Yeah, I can't see how "I can't post my handle here so go to my website to find it" isn't an effort to bypass restrictions. That doesn't mean that what Musk is doing is good, or that trying to bypass restrictions is bad. But there's this strange trend recently where in order to be part of one "side," you have to start uncritically repeating anything that looks good for your side, or else you'll be accused of shilling for the enemy side. It's not impossible to think that these new rules are stupid, attempting to bypass them is fine, but that also "I can't type my handle here so go to this other website and find it" is clearly an attempt to bypass them.
And these beliefs become opportunistic and change as soon as its convenient. Just a few hours ago when the promotion was first announced, most people were claiming that it was extremely expansive and that John Carmack could get banned for crossposting (which the terms say is allowed). People who disagreed were downvoted. Now that someone has been banned, the comments start claiming it's _not_ expansive, and people who disagree are getting downvoted.
That's one thing that makes it hard to follow this saga. It seems like Musk is doing pretty bad things, but there's so much hyperbole and inconsistency coming from his loudest critics that it's hard to have a grounded discussion on the matter.
If musk decided to ban use of the letter A in tweets, whether PG ran afoul of the rule is not an important factor in the story. What actually happened here isn't really much different. Who cares about adjudicating whether he was in line with the rules or not? The rule is insane and the real story is that Elon is banning colleagues with little thought.
Exactly. It's reminiscent of former East Germany which had all kinds of ridiculous laws and people would occasionally get arrested under them and then others would go 'oh, but he broke the law'. It was impossible not to. They could have made a law against breathing on Sundays and there would be people trying to justify it if you were arrested under that law. Best take a deep breath on Saturday evening I guess.
> If musk decided to ban use of the letter A in tweets, whether PG ran afoul of the rule is not an important factor in the story.
You'd certainly be justified in saying that a rule banning the letter A is ridiculous. But you wouldn't be justified in then going on to claim that a Tweet that contains the letter A doesn't contain it, and downvoting anyone who points out it does.
[Edit: Not just downvoting. Now the post that said they thought it went against the new terms of service has been flagged and removed.]
There's this unsettling trend where once someone thinks they're on the right side, the truth no long matters. Or worse, should be considered verboten if it doesn't back up maximalist claims. And when enough people are doing this, measured discussion is no longer possible.
And these beliefs become opportunistic and change as soon as its convenient. Just a few hours ago when the promotion was first announced, most people were claiming that it was extremely expansive and that John Carmack could get banned for crossposting (which the terms say is allowed). People who disagreed were downvoted. Now that someone has been banned, the comments start claiming it's _not_ expansive, and people who disagree are getting downvoted.
That's one thing that makes it hard to follow this saga. It seems like Musk is doing pretty bad things, but there's so much hyperbole and inconsistency coming from his loudest critics that it's hard to have a grounded discussion on the matter.