garbagetime

Yes, I am aware that PG did not provide a hyperlink. In fact, that's the core of my claim about PG attempting to violate Twitter's rules while evading a ban (the kind of action which Elon and I have referred to as 'ban evasion').

I believe you have misinterpreted Elon's Tweet. But I'm not interested in debating the interpretation of the poorly written Tweet. What is clear is that it was known that linking to Mastodon accounts was not allowed on Twitter, which is why PG, attempting to evade a ban, did not provide such a link.

PG broke the rule when he promoted a prohibited 3rd-party social media platform.

1. PG broke one of Twitter's rules:

> At both the Tweet level and the account level, we will remove any free promotion of prohibited 3rd-party social media platforms, such as linking out (i.e. using URLs) to any of the below platforms on Twitter, or providing your handle without a URL:

2. Twitter suspended PG's account

3. Twitter got rid of the rule.

4. PG had his account reinstated.

> At both the Tweet level and the account level, we will remove any free promotion of prohibited 3rd-party social media platforms, such as linking out (i.e. using URLs) to any of the below platforms on Twitter, or providing your handle without a URL:

I suspect it's simply a case of Twitter changing its policy in real time.

This is not the usual use of the phrase "ban evasion", but it is a literally correct use of it.

[0]https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/social-platfo...

You may disagree with the policy of banning the promotion of alternative social platforms, but that is the rule. Trying to break that rule while not getting banned is blatantly ban evasion.

> At both the Tweet level and the account level, we will remove any free promotion of prohibited 3rd-party social media platforms, such as linking out (i.e. using URLs) to any of the below platforms on Twitter, or providing your handle without a URL:

Elon has made it clear that these blatant attempts at ban evasion are not allowed.

Not a necessary truth

In the spam e-mail I get, the misspellings are clearly there to get around spam filters. In fact, the e-mails I get look quite convincing, and just have two or three strategic misspellings. A lot of the text will be in the form of an image, and will be spelled and formatted perfectly. But instead of saying "garbagetime" it will say "garbagetim". And instead of saying "18+" it will say "19+".

Looking at one spam e-mail I received recently, I see it even has an "unsubscribe" button, which leads to a vaguely convincing but - after some investigation - certainly non-functional unsubscribe page. That's a lot of effort to go to if you're trying to filter out vaguely clever people.

Maybe there really is a whole other genre of spam e-mail that simple doesn't get sent to me, or is caught by my spam filter. But this article gives me no reason to suspect this to be the case. And for various reasons it seems unlikely.

But I think the reality is you just misunderstood the original comment. The original comment was saying that it was good that people were withdrawing their crypto, not that it was good that any particular exchange had become insolvent. Only after I read your edited original comment did I realise that this is what happened.

When a crypto exchange fails I always say "That was unsurprising. Remember to hold your own coins." A lot of other people say similar things.

I do not say "This is a good thing. I'm sure that now that Failed_Exchange_1001 has failed people will finally learn to hold their own coins." I don't think I've heard many people suggest that.

The first is having an organisation that can't be trusted hold "your" coins for a long period of time. It is a bad idea because you could hold the coins yourself (that is, there is a less-bad alternative).

The second is buying coins from that same organisation. This may not be a bad idea, because the risks involved in the short transaction may be very low, and you may not have a better alternative.

I do not think it would be a good idea to just read the titles of articles. I would recommend reading several articles in full each day (it will only take 15 or so minutes). If you were to just read the titles you would be endlessly mislead - focus on the articles you actually read, and forget everything else. Read the articles critically. Think about what questions are not being asked. Think about what perspectives are not being mentioned. Etc.

It has become a common belief that it is the duty of New Zealand schools under the Treaty of Waitangi to integrate Maori culture into students' learning. This belief is talked about in this article, which is a very informative article about the current state of Tikanga Maori in New Zealand: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/447962/the-schools-walki.... It is clear that Tikanga Maori is being implemented in many of the science class rooms of New Zealand.

Train an AI to identify and measure features in satellite imagery (water bodies, trees, lawns, buildings, etc.)

Allow a user to search for areas of size x m^2, that have water bodies of at least y m^2, forested area of at least z m^2, etc.

FTFY

Your gooogle.com example doesn't seem to connect to the situation at hand, which is about whether it is against the principles of freedom of speech to place limits on impersonation even in such cases where no fraud is being committed.

My goal is that people should be allowed to express all views and criticise all people. If for whatever reason impersonation must be outlawed, so be it - it may in fact further the goals for which I support freedom of speech.