zlacker

So you were banned for the new rules on imitation as opposed to free speech

>>jack_r+(OP)
That sounds like satire not imitation to me.

>>jack_r+(OP)
This is clearly not an imitation. Parody if nothing else which is protected by fair use.

>>jack_r+(OP)
"free speech absolutist"

>>ColdTa+9
The imitation rule states that it's perfectly fine to run parody accounts as long as you clearly state that it's a parody. There are a ton of accounts named Elon Musk Parody, Biden Parody and similar

Without it every post of a famous person was botted with 100 accounts with identical display name, pfp that tried to promote scams like with YouTube comments

>>jack_r+(OP)
How is that imitation?

>>qqqult+62
The user says they were banned within hours of Elon taking over Twitter. New Parody rules did not come into affect until November 2022.

>>qqqult+62
Here's an account that calls itself Michelle Obama (not even Michelle's Obama) after the parody rule went into effect (unlike Elon's Musk). It doesn't label itself a parody. It's still there. https://x.com/TaxpayerEnrique

>>ColdTa+z3
I replied to your comment about what constitutes imitation and why that rule exists. Neither of us have any idea about the details of that particular ban

>>qqqult+N7
I know why the rule exist. Getting banned for a rule that did not exist at the time is an overreach from a self-proclaimed free speech absolutist.

>>4ndrew+i
presumably downvoted because a) every time you mention 'free speech' to these techbro nutjobs it's clear they don't have the first idea what it actually means b) insecure snowflakes, every one of them.

>>4ndrew+i
Free speech is the freedom to communicate ideas and opinions. The above censors none.

This is also why spam is not covered under freedom of speech.