There could be entire departments dedicated to figuring out whether or not the "like" and "retweet" buttons should have rounded corners or not, that sort of thing.

At some point, reality has to hit and apparently, Musk is the one who's going to bring it.

Is it being done in a shocking way to those who haven't been through this with other companies? Maybe. But how else is this company going to actually ever become profitable?

It sounds to me like you’re repeating talking points and memes, but speaking from a position of ignorance.

He is not hand of the market. He is someone who made pretty bad business and has very little chance to fix.

And yes, there is likely someone doing UI decisions. Usually it is good idea to have special people good with visuals to make these artistic decisions.

The question is, how many people?

I know that that comment was just pure emotion and hate. But, the fact is, there is nothing wrong with having department for visuals. Or department for marketing or department for communication with advertisers or what have you.

Twitter does one very specific thing, and it doesn't look like it has changed its goal much over the past 10 years, so what is it they're trying to develop so rapidly they need hundreds (thousands?) of developers.

Though I think the number of developers are still too high.

> One occasionally reads newspaper accounts of how two programmers in a remodeled garage have built an important program that surpasses the best efforts of large teams. And every programmer is prepared to believe such tales, for he knows that he could build any program much faster than the 1000 statements/year reported for industrial teams. Why then have not all industrial programming teams been replaced by dedicated garage duos? One must look at what is being produced. In the [attached figure] is a program. It is complete in itself, ready to be run by the author on the system on which it was developed. That is the thing commonly produced in garages…

He then goes on to describe how you can take a program and make it a programming product (by generalizing it, adding testing, documentation, maintenence) and a programming system (requiring interfaces and integration with the rest of the system)

Why would they agree to a ToS that clearly lays out things like "don't intentionally misgender people" if they fully planned on breaking their agreement

"But no one reads the ToS!" sure, but when you have your account suspended until you agree to delete a specific tweet and are given the exact area in the ToS you agreed to that you violated, then you should revoke your agreement to the ToS

When it's brought to your attention that you signed a document agreeing to Twitter being the thought Gestapo, just... cancel your agreement. Don't continue to agree to it in writing while whining about it publicly.

I agree with the rest of your comment though

Where in the ToS is this explicitly stated, and when was it added there?

> We reserve the right to remove Content that violates the User Agreement, including for example, copyright or trademark violations or other intellectual property misappropriation, impersonation, unlawful conduct, or harassment. Information regarding specific policies and the process for reporting or appealing violations can be found in our Help Center (https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-repor... and https://help.twitter.com/en/managing-your-account/suspended-...).

So the ToS refers to the policies in question. The list of things is only "for example," with more in the specific policies you agree to.

The Terms of Service:

https://twitter.com/content/twitter-com/legal/en/tos

states “You may use the Services only in compliance with these Terms and all applicable laws, rules and regulations”, and links to the Twitter Rules and Policies:

https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies

Following the link to the “Hateful Conduct Policy”:

https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-condu...

Which states:

> We prohibit targeting others with repeated slurs, tropes or other content that intends to dehumanize, degrade or reinforce negative or harmful stereotypes about a protected category. This includes targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals.

In the Wayback machine, it looks like that direct language was added in an update between October 19 and October 28 of 2018, about four years ago:

https://web.archive.org/web/20181028023901/https://help.twit...

The older version had this, which reasonably encompasses that behavior, though doesn’t name it specifically:

> repeated and/or or non-consensual slurs, epithets, racist and sexist tropes, or other content that degrades someone.

That said, I have trouble believing that "why would you agree to a ToS that you don't actually intend to ascribe to 100% of the time" is a question that requires serious consideration.

Yeah, "fun police" - it's not fun if your "jokes" are made on the back of minorities.

As a German, I actually take offense to this kind of expression. You apparently have NO IDEA what Gestapo really was if you think banning gaslighting assholes for hate speech is in any way comparable or even remotely in the same neighborhood as the Gestapo.

These kind of phrases ridicule and downplay the horrific crimes and offenses against human rights committed by that organization and even the most unreasonable and idiotic ban on Twitter cannot ever be compared.

Words matter - and that's why we deal with "free speech" differently than Americans. Btw it's also pretty clear what holds on court and what doesn't - independent of how strict or unreasonable private social networks moderate their content.