What about it? I make no attempt to justify any of Twitter's policies or say they good or even consistent. All I'm saying that any honest good faith interpretation of the stated rules will say that this is clearly against it. Whether these rules are good or bad is an entirely different matter.
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.
The issue isn't whether the rules are good or bad, the issue is that El No decreed that he was a freeze peach absolutist. If something is absolute there's no room for exceptions.
I didn't call them I cunt, I merely linked to someone who did
No. It's like El No saying that you can absolutely call him naughty names, someone calls him a cunt, and El No throws a tantrum.
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 (presumably he's one of those Joe Rogaine types). 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 because his massive ego is bruised.
This is the issue you're trying to forcibly inject.
Well, no. Nobody forced El No, the current emperor of Twitter, to declare himself under no uncertain circumstances to be a "freeze peach absolutist". As the current grand poobah of tweeting his very public decrees are entirely relevant.
You are clearly uninterested in having any sort of conversation and merely wish to ram though your own conversation to score "zingers", never mind the pathetic childish namecalling, so good day to you.
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
What is debatable about the following quote from the chief executive of Twitter? "Sorry to be a free speech absolutist."
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 meaningful discourse by falling back on the so-called rules… rules written in quicksand.
If your argument is so weak that the "wrong" nouns derail it, you didn't have much of an argument in the first place.
> You're making excuses for a guy who tweets Nazi images
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.
