5 ms·

The policy says comments like, "follow me @ on Instagram" are explicitly forbidden. One could very easily argue linking to ones own Facebook post could fall afo

The policy says comments like, "follow me @ on Instagram" are explicitly forbidden. One could very easily argue linking to ones own Facebook post could fall afoul.

modeless 4y ago
One could argue that but one would be wrong because cross-posting is clearly allowed if you read the whole policy instead of just the first section.
- Chinjut 4y ago
  There's no need to defend Elon here. Clearly what will happen is highly capricious enforcement based on who he personally likes and dislikes.
  - modeless 4y ago
    Don't ascribe motivations to me without evidence. This is not a defense of Elon Musk. I think this policy is stupid. But our criticisms of it should be correct. Otherwise we're no better than our opponents.
    - ancapsfascists 4y ago
      There is tons and tons of evidence that Musk is moderating capriciously at this point.
      - modeless 4y ago
        You misunderstand. The person he was ascribing motivations to was me. My intent is not to defend Musk here.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - mistermann 4y ago
      > You should stop ascribing motivations to people without evidence. I very much agree, however doing that first requires that one is able to perceive reality without making errors, and that is a lot harder than it seems. As for censorship: all platforms have it, including HN, and opinions (aka: reality) vary on which approach is best.
    - wstuartcl 4y ago
      I think it is pretty clear this is the case, I mean look at any post he has responded to with dislike in the last month -- every day there is a queue of disabled accounts that have interacted with musk or poked his thin skin. At the end of the day as far as i am concerned its a dead platform -- just the ad reductions against the 1bn + interest means the runway is on fire. Whatever elon does at this point is just pretending to do work effort while juggling balls in the air. It is clear he will not only tank twitter but given he has already hit a sell off cliff on tesla shares he will be licky to have any relevent input on that corp in the near future.
      - modeless 4y ago
        I'm talking about this policy, not Musk. I think the policy is stupid and I think we should argue against it. "Musk won't follow the policy" is not a criticism of the policy. There's plenty of room here to criticize the policy on its own merits.
  - eternalban 4y ago
    Honestly I think he was defending the idea of 'read the whole thing' & not Elon. I do share your prediction that given the ambiguous wording of the cross posting section this will likely involve the feelings of the supreme leader of twitter.
  - mistermann 4y ago
    > There's no need to defend Elon here. There is at least arguably value in defending/pursuing the truth though. > Clearly what will happen is highly capricious enforcement based on who he personally likes and dislikes. Visions of the future are sometimes not as accurate as they appear due to shortcomings in the simulator.
    - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
      > > There's no need to defend Elon here. > There is at least arguably value in defending/pursuing the truth though. Indeed, it seems to simply be the case that the company is supporting “paid speech”.
      - mistermann 4y ago
        Perhaps, but whether that is actually true is the tricky part....though truth seems to be not very interesting/fun to some cultures, so they instead imagine "truth" into existence and discuss that instead. If no one breaks character (so far so good in this thread), it works out really good, ignoring the consequences of course.
- kyle-rb 4y ago
  The policy states "content that contains links of usernames" will be subject to removal. I think the "cross-posting" that the article is referring to is e.g. downloading a TikTok to reupload it to Twitter, or screenshotting Instagram or whatever. Elon can't risk LibsOfTikTok's entire account falling under violation. I could be wrong about that interpretation of the policy though, because the wording is probably intentionally vague.
  - astrange 4y ago
    TikTok isn’t on the banned platforms at all, which they claim is because its content is different, but may really be because Elon can’t antagonize China. Of course this is also banned under EU law. (of course it is, everything is banned under EU law)
- Klinky 4y ago
  One could argue a clear definition of "cross posting" should be provided before assuming it'd be allowed. A policy like this is going to have a chilling effect regardless, due to the ambiguity. It's also a quite absurd for a free-speech platform to even have such a policy in the first place, even if it's attempting to reign in "direct promotion" rather than sharing content across platforms. > 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. The fact that the first explanatory paragraph calls these other platforms "prohibited 3rd-party social media platforms" is confusing at best.
  - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
    > It's also a quite absurd for a free-speech platform to even have such a policy in the first place It does make sense for a paid-speech platform, though. Also, as a thought experiment, if Twitter were a part of the fediverse, wouldn’t this policy essentially be the same as defederating from the prohibited sites? I’m new to the concept of the fediverse, so I welcome edification or enlightenment on that thought experiment.
    - vgel 4y ago
      No. If your instance defederates from another you can still link to it (though you might get banned if you link to something nasty, depending on your instance's rules). Defederating simply prevents your instance from automatically pulling posts from the other instance, aka the status quo for non-federated platforms.
    - Klinky 4y ago
      >It does make sense for a paid-speech platform, though. What is a "paid-speech platform" exactly? Twitter is just going to be for press releases and advertisers now? It would also be absurd for a node that claims to implement free-speech absolutism to defederate from any particular node. It would also be absurd to stay federated with nodes that you claim are prohibited while telling people on your node to still cross-post content from these nodes.
rayiner 4y ago
There is a whole section on how cross posting is permitted: https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/social-platforms-policy https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/social-platfo... > What is not a violation of this policy? > We recognize that certain social media platforms provide alternative experiences to Twitter, and allow users to post content to Twitter from these platforms. In general, any type of cross-posting to our platform is not in violation of this policy, even from the prohibited sites listed above. > Additionally, we allow paid advertisement/promotion for any of the prohibited social media platforms. To be clear, I think it's a stupid policy. But it seems like they added this section to expressly address the very concern you are raising.
- TillE 4y ago
  "Cross-posting" is generally understood to mean posting the same content to different sites, not merely linking to a post. The policy is...not at all clear. I don't know what they mean by posting content "from" a prohibited site. They don't specifically mention a link.
  - eternalban 4y ago
    Honestly I think this is all over thinking it: > "In general, " That's all you need to know. Those two words imply "but for -specific cases- there are other criteria". Looking at the positive side: Now you get to police yourself and/or get to know yourself: will you bend your will to yet another digital tyrant and self-police your self-expression? Will every time you are ready to press that "send" button on a post with links give you pause, thinking "I think, "in general", I am toeing the line, o Supreme Leader, please please let me stay. Monetize me, do with me as you will, but please, just let me tweet!" We're making a society of digital sheep, "are you in?" p.s. all these efforts by various tech giants, including those who hold your 'email address' hostage such as Alphabet, are infringing on your digital identity, which they believe they own and control. And without a durable independent identity, who are you in digital "society"? How could there ever be "democracy" in a "digital society" when people can be erased just like that?
DarthNebo 4y ago
It's like Apple's do not link to you own website with cheaper or direct billing....smh

The policy says comments like, "follow me @ on Instagram" are explicitly forbidden. One could very easily argue linking to ones own Facebook post could fall afoul.

modeless 4y ago

One could argue that but one would be wrong because cross-posting is clearly allowed if you read the whole policy instead of just the first section.

Chinjut 4y ago
There's no need to defend Elon here. Clearly what will happen is highly capricious enforcement based on who he personally likes and dislikes.
- modeless 4y ago
  Don't ascribe motivations to me without evidence. This is not a defense of Elon Musk. I think this policy is stupid. But our criticisms of it should be correct. Otherwise we're no better than our opponents.
  - ancapsfascists 4y ago
    There is tons and tons of evidence that Musk is moderating capriciously at this point.
    - modeless 4y ago
      You misunderstand. The person he was ascribing motivations to was me. My intent is not to defend Musk here.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - mistermann 4y ago
    > You should stop ascribing motivations to people without evidence. I very much agree, however doing that first requires that one is able to perceive reality without making errors, and that is a lot harder than it seems. As for censorship: all platforms have it, including HN, and opinions (aka: reality) vary on which approach is best.
  - wstuartcl 4y ago
    I think it is pretty clear this is the case, I mean look at any post he has responded to with dislike in the last month -- every day there is a queue of disabled accounts that have interacted with musk or poked his thin skin. At the end of the day as far as i am concerned its a dead platform -- just the ad reductions against the 1bn + interest means the runway is on fire. Whatever elon does at this point is just pretending to do work effort while juggling balls in the air. It is clear he will not only tank twitter but given he has already hit a sell off cliff on tesla shares he will be licky to have any relevent input on that corp in the near future.
    - modeless 4y ago
      I'm talking about this policy, not Musk. I think the policy is stupid and I think we should argue against it. "Musk won't follow the policy" is not a criticism of the policy. There's plenty of room here to criticize the policy on its own merits.
- eternalban 4y ago
  Honestly I think he was defending the idea of 'read the whole thing' & not Elon. I do share your prediction that given the ambiguous wording of the cross posting section this will likely involve the feelings of the supreme leader of twitter.
- mistermann 4y ago
  > There's no need to defend Elon here. There is at least arguably value in defending/pursuing the truth though. > Clearly what will happen is highly capricious enforcement based on who he personally likes and dislikes. Visions of the future are sometimes not as accurate as they appear due to shortcomings in the simulator.
  - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
    > > There's no need to defend Elon here. > There is at least arguably value in defending/pursuing the truth though. Indeed, it seems to simply be the case that the company is supporting “paid speech”.
    - mistermann 4y ago
      Perhaps, but whether that is actually true is the tricky part....though truth seems to be not very interesting/fun to some cultures, so they instead imagine "truth" into existence and discuss that instead. If no one breaks character (so far so good in this thread), it works out really good, ignoring the consequences of course.
kyle-rb 4y ago
The policy states "content that contains links of usernames" will be subject to removal. I think the "cross-posting" that the article is referring to is e.g. downloading a TikTok to reupload it to Twitter, or screenshotting Instagram or whatever. Elon can't risk LibsOfTikTok's entire account falling under violation. I could be wrong about that interpretation of the policy though, because the wording is probably intentionally vague.
- astrange 4y ago
  TikTok isn’t on the banned platforms at all, which they claim is because its content is different, but may really be because Elon can’t antagonize China. Of course this is also banned under EU law. (of course it is, everything is banned under EU law)
Klinky 4y ago
One could argue a clear definition of "cross posting" should be provided before assuming it'd be allowed. A policy like this is going to have a chilling effect regardless, due to the ambiguity. It's also a quite absurd for a free-speech platform to even have such a policy in the first place, even if it's attempting to reign in "direct promotion" rather than sharing content across platforms. > 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. The fact that the first explanatory paragraph calls these other platforms "prohibited 3rd-party social media platforms" is confusing at best.
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
  > It's also a quite absurd for a free-speech platform to even have such a policy in the first place It does make sense for a paid-speech platform, though. Also, as a thought experiment, if Twitter were a part of the fediverse, wouldn’t this policy essentially be the same as defederating from the prohibited sites? I’m new to the concept of the fediverse, so I welcome edification or enlightenment on that thought experiment.
  - vgel 4y ago
    No. If your instance defederates from another you can still link to it (though you might get banned if you link to something nasty, depending on your instance's rules). Defederating simply prevents your instance from automatically pulling posts from the other instance, aka the status quo for non-federated platforms.
  - Klinky 4y ago
    >It does make sense for a paid-speech platform, though. What is a "paid-speech platform" exactly? Twitter is just going to be for press releases and advertisers now? It would also be absurd for a node that claims to implement free-speech absolutism to defederate from any particular node. It would also be absurd to stay federated with nodes that you claim are prohibited while telling people on your node to still cross-post content from these nodes.

rayiner 4y ago

There is a whole section on how cross posting is permitted: https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/social-platforms-policy https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/social-platfo... > What is not a violation of this policy? > We recognize that certain social media platforms provide alternative experiences to Twitter, and allow users to post content to Twitter from these platforms. In general, any type of cross-posting to our platform is not in violation of this policy, even from the prohibited sites listed above. > Additionally, we allow paid advertisement/promotion for any of the prohibited social media platforms. To be clear, I think it's a stupid policy. But it seems like they added this section to expressly address the very concern you are raising.

TillE 4y ago
"Cross-posting" is generally understood to mean posting the same content to different sites, not merely linking to a post. The policy is...not at all clear. I don't know what they mean by posting content "from" a prohibited site. They don't specifically mention a link.
- eternalban 4y ago
  Honestly I think this is all over thinking it: > "In general, " That's all you need to know. Those two words imply "but for -specific cases- there are other criteria". Looking at the positive side: Now you get to police yourself and/or get to know yourself: will you bend your will to yet another digital tyrant and self-police your self-expression? Will every time you are ready to press that "send" button on a post with links give you pause, thinking "I think, "in general", I am toeing the line, o Supreme Leader, please please let me stay. Monetize me, do with me as you will, but please, just let me tweet!" We're making a society of digital sheep, "are you in?" p.s. all these efforts by various tech giants, including those who hold your 'email address' hostage such as Alphabet, are infringing on your digital identity, which they believe they own and control. And without a durable independent identity, who are you in digital "society"? How could there ever be "democracy" in a "digital society" when people can be erased just like that?

DarthNebo 4y ago

It's like Apple's do not link to you own website with cheaper or direct billing....smh