Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by sangnoir 1315 days ago
> It's really a bit surprising that noone told him that his tweets are worth anything only because people reading them can know they come from Elon not some guy who paid 8$ to call himself Elon on Twitter.

I'm aware of no less than 3 formerly verified individuals who did tell him[1] before the feature launched, and he responded by banning them for impersonating him and instituting a "no lying about who you are" rule that empirically works on an honor system, or upon pain of forfeiting $8.

1. "Showed him" would be more accurate, but he shockingly failed to grasp the point they were making.

1 comments

Musk didn’t institute that rule, the rule was already in place. Musk’s change was to ban without first giving a warning.
I don't think the previous rule required one to have to have the word "parody" on the display name, not just the bio.

Elon lowered the bar for triggering the rule , and made the punishment harsher: insta-ban, from someone who was against perma-bans less than 20 days ago - that change to an old rule is so large,it might as well be a new rule.

Except for obvious parodies. And Mario giving the finger is an obvious parody.
Given a list of all twitter bans, there would surely be many that we would both agree are obvious parodies. So, obvious is relative, or, a grey area/high weasel potential area to do what you want. So it’s not obvious that anything has changed there either. That’s besides the point though that, while widely reported and repeated, Musk, as far as I’m aware, did not institute the rule about impersonation.
If you seriously think that Nintendo would tweet a picture of Mario "flipping the bird", you don't come across as a neutral arbiter, you come across as someone ridiculous.
Rather confusing thing to try and pin on me. Could you elaborate on how I’ve caused you to think that?
Well you seemed to do everything but acknowledge that the Nintendoofus context was obvious parody, so what else are we to think?