This is an okay example of why I don't use platforms whose conversation norms are controlled by one provider. Consider mirroring your tweets on Mastodon.<p>"By clicking Delete you acknowledge that your tweet violated the Twitter Rules" is particularly insidious.
I think we humans are bound to experience a uniquely negative reaction any time a non-human entity punishes us for communal rule-breaking. This makes sense, because communal rule-following is a distinctly human activity which has co-evolved to keep us alive. It's embedded deep in our evolutionary firmware, so it is dumbfounding and infuriating to encounter its enforcement by non-humans, especially (but not exclusively) when we feel that it was done in error. You are much more likely to react with anger and perhaps even violence in a situation where your mirror neurons aren't tickled by the presence of a fellow human.<p>Even with a robust and timely appeal process, this sort of thing is going to have a powerful selection pressure over time, weeding out any remotely controversial, provocative, or innovative expression of meaning, leaving behind a bland, conformist soup of consensus.
Is there any indication of whether the problem was using the word "kill" or if the problem was sharing a potentially dangerous command (if it was correctly written)?<p>That is, would sudo rm -rf / get you banned too?
> A Linux Command<p><pre><code> Hello Linux users. killall is a UNIX System V command, though the version Linux uses first appeared in FreeBSD 2.1. IOW killall *is not* a Linux command. Would you also refer to your mouse as your "Linux mouse" and your keyboard as your "Linux keyboard," and your monitor as your "Linux monitor?" Please just assume everything in Linux *does not belong* to Linux, as you will be correct far more often than not. Thank you.</code></pre>
> Open-sourcing code will make Twitter vulnerable and easy to be exploited by hackers.<p>Is this how people generally think about open source code security? IME, if your code is correctly written, it makes no difference whatsover whether an attacker has access to it. Consider that fact that Linux is open source, and every line change is heavily debated and described in the open. But the huge majority of internet facing machines all run that code. Linux is arguably better to run on an open server than any proprietary offerings.
I don't even understand the joke, it doesn't seem funny. The original comic isn't funny either.<p>>haha women have to do what we say.<p>I'd flag that too tbh. Clearly posting a linux command in a vacuum is not going to get your account locked (nice clickbait title though), there is the whole context of a shitty joke.<p>If you don't at least acknowledge that the joke could be interpreted wrong, but instead mald on your blog, and ramble on HN about muh free speech elon mask blah blah censorship, you should probably have your account banned.
I don't think twitter's system for handling the appeal is good (especially because it seems to be horrendously broken - if you have a user base numbering in the millions and need to have a ban appeal process, make sure it <i>actually works</i> so people know what they did wrong).<p>That said, I also think that the joke the author made was in bad taste and I can easily see why twitter flagged it and temporarily banned his account.
> IMO, the upside of open-sourcing code may be moderate, but the downsides are huge.<p>>Every piece of code has vulnerabilities and bugs. Open-sourcing code will make Twitter vulnerable and easy to be exploited by hackers. So I am against open-sourcing the entire code-base.<p>The author loses credibility here.