It is straight up the EXACT scenario that the policy was put in place for.
To anyone who missed it, this is in reference to Elon Musk slandering a rescue diver, who called BS on Musk's grand idea du jour, by saying the diver is a "pedo guy".
PSA: By the precedent set in the argument of his defense in the defamation case[1], a "pedo guy" just means a "creepy old man" to Elon Musk and the court — especially so if such a man is into younger women[2].
Therefore, by his own admission,...
> Elon Musk is a pedo guy. <
Feel free to copypaste/cite/link this comment, or simply refer to the Twitter CEO as "The famous pedo guy Elon Musk" from now on.
Thanks in advance for respecting me for stating the facts.
[1] https://nypost.com/2019/09/16/elon-musk-says-pedo-guy-insult...
[2]https://www.indiatvnews.com/entertainment/celebrities/tesla-...
Imagine if somebody said this about a high school teacher.
I would be very surprised if Elon doesn't realize how infuriated this will make everyone.
`And only ONE for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'
`I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't-- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.
`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less.'Is the new policy bullshit? Sure. But clearly this is against the spirit of it.
No it's not, and it's absurd to equate the two.
This is like the time someone post a link with "here is someone calling you a cunt" (not on HN, another forum) and then try to defend that by claiming "I didn't call them I cunt, I merely linked to someone who did". That didn't fly either.
Whether these rules are good or bad is an entirely different matter.
I didn't call them I cunt, I merely linked to someone who did
Actually this is even more ridiculous since El No decreed that accounts dedicated to promoting competitors would be banned. Honestly, I don't even know who "pg" is at this point and I couldn't possibly care less. However it's pretty clear that this twitter account was used to post all sorts of content. Even with a tweet about Mastodon, or two, or like twenty that means there are multiple reasons for that twitter account to exist. It is not dedicated to promoting Mastodon. This is just El No throwing a very expensive tantrum.
This is the issue you're trying to forcibly inject.
This is the issue you're trying to forcibly inject.
You know why these threads tend to derail? Stuff like this. I don't even care all that much about the entire thing, but you know, it's kind of interesting. "Replies" such as yours make it impossible to have an interesting conversation.
You are clearly uninterested in having any sort of conversation
You're making excuses for a guy who tweets Nazi images and quotes while slamming the ban hammer down on professional journalists merely trying to interview him. Rationalize your cognitive dissonance all you want, but that doesn't change that this has nothing to do with whatever the rules are at Twitter. The rules don't matter because the rules change at El No's every whim. Therefor what matters is El No's whim, and El No's whim claimed (unironically) to be a "freeze peach absolutist".
It's pretty telling that "zingers" offend you while El No's penchant for tweeting Nazis and vilifying journalists doesn't. If anything you're attempting to derail a meaningful discourse by falling back on the so-called rules… rules written in quicksand.
All I said was that Graham's actions were against the spirit of a rule on Twitter. Nothing more, nothing less. You've managed to escalate this beyond any reasonable proportion.
>> Casually sharing occasional links is fine, but no more relentless advertising of competitors for free, which is absurd in the extreme.
Also, something Elon Musk says isn't policy, even when he owns Twitter.
The policy specifically talks about linking out and usernames, nothing about generally "promoting other platforms".
Musk-defenders are getting absurd here.
> Casually sharing occasional links is fine, but no more relentless advertising of competitors for free, which is absurd in the extreme.
That was very casual and not at all an example of relentless advertising for competitors. It's also extremely dubious that PG was trying to evade Twitter enforcement.