Twitter blocks users from sharing Mastodon links(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Twitter blocks users from sharing Mastodon links
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-63999452
74 comments
Absolutely insane that they would do this. It's like they thought "what's the most obvious anti-trust violation we could implement in a day using existing code?" and then did.
Is it anti-trust? It seems blatantly anticompetitive but I’m curious what specific law they seem to be breaking (so I can add it to my anti-Twitter complaining heap).
> Is it anti-trust?
No it is not. Twitter does not have a monopoly on social media.
> It seems blatantly anticompetitive but I’m curious what specific law they seem to be breaking (so I can add it to my anti-Twitter complaining heap).
None. They have done it in the past [0] and no-one complained apart from techies here getting emotional about it.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31607941
No it is not. Twitter does not have a monopoly on social media.
> It seems blatantly anticompetitive but I’m curious what specific law they seem to be breaking (so I can add it to my anti-Twitter complaining heap).
None. They have done it in the past [0] and no-one complained apart from techies here getting emotional about it.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31607941
Did anyone except techies actually know about it?
In what way does anti-trust apply? How is Twitter a monopoly?
I’m not sure whether this actually falls under anti-trust. But you should know they anti-trust laws cover things other than monopolies. I’m sure you weren’t trying to, but switching from anti-trust to monopoly is a pretty common and easy to spot move of the goal-posts.
https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...
https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/anticompetitive-practices
https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...
https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/anticompetitive-practices
Ahh good to know. I definitely equated "anti-trust" with monopoly. I agree it is anti-competitive.
Quoting the FTC https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui... :
"[...] antitrust laws have had the same basic objective: to protect the process of competition for the benefit of consumers, making sure there are strong incentives for businesses to operate efficiently, keep prices down, and keep quality up."
A monopoly that abuses its power is one example of anti-trust; it is not the definition.
"[...] antitrust laws have had the same basic objective: to protect the process of competition for the benefit of consumers, making sure there are strong incentives for businesses to operate efficiently, keep prices down, and keep quality up."
A monopoly that abuses its power is one example of anti-trust; it is not the definition.
monsecchris(2)
I remember for years the left's war cry was "Twitter is a private company, they do not have to host your content".
"You and your ilk can post your filth on a dozen other websites, Twitter is not a monopoly."
"Twitter isn't censoring you, they just don't want to listen to your bullshit, and they're showing you the door (relevant xkcd posted everywhere: https://xkcd.com/1357/)"
Some of us warned that if the tables turned, so would their tune. "Twitter is much like the public square, and banning dissenting voices shouldn't be celebrated" we warned. Just a few years later, here we are. I feel vindicated.
"You and your ilk can post your filth on a dozen other websites, Twitter is not a monopoly."
"Twitter isn't censoring you, they just don't want to listen to your bullshit, and they're showing you the door (relevant xkcd posted everywhere: https://xkcd.com/1357/)"
Some of us warned that if the tables turned, so would their tune. "Twitter is much like the public square, and banning dissenting voices shouldn't be celebrated" we warned. Just a few years later, here we are. I feel vindicated.
So, "the right" has latched on to Free Speech being like a major pillar of their worldview. Musk has shifted himself to be more allied with the right. He also proclaimed that he was taking over Twitter in order to free it from censorship (ie - Twitter is the place for free speech).
Now it turns out that Musk doesn't really care about free speech. He just wants to control what the content of the speech is. This is an example that affirms the suspicions of the left: that the right's proclamations about speech are disingenuous.
As I understand it, this is why people are calling him out.
Now it turns out that Musk doesn't really care about free speech. He just wants to control what the content of the speech is. This is an example that affirms the suspicions of the left: that the right's proclamations about speech are disingenuous.
As I understand it, this is why people are calling him out.
No, doxxing someone isn’t free speech anymore than saying “fire” in a crowded theater when there isn’t one is. Against the policies and rules. Doesn’t matter if it’s a CEO you dislike that is being doxxed. The people on the left are the ones being disingenuous.
still wrong. hate speech isnt protected and that was the primary type of speech banned and it really irked the right that they couldnt spew vitriol with impunity. within moments of complaining about being "doxxed" (he wasnt), elon proceeded to actually try to crowdsource a doxxing.
still wrong. hate speech isnt protected and that was the primary type of speech banned and it really irked the left that they couldnt spew vitriol with impunity. within moments of complaining about being "doxxed" (they wasnt), leftists proceeded to actually try to crowdsource a doxxing.
Leftists are mad because they no longer have the monopoly of hate on Twitter. As the saying goes, equality feels like oppression when all you've known is privilege.
Leftists are mad because they no longer have the monopoly of hate on Twitter. As the saying goes, equality feels like oppression when all you've known is privilege.
i think you have a caricature of "leftists" in your mind. perhaps you dislike the degree to which "leftists" attempted to categorize hate speech, and that's fine, but you really are attempting to equate apples with oranges. taking away "privilege" from your ideological adversary when your whole premise has been "absolute" freedom doesn't really level the playing field. completely reversing course on your stated ideologies once you've attained power isn't championing anything other than hypocrisy
You are very woefully misunderstanding the source of the outrage.
It's Elon's hypocrisy. He made tons of noise about being a free-speech absolutist, but is now banning people that disagree with him.
Anybody on the right should be just as angry, but they're not because the hypocrisy benefits them.
It's Elon's hypocrisy. He made tons of noise about being a free-speech absolutist, but is now banning people that disagree with him.
Anybody on the right should be just as angry, but they're not because the hypocrisy benefits them.
These people know their arguments are disingenuous. It's just a tactic to derail the conversation to protect the corporations and billionaires from criticism and accountability.
These people know their arguments are disingenuous. It's just a tactic to derail the conversation to protect the narrative and groomers from criticism and accountability.
the problem is that when the people who complained about the behavior now celebrate and initiate the behavior, it renders their initial objection as insincere and self-serving. what i've seen is that a lot of this is less about complaining about the behavior, and more of a crusade to highlight the hypocrisy of both elon and his acolytes.
if he wants to ban mastodon links he's certainly welcome to do so - it's his company. it's just a bad look after positioning himself as a free speech, open market crusader who politically platformed himself as against the very thing he's doing.
if he wants to ban mastodon links he's certainly welcome to do so - it's his company. it's just a bad look after positioning himself as a free speech, open market crusader who politically platformed himself as against the very thing he's doing.
Not sure how many times we must explain this, he can do what he wants with his website. But don't tell us you're a champion of free speech while capriciously silencing detractors.
"The left" never claimed to be champions for free speech. "They" sought a balance between freedom of speech and public harm. At least that's my take, I can't speak for "them."
Elon Musk calls himself a "free speech absolutist" and that if it's not illegal speech, it shouldn't be banned. Yet the moment he's at the helm, the bans start flowing for all manner of legal speech.
What I'm saying is, words have meaning. If you want to claim a principle you have to make an effort to live by it. People who claim principles and proceed to ignore them or even act contrary to them are not principled people, they're just making noise. We should not listen to them, or take what they say seriously. For unprincipled people are fairweather friends, and likely have ulterior motives.
"The left" never claimed to be champions for free speech. "They" sought a balance between freedom of speech and public harm. At least that's my take, I can't speak for "them."
Elon Musk calls himself a "free speech absolutist" and that if it's not illegal speech, it shouldn't be banned. Yet the moment he's at the helm, the bans start flowing for all manner of legal speech.
What I'm saying is, words have meaning. If you want to claim a principle you have to make an effort to live by it. People who claim principles and proceed to ignore them or even act contrary to them are not principled people, they're just making noise. We should not listen to them, or take what they say seriously. For unprincipled people are fairweather friends, and likely have ulterior motives.
There's the hypocrisy other posts are mentioning, as well as a general Musk fatigue.
But on top of all that, there's the feeling he ruined a place a lot of people liked. It's like if your favourite local restaurant got replaced by a McDonald's. It's not illegal, it might even find a new clientele, but now my friends and I need to find a new spot so we're a little grumpy about it.
But on top of all that, there's the feeling he ruined a place a lot of people liked. It's like if your favourite local restaurant got replaced by a McDonald's. It's not illegal, it might even find a new clientele, but now my friends and I need to find a new spot so we're a little grumpy about it.
Twitter is a private company and is not a monopoly, but anticompetitive behavior should be called out, the same way that (many) of us did about Instagram blocking links to competitors and Facebook pursuing anticompetitive policies against services like Snapchat. There are plenty of people who have campaigned for iOS to allow 3rd-party app stores that are calling out Twitter's current behavior. There's no values dissonance there, Musk banning the original account/journalists is 1st Amendment protected activity, blanket-banning Mastodon links is (potentially, but I don't know how likely it would be to ever see a court battle) anti-competitive.
More to the point, outside of antitrust there are plenty of people that have specified in the past that Twitter is a private company and can do what it wants, but that its moderation decisions are subject to private scrutiny and that consumers can complain about them. And importantly, that doesn't mean that all of its moderation decisions are universally good or bad.
"People are allowed to complain about private moderation decisions" != "All moderation decisions are exactly the same and if you complain about any of them you have to complain about all of them"
It's OK to point out that reporting about someone else posting flightplan data is different from subtly encouraging people to bomb hospitals. The point of Twitter being a private company is that it's not the government and it doesn't have to be blind to those distinctions. Private speech/moderation is the place in free speech debates where we are allowed to make actual value judgements that are more nuanced than "all censorship good/bad".
It's also completely valid for people to point out that Musk hasn't banned doxing, he's banned an extremely narrow category of doxing that is specifically designed to get rid of the one account he doesn't like, while still allowing accounts like Libsoftiktok to stick around. It's completely valid to point out that Musk announced this policy at the same time that he posted a public license plate on Twitter and asked his followers if any of them recognized it. It's valid to look at that behavior and think, "huh, maybe this has never actually been about free speech for him."
But yeah, it's not illegal for Musk to ban journalists. It's a bad business move and it's going to prompt more people to jump ship off of Twitter and it's going to prompt more publishers to think about how they disseminate content and how much they should use Twitter as part of that strategy, but it's not illegal. Anticompetitive behavior might be different (although no lawmakers cared when Facebook did it, so I'm not sure any of them are going to care now).
More to the point, outside of antitrust there are plenty of people that have specified in the past that Twitter is a private company and can do what it wants, but that its moderation decisions are subject to private scrutiny and that consumers can complain about them. And importantly, that doesn't mean that all of its moderation decisions are universally good or bad.
"People are allowed to complain about private moderation decisions" != "All moderation decisions are exactly the same and if you complain about any of them you have to complain about all of them"
It's OK to point out that reporting about someone else posting flightplan data is different from subtly encouraging people to bomb hospitals. The point of Twitter being a private company is that it's not the government and it doesn't have to be blind to those distinctions. Private speech/moderation is the place in free speech debates where we are allowed to make actual value judgements that are more nuanced than "all censorship good/bad".
It's also completely valid for people to point out that Musk hasn't banned doxing, he's banned an extremely narrow category of doxing that is specifically designed to get rid of the one account he doesn't like, while still allowing accounts like Libsoftiktok to stick around. It's completely valid to point out that Musk announced this policy at the same time that he posted a public license plate on Twitter and asked his followers if any of them recognized it. It's valid to look at that behavior and think, "huh, maybe this has never actually been about free speech for him."
But yeah, it's not illegal for Musk to ban journalists. It's a bad business move and it's going to prompt more people to jump ship off of Twitter and it's going to prompt more publishers to think about how they disseminate content and how much they should use Twitter as part of that strategy, but it's not illegal. Anticompetitive behavior might be different (although no lawmakers cared when Facebook did it, so I'm not sure any of them are going to care now).
Turns out a lot of people on the radical left want to censor people or worse.
My office is pretty democrat and most people don't understand the twitter hysteria. It's clear now Twitter has a lot of radical left. These radical left doesn't realize most people are on Elon's side after his kid was stalked.
My office is pretty democrat and most people don't understand the twitter hysteria. It's clear now Twitter has a lot of radical left. These radical left doesn't realize most people are on Elon's side after his kid was stalked.
I hope they took the Streisand effect into account... Tech users know Mastodon, others are now going to Google it based on mainstream media headlines. Big mistake.
Possible dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34010112
BBC journalists also seem to refuse to share links to Mastodon :-)
Perhaps a work-around would be to have a landing page or redirector that when accessed by a bot just talks about how wonderful Twitter is but when a human accesses it you get redirected to a particular Mastodon instance. Is that doable in code? I know how to do this in Nginx and HAProxy ACL's. Do the Twitter crawlers use HTTP/2.0 yet? Google and assorted gaming/chat platform crawlers are still limited to HTTP/1.1.
Just use a URL shortener. I tried it with TinyURL and it works. If they block that shortened URL just create another one and attach some random query vars so you don't get the same short link.
[deleted]
Plenty of discussion over here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34010112
What was that thing that that guy said... first they laugh at you...
norwalkbear(5)
Well, well, well. For years I've been talking about how bad this online censorship is [0][1][etc], but people here were pretty chill with what was happening. Turns out, when it started happening to their side, they all suddenly started behaving very hysterical. Who could have thought that social platform neutrality is a good thing?!
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28697128
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25665232
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28697128
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25665232
It's Elon's platform. He can do what he wants with it. I disagree with his decisions, and I think they're far more capricious and arbitrary than any previous moderation, but they're his decisions to make.
But the thing I can't abide by is going down this path whilst simultaneously claiming that he's Defending Freedom of Speech. "Comedy is now legal on Twitter", he says, immediately before banning parody accounts. "Doxxing is not allowed", he says, immediately before soliciting his 100+ million followers to identify a video of someone's face and license plate.
Again, he's an asshole, but I don't think he should somehow be legally prevented from doing what he's doing. I just want him and his stans to drop the charade.
But the thing I can't abide by is going down this path whilst simultaneously claiming that he's Defending Freedom of Speech. "Comedy is now legal on Twitter", he says, immediately before banning parody accounts. "Doxxing is not allowed", he says, immediately before soliciting his 100+ million followers to identify a video of someone's face and license plate.
Again, he's an asshole, but I don't think he should somehow be legally prevented from doing what he's doing. I just want him and his stans to drop the charade.
i think all it does is show us two things. we now know for absolute certain that:
1) he recognizes that posts can have real world implications.
2) he thinks its ok to mitigate those implications through suspending accounts and deleting posts.
we now know these for absolute certain.
so how do he (and his fans) justify the mockery they give to other groups who ask for help due to very real and immediate dangers--he goes on "cancel culture" rants and "wokewokewoke" rants. even though he fully understands why they're concerned and has shown that he thinks its entirely acceptable to suspend and remove accounts.
well well well indeed.
1) he recognizes that posts can have real world implications.
2) he thinks its ok to mitigate those implications through suspending accounts and deleting posts.
we now know these for absolute certain.
so how do he (and his fans) justify the mockery they give to other groups who ask for help due to very real and immediate dangers--he goes on "cancel culture" rants and "wokewokewoke" rants. even though he fully understands why they're concerned and has shown that he thinks its entirely acceptable to suspend and remove accounts.
well well well indeed.
"Their side?"
Anyone who posts Mastadon links are being banned regardless of political affiliations.
Also whether censorship is right or wrong is normally based on what is being censored not the person.
Anyone who posts Mastadon links are being banned regardless of political affiliations.
Also whether censorship is right or wrong is normally based on what is being censored not the person.
> Anyone who posts Mastadon links are being banned regardless of political affiliations.
This is simply not true, just search Mastodon.social links on Twitter via this link, and notice that posters are not banned: https://twitter.com/search?q=https%3A%2F%2Fmastodon.social&s...
You could even search https://twitter.com/search?q=https%3A%2F%2Fmastodon.social%2... , who post specifically about banned @elonjet account, and my first ten clicks on posters all happened to be non-suspended account. I don't think there is a need to check it further, your point is already invalidated.
This is simply not true, just search Mastodon.social links on Twitter via this link, and notice that posters are not banned: https://twitter.com/search?q=https%3A%2F%2Fmastodon.social&s...
You could even search https://twitter.com/search?q=https%3A%2F%2Fmastodon.social%2... , who post specifically about banned @elonjet account, and my first ten clicks on posters all happened to be non-suspended account. I don't think there is a need to check it further, your point is already invalidated.
>> Anyone who posts Mastadon links are being banned regardless of political affiliations.
> This is simply not true, just search Mastodon.social links on Twitter via this link,
As referenced by phoe-krk above, Twitter appears to be blocking Mastadon addresses in bios, not in tweets. That makes it a slightly different scumbaggery than we thought.
I find the BBC headline is confusing; it says users are blocked for 'Sharing' Mastadon links, which sort of (wrongly) hints that one can't tweet Mastadon links.
> This is simply not true, just search Mastodon.social links on Twitter via this link,
As referenced by phoe-krk above, Twitter appears to be blocking Mastadon addresses in bios, not in tweets. That makes it a slightly different scumbaggery than we thought.
I find the BBC headline is confusing; it says users are blocked for 'Sharing' Mastadon links, which sort of (wrongly) hints that one can't tweet Mastadon links.
You're right about those users not being summarily banned. But it's still interesting what happens when you try to click one of those Mastodon links...
> it's still interesting what happens when you try to click one of those Mastodon links...
For those who Nitterize their Twitter: Twitter sends Mastadon clicks to a Unsafe Link Warning page.
Man. I'm kind of in awe of Musk's limitless ability to diminish himself.
For those who Nitterize their Twitter: Twitter sends Mastadon clicks to a Unsafe Link Warning page.
Man. I'm kind of in awe of Musk's limitless ability to diminish himself.
> Twitter sends Mastadon clicks to a Unsafe Link Warning page.
At the moment, it doesn't. If you don't believe me on my word, I can record a screen capture video for you.
At the moment, it doesn't. If you don't believe me on my word, I can record a screen capture video for you.
I clicked on the link and it sent me to the warning page. Do you want me to record a screen capture video for you?
Edit: Adding screen capture: https://imgur.io/a/RGk5Jx6
Edit: Adding screen capture: https://imgur.io/a/RGk5Jx6
I was talking about clicking on a link from a desktop browser. No warning at all.
...and on mobile it is beyond sensible to make a warning when leaving to view external links: mobile apps and mobile browsers do do not have the capability to show the exact url you are about to open (in desktop you call hover over a link), which can lead to all sorts of bad things, first of which is spoofing your ip address.
Hell, even we in our open source xmpp clients show a mandatory warning with full URL you are about to open, so you know where you will land. This is a safety feature, not malice! (I'd actually add it to desktop web version of Twitter too)
...and on mobile it is beyond sensible to make a warning when leaving to view external links: mobile apps and mobile browsers do do not have the capability to show the exact url you are about to open (in desktop you call hover over a link), which can lead to all sorts of bad things, first of which is spoofing your ip address.
Hell, even we in our open source xmpp clients show a mandatory warning with full URL you are about to open, so you know where you will land. This is a safety feature, not malice! (I'd actually add it to desktop web version of Twitter too)
> on mobile it is beyond sensible to make a warning when leaving to view external links: mobile apps and mobile browsers do do not have the capability to show the exact url you are about to open (in desktop you call hover over a link), which can lead to all sorts of bad things, first of which is spoofing your ip address.
Informing your users that they are being redirected to an external link is very different from blatantly lying to them about your competitor. The text of the warning explicitly says that mastodon is “spammy or unsafe”.
I am pretty sure if someone pastes a discord link in your xmpp client, you’ll not say that Discord is spammy or unsafe. You’ll just inform the user that they are being led to an external link.
Informing your users that they are being redirected to an external link is very different from blatantly lying to them about your competitor. The text of the warning explicitly says that mastodon is “spammy or unsafe”.
I am pretty sure if someone pastes a discord link in your xmpp client, you’ll not say that Discord is spammy or unsafe. You’ll just inform the user that they are being led to an external link.
Twitter was showing such warnings for external links long before Musk took over. Here [0] is the link to an article from May 2020, discussing this very thing.
[0]: https://wptavern.com/bringing-back-blogs-in-the-age-of-socia...
[0]: https://wptavern.com/bringing-back-blogs-in-the-age-of-socia...
This sounds to me like there might be some A/B testing going on.
What is interesting about landing on https://mastodon.social/@elonjet ? I just did it. Not even a warning 'you are opening a link', like many sane apps do, including mine.
There is a warning, I’ve just tried that. You can ignore it and continue.
I'm amused as heck, myself, not sure what you're talking about. This is exactly the sort of genius management I was hoping he would bring to the table. Just a sec, my popcorn just dinged, I wanna see what he does next. Maybe turn off the air conditioning in the server room save costs? If the workers in his family emerald mines could sweat a bit, why not the Sysadmins!
This is WAY more entertaining than anything Robert Downey Jr's done in a Marvel movie.
This is WAY more entertaining than anything Robert Downey Jr's done in a Marvel movie.
Are you so hyperfocused on the supposed hypocrisy on the left that you're blind to Elon's hypocrisy of claiming to be making Twitter a true platform for free speech and then banning people for criticizing him?
> Who could have thought that social platform neutrality is a good thing?!
I've been on HN for 6 years and this is the most intellectually dishonest question I've ever seen. Elon Musk's Twitter is anything but neutral. Banning your dissidents is as far from neutral as it gets.
> Who could have thought that social platform neutrality is a good thing?!
I've been on HN for 6 years and this is the most intellectually dishonest question I've ever seen. Elon Musk's Twitter is anything but neutral. Banning your dissidents is as far from neutral as it gets.