zlacker

[parent] [thread] 5 comments
1. ColdTa+(OP)[view] [source] 2025-01-13 19:22:33
This is clearly not an imitation. Parody if nothing else which is protected by fair use.
replies(1): >>qqqult+X1
2. qqqult+X1[view] [source] 2025-01-13 19:29:04
>>ColdTa+(OP)
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

replies(2): >>ColdTa+q3 >>lern_t+o7
◧◩
3. ColdTa+q3[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-01-13 19:33:33
>>qqqult+X1
The user says they were banned within hours of Elon taking over Twitter. New Parody rules did not come into affect until November 2022.
replies(1): >>qqqult+E7
◧◩
4. lern_t+o7[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-01-13 19:46:59
>>qqqult+X1
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
◧◩◪
5. qqqult+E7[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-01-13 19:47:43
>>ColdTa+q3
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
replies(1): >>ColdTa+S8
◧◩◪◨
6. ColdTa+S8[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-01-13 19:52:07
>>qqqult+E7
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.
[go to top]