> The user avoided posting the link so that he would be compliant with the rules as the CEO initially interpreted them
Where did Elon interpret the rule as being that users can advertise prohibited 3rd-party social media platforms as long as they don't provide a hyperlink?
> Your expectation is for the user to avoid posting any content that runs against Twitter's financial interest, even if that content is compliant with the rules.
Why are you talking about my expectations? What I am doing here is pointing out that PG clearly violated Twitter's rules. My claim is a descriptive claim, not a normative one.
You are inventing a completely different definition of "ban evasion" that has not been used in any Twitter policy page to try to justify the suspension, even after the suspension has been reversed for its unreasonableness.
> You just can’t create or turn (my emphasis) your account into a free advertising unit for one of the listed competing platforms.
This is what PG was doing (you can argue that he actually wasn't - but he was according to Elon's standards, which is the important sense). One Tweet buried deep in a thread that could possibly be misinterpreted to support your position is not convincing.
I am not "inventing a new definition of ban evasion". I am using simple English words in a straight-forward way.
Yes, you are. You've already admitted that your novel definition of "ban evasion" is not the usual use of the phrase (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34047933) and that the phrase typically refers to something completely different (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34045113). Twitter's own definition of "ban evasion" differs from what you are claiming the phrase to mean (https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/ban-evasion).
> I am using simple English words in a straight-forward way.
No, you are taking a phrase that already has a defined meaning in the context of Twitter and making up a new definition for it to attempt to justify the suspension. "Ban evasion" is the circumvention of an existing ban or suspension. It is not something that can be done by an account that is not already suspended or banned.
I have no idea why you are continuing to defend this unjustifiable suspension even after Twitter has already reversed it.
1. PG broke Twitter's rules
2. Twitter suspended PG's account
3. Twitter changed its rules
4. Twitter reinstated PG's account
Whether you like my use of the words 'ban' and 'evasion' ultimately isn't super relevant to my point.
I'm not 'defending' Twitter's actions. I'm interpreting reality. I'm discussing a matter of fact. Did PG break Twitter's rules? Yes.
HN has an infinite track record of being very wrong. I take my comment being flagged as a much greater endorsement of it than had it been "upvoted".
- The tweet did not link to Mastodon.
- The tweet did not name a Mastodon handle.
- The tweet is not similar to any of the examples provided in the deleted policy (“follow me @username on Instagram”, “[email protected]”, “check out my profile on Facebook - facebook.com/username”).
- The tweet did not bypass restrictions on external links via means such as URL cloaking or plaintext obfuscation, with the example provided being “instagram dot com/username”.
- The CEO of Twitter stated that "casually sharing external links" to competing platforms is "fine" within the deleted policy: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1604593057676300288
Even though the account did not break Twitter's rules, you believe that it should have broken Twitter's rules because it said something that doesn't contribute to Twitter's business prospects. This is what you are erroneously using the phrase "ban evasion" to describe, even though Twitter's policy on ban evasion (https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/ban-evasion) defines it as something done only by accounts that were previously banned or suspended.
HN does have it right this time. HN users are fully capable of seeing that the definition of "ban evasion" that you invented specifically for your argument does not match the definition used in https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/ban-evasion.
Elon's phrase "casual sharing" is not inclusive of PG apparently denouncing Twitter and promoting his Mastodon account in its place. PG's Tweet was anything but casual. If PG had linked to some post he found interesting that happened to be on Mastadon, that might qualify as casual.
I never claimed that my use of the phrase 'ban evasion' matched the use in the Twitter user agreement. HN and I are in agreement on that count (as I have stated elsewhere in this thread).
Frankly, you have bad reading comprehension, most likely due to motivated interpretation i.e. you tend to see what you want to be there rather than what is actually there.
This sentence represents the problem with your argument. What is an "attempt to break the rule without getting banned" supposed to mean? You either break the rule or you don't. And this account didn't.
You resorting to personal attacks shows that you have lost the argument. I am disengaging. Merry Christmas.
You seem like someone who can read, so the charatable interpretation is that there is some kind of mental block that's stopping you from seeing the clear truth.
If you want to stop talking, OK. Either way I hope you have a merry Christmas.
The user avoided posting the link so that he would be compliant with the rules as the CEO interpreted them. Your expectation is for the user to avoid posting any content that runs against Twitter's financial interest, even if that content is compliant with the rules. That is not a reasonable expectation, and the unreasonableness of this expectation caused the backlash that led to the account being unsuspended.