zlacker

For those of us who wondered what form of governance Twitter 2.0 will have, I think it's now safe to say it won't be based on any particular set of rules, principles or ethics. It will be totalitarian -- whatever Elon feels like at any particular moment in time.

>>i_have+(OP)
So… nothing changes? New management, same as the old management?

>>i_have+(OP)
I saw Richard Kyanka do this once before.

>>riffic+K1
Ended well for him too, didn't it?

>>i_have+(OP)
Twitter has a very clear policy - anything that doesn't incite violence is allowed.

And the test is simple: "Does it make me want to punch someone in the face"?

Not "me" as in the average reasonable person, "me" as in Elon Musk.

If you post something that makes Elon want to punch you in the face, you will be banned from his blog.

"I personally wanted to punch Kanye, so that was definitely inciting me to violence. That’s not cool."

>>ksherl+0e
I'm pretty sure it's anything that indicates a person is at a place.

Eg. "I'm at McDonald's getting a burger with my friend" is ban worthy because it says where your friend is

>>8note+Sg
No, it’s because it reveals the burgers location

>>Monkey+67
A single strong moderator, or even a team of mods and admins with loosely coherent policies, can work fine.

I think the largest community where I've seen this kind of autocracy go well is Fark -- people are generally reasonable, for whatever reason the trolls do not do as much boundary-pushing and rules-lawyering as on other sites, and it's generally a calm and funny place to hang out. Drew Curtis is just, like, a nice normal person.