Hey, can we have this discussion without referring to disagreements as “ludicrous”? It’s a moot point now, but still.
It was listed as a forbidden platform.
Paul Graham's personal website was not listed as a forbidden platform.
* We can't infer from the policy that Paul Graham's personal website can't be linked to, or mentioned.
* We can't infer from the policy that merely talking about forbidden platforms (including Mastodon and Link Tree) is a violation, unless a link or a username is provided.
* Therefore, Paul G saying that he has a website with a Mastodon link on it isn't a violation of the policy.
Generalizing from LinkTree to any website is unwarranted.
Further, such a generalization effectively prohibits links outside Twitter (since Facebook can be reached from nearly every page out there via some sequence of clicks). But that's beside the point.
>At both the Tweet level and the account level, we will remove any free promotion of prohibited 3rd-party social media platforms, *such as linking out (i.e. using URLs) to any of the below platforms on Twitter*, or *providing your handle without a URL*
Notice that *all* definitions and examples of "promotion" specifically involve having your URL or username in a tweet.
The "non-technical means" of bypassing policy are still about communicating the username in a tweet.
It is a ludicrous policy, but alleging that it prohibits even mentioning existence of other accounts is a ludicrous interpretation of the ludicrous policy.
"You can find my contact info on my website" is a violation under this interpretation.
As is stating "Twitter isn't the only way to reach me"... and having any off-twitter links (God forbid your FB account is reachable via some sequence of clicks from there!).
So much for the "free speech absolutist" though.