yes, but this one was the most popular. If they're looking at suppressing news or attention, they'd want to ban the most popular, not the most credible necessarily.
500k sounds extremely unlikely to be the largest reporter covering this, and even if it is, it's not that much more than the reputable reports who have 200k+
Here are some direct links to the accounts the parent mentioned, for example: https://nitter.42l.fr/jkbjournalist and https://nitter.42l.fr/KlasfeldReports
https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/14686045141691965...
We don't know why the account was actually banned aside from Twitter's evidence-free assertions.
There's no evidence this account violated the Twitter TOS.
From HN community guidelines on reading into a comment:
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
If one store goes out of business and I say "Here are two store that I consider reputable for buying the same things", that really doesn't mean I think the original store was not reputable.
The comment does not at all read to me as justification for the ban one way or another. It is a simple statement that there are sources the commenter trusts on the topic, with a referral to them.
This is part of the reason why I detest Twitter's leadership. It's the tyranny of selectively enforcing the rules and hiding behind it. If someone tells me the same dozen or so twitter handles that always manage to chime in at the top of just about every trending social topic are authentic, I simply won't believe them. Why aren't these banned?
Well I can't disagree with that. It is endemic of Google, YouTube, Amazon, Facebook, Apple etc.
When these companies deal with the sheer volume of users they have they hide behind rules that are judged via algorithm and are not able to be evaluated or appealed unless you get enough attention on social media.
It is yet another argument for the elimination of them. If they can't manage themselves then they shouldn't be running.
An extra benefit is that since the journalists are reputable, their accounts are unlikely to be deleted or suspended.
https://www.miamiherald.com/topics/jeffrey-epstein
Is it an appeal to authority to trust a primary source who is literally in the courtroom every day, instead of a random anonymous Twitter account just cribbing from primary sources?
You are not replying to anyone who has suggested this. Anyway, the government licensing of journalists is at least 5 years off.
How is it remotely controversial to prefer primary sources.. As much as it annoys the very online, reporting isn't just writing twitter threads with your opinions, it actually takes fact finding effort.
https://twitter.com/jkbjournalist
Adam Klasfeld is another one I enjoy:
https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports