Not quite. This was his ultimate tweet:

>This is my last straw. I give up. You can find a link to my new Mastodon profile on my site.

The tweet itself did not contain a link to http://www.paulgraham.com/, which contains a link to his Mastodon profile. Apparently that was enough to be suspended.

> http://www.paulgraham.com/, which contains a link to his Mastodon profile

It doesn't even contain a link. It contains the mastodon handle (username and instance), but you can't click on it because it's not a link; you can paste it on the search bar of your own instance to follow him (and see some of his posts, if someone on the same instance has already followed him).

Paul Graham's mistake was he should have made an NFT of the link and posted that.

/s ...maybe? I honestly can't tell anymore

What was the last straw for PG?

New policy banning off site social links.

He didn't even post the link directly, just said that it was on his site.

Banned for posting a link to his personal website (which has links to his other social media profiles)

Ridiculous.

I don't think he posted a link to his personal site, just said the link was there.

He didn't need to post a link to his personal site; it was already there in his twitter bio.

By that logic basically any Twitter user with a link on their profile should be banned. For example Microsoft would have a link to Microsoft.com on their profile and on that webpage there will be links to other competitive social media.

In fact, Tesla's Twitter profile links to Tesla.com and at the bottom of that website is a link to Instagram, YouTube, and LinkedIn (in addition to Twitter).

Almost anyone with a link to a site in their profile will likely have competitive social media links on that site. PG's website didn't even link to his Mastadon profile, its a plain text representation of his Mastadon handle.

> Banned for posting a link to his personal website (which has links to his other social media profiles)

How many levels deep does their new policy go? It sounds like they violated it not Paul...

Paul and I disagree on a lot (I've struggled to remember to not post like a Redditor here) but dear lord -- last I looked at HN, it said the guy was leaving Twitter, and Paul doesn't seem like the type to troll on his way out like I am.

This is absurd.

For context: I'm an amateur comedian in addition to being a hacker. Every set I've done IRL I've asked folks not to record or quote, and had that honored. I specialize in observational comedy -- often rude, insulting observations that approach the limits of American style free expression that I won't repeat here. I've encountered folks who can't take a joke before, but dear lord, the levels of petty coming from Elon Musk are off the charts.

Or as I'd say if it was open mic night in an undisclosed location in Appalachia:

"Big 'You're not breaking up with me I'm breaking up with you' energy on the bird site tonight ladies and gentlemen."

> How many levels deep does their new policy go? It sounds like they violated it

They can’t violate it, because it doesn’t restrict them in any way.

>They can’t violate it, because it doesn’t restrict them in any way.

So to be clear, their policy says if you link to a website that links to a website that links to something other than twitter? Or they were so ambiguous that they can selectively ban whoever they want due to the nature of the internet?

This is untrue. The link he posted in the tweet was this: https://twitter.com/TwitterSupport/status/160453126179152281...

You mean this is a quick way to get rid of mostly unused Twitter accounts? I'm in.. I've got a few to knock their total account #s down.. After that make a gdpr request and have fun.

No, he merely mentioned his website.