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."
>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?