In other hostile takeover Tweets...
-
On a somewhat disappointing correspondence...
-
@Dragoon
Monsoon
-
@Arantor said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@Luhmann the difference is, one well placed “Soon” is funny, even if it shouldn’t be. But it gets old soon.
It was Halloween. There was a spider. When a spider is, doom is me. Doom is always soon. That's just how things are.
-
@Luhmann said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@Dragoon
MonsoonThat's rainwinds. I think it's woodwinds.
-
@Gribnit said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@Luhmann said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@Dragoon
MonsoonThat's rainwinds. I think it's woodwinds.
We're switching to music now? I used to play a woodwind...
-
@dcon Were you a Zippelfagotist?
-
@HardwareGeek said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@dcon Were you a Zippelfagotist?
One of us, one of us!
-
-
Filed under: cantankerous, condescending
-
@Luhmann said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@topspin said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
One of us, one of us!
Faggots?
Tasty enough, too.
-
@Arantor said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
Tasty enough, too.
Filed under: England, where cardboard and chalk would be considered "tasty enough"
-
@HardwareGeek said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
Filed under: England, where cardboard and chalk would be considered "tasty enough"
Part of being a proper Oxford man is being able to distinguish Dover from lesser chalks by scent alone.
-
-
@Rhywden that's the correct approach, no? Stopping impersonation but still allowing parody.
-
@loopback0 said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@Rhywden that's the correct approach, no? Stopping impersonation but still allowing parody.
There are several problems with this:
a) There's no legal requirement for a parody to clearly mark itself as such. There's a court case somewhere where someone took The Onion to court for impersonating them. The court found that impersonation is actually required for parody to work and that you do not have to make parody explicit.
b) Musk previously stated that perma-bans are wrong and have no place at Twitter
c) He also stated that there'd be no massive shifts in guidelines before he got his advisory council assembled. This move, however, was clearly done solely by him on a whim because the Twitter guidelines still state the old rules (i.e. the first time you only get a warning).
d) He's a self-proclaimed "Free Speech Absolutist".
e) This came about because several people were parodying him.
-
One wonders if this is solely self protection from all the people who renamed themselves Elon Musk, or whether this extends to any parody accounts that work off impersonating real people.
There are also parody accounts that do not spoof real people, e.g. the account named Sir Michael Take, CBE is a style parody and not a parody of a specific individual. It is not clear if this would be affected in the new guidelines or not.
-
@Arantor said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
One wonders if this is solely self protection from all the people who renamed themselves Elon Musk, or whether this extends to any parody accounts that work off impersonating real people.
Well, the timeline is highly suspicious.
And, as I said, he promised not to make sweeping changes to moderation guidelines on his own.
-
@Rhywden said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@loopback0 said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@Rhywden that's the correct approach, no? Stopping impersonation but still allowing parody.
There are several problems with this:
a) There's no legal requirement for a parody to clearly mark itself as such. There's a court case somewhere where someone took The Onion to court for impersonating them. The court found that impersonation is actually required for parody to work and that you do not have to make parody explicit.
b) Musk previously stated that perma-bans are wrong and have no place at Twitter
c) He also stated that there'd be no massive shifts in guidelines before he got his advisory council assembled. This move, however, was clearly done solely by him on a whim because the Twitter guidelines still state the old rules (i.e. the first time you only get a warning).
d) He's a self-proclaimed "Free Speech Absolutist".
e) This came about because several people were parodying him.On the other hand, impersonation has always been against the Twitter TOS, even before the acquisition closed. As evidenced by archive.org from more than 6 months ago: https://web.archive.org/web/20220329193202/https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-impersonation-and-deceptive-identities-policy
-
@Rhywden said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@loopback0 said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@Rhywden that's the correct approach, no? Stopping impersonation but still allowing parody.
There are several problems with this:
a) There's no legal requirement for a parody to clearly mark itself as such. There's a court case somewhere where someone took The Onion to court for impersonating them. The court found that impersonation is actually required for parody to work and that you do not have to make parody explicit.
b) Musk previously stated that perma-bans are wrong and have no place at Twitter
c) He also stated that there'd be no massive shifts in guidelines before he got his advisory council assembled. This move, however, was clearly done solely by him on a whim because the Twitter guidelines still state the old rules (i.e. the first time you only get a warning).
d) He's a self-proclaimed "Free Speech Absolutist".
e) This came about because several people were parodying him.Guidelines never mattered for shit. Analysis of terms, legal requirements, court cases, etc, was always just a waste of time.
-
@izzion said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@Rhywden said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@loopback0 said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@Rhywden that's the correct approach, no? Stopping impersonation but still allowing parody.
There are several problems with this:
a) There's no legal requirement for a parody to clearly mark itself as such. There's a court case somewhere where someone took The Onion to court for impersonating them. The court found that impersonation is actually required for parody to work and that you do not have to make parody explicit.
b) Musk previously stated that perma-bans are wrong and have no place at Twitter
c) He also stated that there'd be no massive shifts in guidelines before he got his advisory council assembled. This move, however, was clearly done solely by him on a whim because the Twitter guidelines still state the old rules (i.e. the first time you only get a warning).
d) He's a self-proclaimed "Free Speech Absolutist".
e) This came about because several people were parodying him.On the other hand, impersonation has always been against the Twitter TOS, even before the acquisition closed. As evidenced by archive.org from more than 6 months ago: https://web.archive.org/web/20220329193202/https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-impersonation-and-deceptive-identities-policy
Where did I dispute that? Please look at my point (c).
-
@Rhywden said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@Arantor said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
One wonders if this is solely self protection from all the people who renamed themselves Elon Musk, or whether this extends to any parody accounts that work off impersonating real people.
Well, the timeline is highly suspicious.
And, as I said, he promised not to make sweeping changes to moderation guidelines on his own.
And now you're upset that he's not changing them? Yes, problems with this indeed.
-
@MrL said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
Guidelines never mattered for shit
sure, if you hadn't read the guidelines they didn't apply
-
@boomzilla said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@Rhywden said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@Arantor said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
One wonders if this is solely self protection from all the people who renamed themselves Elon Musk, or whether this extends to any parody accounts that work off impersonating real people.
Well, the timeline is highly suspicious.
And, as I said, he promised not to make sweeping changes to moderation guidelines on his own.
And now you're upset that he's not changing them? Yes, problems with this indeed.
Erm, he did change them. From "two warnings and after that you're out" to "perma-ban without warning".
-
@Rhywden
The terms only spell out a warning for "if your account is potentially confusing in terms of its affiliation". Actively engaging in impersonation allows for permanent suspension right away:Profile modifications
If your account is potentially confusing in terms of its affiliation, we may require you to edit the content on your profile. If you violate this policy again after your first warning, your account will be permanently suspended.
Temporary account suspension
If we believe you may be in violation of this policy, we may require you to provide government issued identification (such as a driver’s license or passport) in order to reinstate your account.
Permanent suspension
If you are engaged in impersonation or are using a misleading or deceptive fake identity, we may permanently suspend your account.
If you believe that your account was locked or suspended in error, you can submit an appeal.
-
@izzion They also banned people who only changed the name but everything else (picture, tweets, description) were still unchanged.
But I see you guys are big fans of the nutjob and thus I'm out of here.
-
@Rhywden said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@boomzilla said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@Rhywden said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@Arantor said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
One wonders if this is solely self protection from all the people who renamed themselves Elon Musk, or whether this extends to any parody accounts that work off impersonating real people.
Well, the timeline is highly suspicious.
And, as I said, he promised not to make sweeping changes to moderation guidelines on his own.
And now you're upset that he's not changing them? Yes, problems with this indeed.
Erm, he did change them. From "two warnings and after that you're out" to "perma-ban without warning".
Seethe harder.
-
@Rhywden said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
But I see you guys are big fans of the nutjob and thus I'm out of here.
Liar.
-
OK, I have no idea how Twitter works (or doesn't), so can someone ELI5 why having a white check next to your name matters? (and thus why having to pay or not for it is a
bigdeal)My understanding is that those checks are intended to say "that person is who they say they are." But what can you, or can you not, do if you have, or don't have one? IOW, apart from stroking your ego (which, I get that, is mostly what Twitter is about), what difference does it make?
(no snarky answer about the shallowness of people on Twitter, I already got that, and keep it non- so no ing about this or that "side" kthxbye)
-
@remi supposedly someone has verified that you're the person (or company) you claim to be. Of course, as someone pointed out, some account called
@pourmecoffee
or whatever is verified.It's been reported in the last few years that the people in charge if this were basically extorting people for thousands of dollars to get verified.
I think Musk is proposing to change it so they also don't see ads or something. I've also heard about some other perqs regarding blocking people, etc, but it all seemed like it was still in the brainstorming phase, so who knows.
I believe there is good reason to believe that having a verified account makes it more likely that you'll get more attention from people, even beyond whatever any algorithm does, due to the way people read twitter.
-
@remi the is “this person is who they say they are, vetted by Twitter somehow”.
One presumes this historically used to include accepting ID documents and other measures to determine that it was the (famous) person in question.
The issue with the “anyone can have a check mark” is that it does devalue the “you have to be verified to get one” approach, and the whole “don’t change your name otherwise you’ll lose it for a while” doesn’t work either.
The theory is that this stops people being verified as themselves then changing their name to “Elon Musk” or similar for shits and giggles but in reality it seems unlikely it actually makes a difference there.
Because here’s the problem, Stephen King isn’t the only Stephen King in the world. Anyone can claim to be a Stephen King but only the famous one matters in the grander scheme. So if I rock up claiming my name is Stephen King, is that parody if my legal name is Stephen King? Obviously not, but I don’t think the new world understands this.
Of bigger concern is the speculation that verified accounts see other verified accounts feedback first, and then the rest of the peasants. Which just encourages everyone to pay to play, and has nothing to do with preventing identity manipulation games.
-
@Rhywden said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@loopback0 said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@Rhywden that's the correct approach, no? Stopping impersonation but still allowing parody.
There are several problems with this:
a) There's no legal requirement for a parody to clearly mark itself as such. There's a court case somewhere where someone took The Onion to court for impersonating them. The court found that impersonation is actually required for parody to work and that you do not have to make parody explicit.
Legal requirement != Twitter policy.
Also legal requirement != "correct approach."
b) Musk previously stated that perma-bans are wrong and have no place at Twitter
Source? I'm guessing you're omitting some context. He has stated for a long time that a moderation team is going to review all previously perma-banned accounts to assess if they should be unbanned. Had he made a blanket statement like you're saying, that would also contradict the "permabans are wrong" statement, since he'd simply just unban everybody under that philosophy.
c) He also stated that there'd be no massive shifts in guidelines before he got his advisory council assembled. This move, however, was clearly done solely by him on a whim because the Twitter guidelines still state the old rules (i.e. the first time you only get a warning).
I'd argue that the tweet is the warning.
d) He's a self-proclaimed "Free Speech Absolutist".
He's helluvalot closer to an absolutist that pretty much any other social media mogul, even with these policies.
e) This came about because several people were parodying him.
What difference does that make? The point is anyone with half a brain would know if impersonation accounts were so rampant as to just confuse the hell out of people it is a detriment to the platform.
-
@boomzilla said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@remi supposedly someone has verified that you're the person (or company) you claim to be.
Yes, that's what I understood of it. And if you're just after fame (or trying to avoid various impersonators), I get that it might matter to you.
But if it's just about having Twitter spend some effort asserting your identity, then why should it be controversial that it's not free? I mean, besides the fact that something that was free no longer will, which I get is annoying if you're used to and a reasonable ground for complaining. But if there isn't anything about what you can or cannot post, I find it hard to say it has any impact on free speech -- and I find it equally hard to understand why Elon trolls people by responding "$8" to any mean tweet.
I mean, if it were me and I got that tweet from Elon, I would just shrug and reply "go ahead, take my check away" because I don't see what benefit I'd have from it, but since apparently it incenses people I'm guessing there is something more?
I think Musk is proposing to change it so they also don't see ads or something. I've also heard about some other perqs regarding blocking people, etc, but it all seemed like it was still in the brainstorming phase, so who knows.
But if it's not something that people with a check can currently do, then nobody should be incensed that this new feature is a paid one. I mean, it'd be like Twitter creating a new type of account called "
BlueWhite Account" that is paid and has some special privileges. I don't see any similar level of with Netflix creating a new subscription tier -- some people may like or dislike it, but it's just business and how Netflix wants to do business and why not?I believe there is good reason to believe that having a verified account makes it more likely that you'll get more attention from people, even beyond whatever any algorithm does, due to the way people read twitter.
OK, that'd be a bit more of a direct impact of having a check. Basically those people fear that loosing their check would loose them some audience. Fair enough.
Then again, if you believe that (some of) your followers only follow you because of that check... that's a rather damning endorsement of what you post! (and if it's your only reason of being mad... "I'm mad because to keep the followers that I currently get for free just because Twitter gave me my White Check, I will now have to pay" doesn't sound hugely convincing to me...).
-
@Rhywden said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
a) There's no legal requirement for a parody to clearly mark itself as such. There's a court case somewhere where someone took The Onion to court for impersonating them. The court found that impersonation is actually required for parody to work and that you do not have to make parody explicit.
Doesn't need to be a legal requirement. Twitter's platform, Twitter's rules.
@Rhywden said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
Musk previously stated that perma-bans are wrong and have no place at Twitter
So he's changed his mind when he realised that was the wrong approach? That's a good thing.
@Rhywden said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
He also stated that there'd be no massive shifts in guidelines before he got his advisory council assembled
Is this a massive shift? Impersonation has been against Twitter TOS since before he was in charge.
@Rhywden said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
This came about because several people were parodying him.
So? It's the right approach and it's a straight forward clarification regardless of why he's done it.
-
@Arantor said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
There are also parody accounts that do not spoof real people, e.g. the account named Sir Michael Take, CBE is a style parody and not a parody of a specific individual. It is not clear if this would be affected in the new guidelines or not.
Sir Michael Take CBE isn't impersonating another person or account so seems clear
-
@Arantor said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
Because here’s the problem, Stephen King isn’t the only Stephen King in the world. Anyone can claim to be a Stephen King but only the famous one matters in the grander scheme. So if I rock up claiming my name is Stephen King, is that parody if my legal name is Stephen King? Obviously not, but I don’t think the new world understands this.
Heh. Reminds me of this:
-
@remi said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
OK, I have no idea how Twitter works (or doesn't), so can someone ELI5 why having a white check next to your name matters? (and thus why having to pay or not for it is a
bigdeal)My understanding is that those checks are intended to say "that person is who they say they are." But what can you, or can you not, do if you have, or don't have one? IOW, apart from stroking your ego (which, I get that, is mostly what Twitter is about), what difference does it make?
(no snarky answer about the shallowness of people on Twitter, I already got that, and keep it non- so no ing about this or that "side" kthxbye)
Originally, the check of indeterminate color was intended as a way to verify high-profile accounts that were more likely to be subject to impersonation, presumably as a way to mitigate the damage that impersonation can cause in the time it takes Twitter support to notice and block the impersonator. Apparently it's also used by The Algo to prioritize "amplifying" the replies of twitchecks over replies from randos as well.
Musk proposed making the check of indeterminate color a feature of the Twitter Blue paid subscription (in addition to several other features as well). And thus outrage ensued, since people would now be having to pay a subscription for benefits they were previously receiving for no monthly recurring cost (questionably sourced reports of upfront costs notwithstanding).
-
@remi said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
and I find it equally hard to understand why Elon trolls people by responding "$8" to any mean tweet.
Did you move to Germany recently?
-
@loopback0 said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
Doesn't need to be a legal requirement. Twitter's platform, Twitter's rules.
Yes and no. Legal requirements have the distinction of mattering even if the company doesn't like the fact. Whether that matters here or not is another thing.
I've got a foolproof way of determining whether a tweet claiming to be from Elon is valid: I've blocked the real Elon so if I can see it then I know it isn't real. QED.
-
@izzion said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
And thus outrage ensued, since people would now be having to pay a subscription for benefits they were previously receiving for no monthly recurring cost
OK, so it's just about having to pay for something that was free before. Thanks for clarifying.
@boomzilla said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
Did you move to Germany recently?
Well that was kind of my problem, in a sense. I so totally failed to understand why those Elon replies were fun in any way (and I didn't see any German tanks in the streets this morning), because I so totally failed to understand why people cared about those checks. I mean, I still don't really understand why they care, but I'm now getting that it's just "something free is no longer free," nothing more.
-
@remi said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
but I'm now getting that it's just "something free is no longer free," nothing more.
Something exclusive becomes widely available. Elitist club becomes 'everyone with 8$' and that makes current members angry.
-
@remi said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
OK, so it's just about having to pay for something that was free before. Thanks for clarifying.
@boomzilla said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
Did you move to Germany recently?
Well that was kind of my problem, in a sense. I so totally failed to understand why those Elon replies were fun in any way (and I didn't see any German tanks in the streets this morning), because I so totally failed to understand why people cared about those checks. I mean, I still don't really understand why they care, but I'm now getting that it's just "something free is no longer free," nothing more.
It also takes away their status, which I think is ultimately more important to many of them.
Yes, yes, many people who aren't on twitter don't care about that, but this isn't about people who aren't on twitter.
-
@boomzilla and if you were in the club of “people may well try to impersonate me”, that might actually matter.
-
@The_Quiet_One said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
What difference does that make? The point is anyone with half a brain would know if impersonation accounts were so rampant as to just confuse the hell out of people it is a detriment to the platform.
The same can be said about pretty much anything that previously got the "how dare you censor my hate speech?" response.
-
@loopback0 said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@Rhywden said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
This came about because several people were parodying him.
So? It's the right approach and it's a straight forward clarification regardless of why he's done it.
Well, if he's changing policy every five minutes because he has the attention span of a toddler1, a fair warning / grace period might be in order.
-
1 Meanwhile at Toddler HQ:
Twitter Now Asks Some Fired Workers to Please Come Back
- Twitter management trying to bring back dozens of workers
- Some employees now needed or were laid off by mistake
-
@topspin said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@loopback0 said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
@Rhywden said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
This came about because several people were parodying him.
So? It's the right approach and it's a straight forward clarification regardless of why he's done it.
Well, if he's changing policy every five minutes because he has the attention span of a toddler1, a fair warning / grace period might be in order.
He hasn't changed the policy and giving a grace period for enforcement of a rule that's already in place is silly.
-
@loopback0 said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
giving a grace period for enforcement of a rule that's already in place is silly.
Really? So you wouldn't bat an eye if you suddenly got fined for being drunk in a pub?
-
@topspin That's a strawman. Rules against impersonating someone on Twitter isn't a "bizarre" rule. It's a common sense rule that any reasonable person should assume is at least frowned upon, especially if used for trolling/griefing purposes.
-
@The_Quiet_One said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
It's a common sense rule that any reasonable person should assume is at least frowned upon, especially if used for trolling/griefing purposes.
"Comedy is legal now."
-
@Arantor said in In other hostile takeover Tweets...:
Because here’s the problem, Stephen King isn’t the only Stephen King in the world. Anyone can claim to be a Stephen King but only the famous one matters in the grander scheme. So if I rock up claiming my name is Stephen King, is that parody if my legal name is Stephen King? Obviously not, but I don’t think the new world understands this.
If you don't set your profile picture to "the" Stephen King, you should be fine. For a real life example, there are (at least) two verified Jon Favreaus, one being the filmmaker, the other a podcaster, and they're both on there happily not impersonating each other