Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by BryantD 1276 days ago
I’d agree with you except that linktr.ee was also referenced as a violation. That’s the part that makes me pretty sure that his original intention was to cover links to links.

Hey, can we have this discussion without referring to disagreements as “ludicrous”? It’s a moot point now, but still.

1 comments

>I’d agree with you except that linktr.ee was also referenced as a violation.

It was listed as a forbidden platform.

Paul Graham's personal website was not listed as a forbidden platform.

* We can't infer from the policy that Paul Graham's personal website can't be linked to, or mentioned.

* We can't infer from the policy that merely talking about forbidden platforms (including Mastodon and Link Tree) is a violation, unless a link or a username is provided.

* Therefore, Paul G saying that he has a website with a Mastodon link on it isn't a violation of the policy.

Generalizing from LinkTree to any website is unwarranted.

Further, such a generalization effectively prohibits links outside Twitter (since Facebook can be reached from nearly every page out there via some sequence of clicks). But that's beside the point.