policy is Musk, and I doubt he has any genuine interest in doing so.

Re: Promotion of alternative social platforms policy

#705

Post by greggarious »

eternalban wrote: post #510
greggarious wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, WaPo (much like NPR) was always more a place to go for geopolitics whitepapers masquerading as reporting, it was usually places like NYT, The Guardian, or Intercept the that did adversarial journalism. Bezos didn't change much in that regard. (Though I did cancel my subscription when they kept insisting on doing tracking even after I paid the guy... if you're gonna be like that when I try to hand you mone…

> adversarial Watergate. Also my impression has been that NYTimes definitely does geopolitics - Earth laughably and famously turned "flat" in NYTimes editorial pages*, not the Washington Post's /g. The Intercept can not possibly be classed in the same group (of which I am not exactly a fan, but fair is fair). New York Times is the establishment's (the fabled East Coast Liberals of yore) ideological platform. Washingt…

>Watergate.

Fair point, my bad -- I'm a millennial, that's before my time, I'm giving my thoughts as someone who became old enough to stop violating COPPA around "Indecision 2000".

>Also my impression has been that NYTimes definitely does geopolitics - Earth laughably and famously turned "flat" in NYTimes editorial pages

My impression was WaPo is run by the CIA, and NYT is run by like, at least nine eyes[1]. (With the usual France vs USA bullshit continuing on from the cold war playing out in the opinions pages)

>Wall Street Journal represents the establishment's (petite) capitalist class -- this is why things like Theranos get pounded on by WSJ: the petite capitalist class depends on the fairness of the system.

I can't comment either way on WSJ because heir paywall works too well LOL -- I haven't read it in years.

Forbes was good tho -- that's how I discovered one of my favorite journalists before they moved on to the Times. And I'm not exactly uh... petite... nor particularly capitalist myself. I'm a fan of democracy. Representative or otherwise, take your... pick... but capitalism is an economic system, not a political system, and conflating the two is the path to totalitarianism IMHO :-)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_Providence [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement#9_Eyes,_14_Eye...

Re: Promotion of alternative social platforms policy

#706

Post by MandieD »

Yoric wrote: post #533
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he's hoping for a run in 2028. Possibly 2024, but that's a little close. Buying Twitter would be a strategic campaign move. Of course a lot of people now realise he's an asshole, and he's likely to lose a lot of money on the deal. So maybe that plan won't work out. It's been a real case study in self-harm. Many who were neutral or positive before - because of Tesla, SpaceX, and some of his other projects - ar…

If he runs for office in the US, he may run for governor, but he can't run for president. On the other hand, there are many countries that have less stringent regulations, plus he may run in South Africa. But that's a wild guess. I introduced this speculation in the thread but for all we know, he's just really bad at handling frustration and that's how it manifests.

Ted Cruz (Republican senator from Texas) comes up for re-election in 2024. Couple of remarks about Cancun every time the weather gets a bit chilly, update some of the fun memes from the 2016 presidential primary... and maybe Cruz himself is considering another go at the White House.

Or perhaps that was the situation at the beginning of this year, and one of Musk's motivations for moving to Texas, beyond his previously-stated ones.

Re: Promotion of alternative social platforms policy

#707

Post by drexlspivey »

runevault wrote: post #661
admax88qqq wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Investment banks financed a portion of the deal which they could then sell to investors. They are the ones bagholding. Twitter’s debt owned by twitter makes no sense.

Re: Promotion of alternative social platforms policy

#708

Post by lpghatguy »

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.

Requiring user sign-ins is a little bit different than banning all mention of other social media websites existing.

Re: Promotion of alternative social platforms policy

#709

Post by madeofpalk »

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…

> people will realize that only 50 of their thousands of followers can be found on mastodon

But here's the thing - just enough of the people I follow are active on mastodon. It's about a quarter (78 out of 310) of who i was followong on twitter, but it's enough to give me an interesting timeline (also considering a bunch of them were muted obligation follows).

So I've fully moved over. The few people that were following me will notice one less person in their timeline, and eventually possibly make the jump as well.

Post reply on HN