Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Goodbye, Twitter (sneak.berlin)
87 points by annadane on Nov 1, 2020 | hide | past | favorite | 85 comments



I wish we would deprecate these "Goodby [Twitter | Facebook | Medium | Etc..] articles because a) the author usually assumes that people need to be educated and b) the authors have some axe to grind specific to them. Myself and people I know use these platforms with eyes wide open and find them useful. If a person doesn't like them, quit and spare us the dramatic exit article.


The “flounce” is a well-known feature of every online message board that ever existed. The loud, performative exit...usually followed by a shameful return after a few weeks of withdrawal. I’ve been watching people do it since the late 1990s.


> If a person doesn't like them, quit and spare us the dramatic exit article.

Similarly, you could just not read it or downvote & move on


I read them in case there is a compelling reason to quit, but it's always the same standard issue complaints


So you're quitting the "quitting..." articles and writing a comment to everyone about why the 80+ people who upvoted the article are wrong to find it interesting? And that the author wasted their time?

If nothing else, the article felt genuine and coming from a place of them feeling a loss at having something they valued change so dramatically that it lost all value. I think we all feel that constantly in various ways with internet platforms and trends and can at least identify with where they're coming from. Even if we disagree with the specifics.


> you could just not read it or downvote & move on

[0] https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/awkward-look-monkey-puppet


Of course, but voicing article opinions is the purpose of the comment section.


You can't downvote articles on Hacker News.


I wish people would not react with "well, it works on my machine" to stories of personal experience. Personal experiences have value - at least some, if they are well written and reflect important trends - even if they don't match yours. Dismissing it just because yours is different... well, it's fine, maybe it has no value for you. Claiming that it has no value to anybody ever is just hubris.


It's always the same complaints (invasion of privacy, I'm obsessed so it takes too much of my time, I get too many insulting DM's, or I don't like making them rich by providing content for free), never anything serious like Twitter is mining bitcoin in the background or Facebook makes it easy for ransome ware criminals to target you.


Your fears are yours, not a universal rule. For you, the worst Twitter can do is to steal some of your CPU time. For somebody else, it may be steal the actual time of their life, or enjoyment of it, and that may be more important for them. It's fine that it's not important for you, just don't try to claim it's the same for everybody. "Serious" is subjective.


Somewhat agree. This is not a new thing at all; the phrase "I'm leaving the community" is quite old in internet years.


> the phrase "I'm leaving the community" is quite old in internet years

Think, since 2020 there would be many "I'm quieting Internet" stories in the next few years posted by burnout Internet users, because mostly all of us (kids, adults & elderly) worldwide now preferably communicate online on a daily basis, staying at home due to pandemic.

Number of noobs[0] on the Internet, who never heard "Welcome to the Internet" greeting, actually drastically decreased.[1,2]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noob

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_slang

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_Internet-related_t...


You're right. I forgot about that. I guess it feels like a big decision to leave for some and so they need to write about it and explore their feelings.


> I wish we would deprecate these "Goodby [Twitter | Facebook | Medium | Etc..]" articles

Yep. What about "..., I'm quitting [Twitter | Facebook | Medium | Etc..]" articles?[0]

P.S. All those articles' titles looks mostly clickbait for HNs; instead titles should at least in short form include "why" they do that.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24962203


I actually found an issue that gave me real pause:

My Mother's Windows laptop had malware so I used a free version of Malwarebytes to clean it up. When I opened up my Linux based laptop and logged into Facebook, the very first advertisement was for Malwarebytes. I have never seen a virus ad or basically any other software advert before.

I've never logged into anything using my name or email on her laptop. Amazon's Alexis was listening in the background but I never said "Malwarebytes" outloud. I did talk out loud about viruses. My phone was off because I forgot my charger. My Mother's phone was also off.

I ruled out Alexis for a variety of reasons. I can think only one possibility. Google Chrome, which we both use, is the mostly likely culprit. Chrome could have accessed the camera when I downloaded Malwarebytes, used facial recognition and shared that data with Facebook. Web pages are sandboxed but Chrome itself has complete access to hardware.


> I actually found an issue that gave me real pause: My Mother's Windows laptop had malware so I used a free version of Malwarebytes to clean it up. When I opened up my Linux based laptop and logged into Facebook

Its simple: as Mother's laptop & your laptop connected to the same router IP/LAN, Facebook may recognize all PCs as "family" and decide to drop similar ads to all in the house; alternatively if your Facebook profiles connected as "family relationship", ads may enter from back door.

0-day issue you missed to fix firstly: replace Windows to Linux on Mother's PC right before connect it to the Internet.

Next issue was your try to "fix Windows" using "freeware antivirus app".


Thanks for clarifying that. Yes were on the same wireless network, so we probably all received Malwarebytes adverts. I did think of that family connection: Facebook probably realizes I fixed her computer without any detective work at all. Mom can't run Linux. The Malwarebytes free version (expires in 30 days) actually does a good job. I'm probably going to buy her a copy because she's 82 and doesn't understand she should say no to malicious Chrome extensions or other junk. In this case, the malware got her credit card number and some charges in San Francisco showed up, which the CC company was smart enough to decline.


> I'm probably going to buy her a copy

I may not teach here, but that would be just ugly temporary workaround... but not fix.


I’m the author of the post, and I agree with you.

I wrote this not because I was leaving, but because of a change in state of Twitter: they didn’t censor search results before, and now they do.

I thought that was worth a post, not my departure. Nobody except my handful of friends cares about little ol’ me being on Twitter or not.

Hopefully, many more people care about widespread censorship.

If you’re using a censored platform with eyes wide open, that’s also totally fine; I wrote this because I considered myself an expert Twitter user and was myself terribly surprised that they had started censoring search.

I imagine most people that use the site are unaware of it, which is the only reason this post exists.


>If a person doesn't like them, quit and spare us the dramatic exit article.

Would you have said the same about the Declaration of Independence? Sometimes it is a great step forward in dissent to outline why you find the current regime intolerable and why you are leaving.


So tired of all these stamp taxes and microaggressions, I’m quitting England forever and deleting my account.


Assuming you're not joking, I feel like most of these I'm quitting articles could have been written by some version of Microsoft Clippy + GPT-3, which can hardly be said of the Declaration of Independence.


King George said about the same thing concerning the Declaration.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/king-speaks-for-...


If twitter starts invading the homes of quitters and executing them as traitors, it would certainly add a degree of risk to these decisions.


I always considered Twitter's standard of holding even private conversations in public and always publicly disclosing your follower/following graph extremely dangerous for privacy, and I wouldn't be surprised if the "public-by-default" also contributed to the toxic "Twitter mob" culture because when every communication is public, everyone on the platform is much more encouraged to virtue signal (or attack those who say something you don't like).

Unfortunately, even if you don't want to use Twitter, you're still affected by it. Aside from the risk of becoming the target of said mob, unfortunately, a large amount of public discourse and sometimes even official company or government announcements are only available through Twitter.

I've started using nitter.net for the unavoidable Twitter usage. It proides an alternative UI for reading Twitter which at least does away with some of the pressure to sign up to see tweets with replies/search, offers RSS, and doesn't require you to reload the page each time you click on a link because "something went wrong".

I'm not 100% sure their Tweet list is complete, and they're only as good as Twitter (i.e. if Twitter censors something, they still can't show it, the search for the banned hashtag is just as useless), but at least as a reader you're subject to a lot less of their dark patterns and hostile UX.


> a large amount of public discourse and sometimes even official company or government announcements are only available through Twitter.

What exactly are you afraid of missing out on?

I've never had a Twitter account and that has never been a problem for me. The overwhelming majority of my exposure to the site comes from screencaps, embedded tweets in blogs and articles, and the occasional link on HN.


Is there anyone using Twitter with some expectation of having private conversations? I mean even the name of the service indicates the total opposite.

I doubt Twitter would even exist without its current nature. 40% of Twitter users are lurkers and according to Twitter they have 500 million dormant users (people that visit Twitter without signing in).


The problem is, sometimes you don't have a choice because the people you need to talk to are only reachable through Twitter.

I once bought tickets for a sold-out conference that way (at face value, not a scalper, just someone who had a ticket and couldn't go). I had to wire the money and would only learn at the entrance to the conference whether I got scammed or not. A quick scroll down the Twitter timeline of that person convinced me that I can most likely trust them, while at the same time clearly showing how much of a privacy disaster Twitter is.


Do you mean that the person you bought the tickets from had obviously misunderstood the context that they were posting messages into?

I follow a few dozen people and don't observe ~any~ misunderstanding that it is very public. There's people that like to share, but they are obviously clear on what they are doing.


I don't think the person misunderstood. I think they did realize that what they were saying was public, but didn't care too much - they just wanted to get a message to a specific person, and Twitter made the easiest way to do so to say it publicly.

As a result, a lot of such messages ended up being public, and while each of them was innocent, all of them taken together were saying a lot about that person. And the latter may have been an implication that the person didn't realize.


But this is tricky too. Like for example asking for user support via Twitter. People choose to expose the privacy of their purchases as long as they can gain some audience for their frustrations and solve their problem.


Yeah, what is the deal with that, anyway? Twitter is constantly giving me the "something went wrong" message or telling me that I'm being rate-limited even though I only hit the site about 10 times a week.


Go to about:debugging#workers and remove all "service workers" for twitter (these are persistent background tasks that, among other things, can act as proxy servers for requests on pages).

This will resolve the problem, at least temporarily.

You can disable service workers entirely by setting about:config dom.serviceWorkers.enabled to false.


My guess is their bot/scraper detection not liking anything that's not a 100% standard, extension-free browser.

Although I've heard that even people without privacy extensions are getting hit by it, so it may just be a super aggressive bot detection that's randomly hitting everyone or some other bug that Twitter doesn't care because it presumably a) doesn't affect logged in users b) non-logged-in users who go there really want/need to see something (e.g. whether the US president is about to deport them) so they will put up with it and reload.


I see this constantly, but primarily when I click a link to Twitter in an app other than a browser (e.g. Slack). It's been years now, so I'm 100% sure Twitter must know about the issue and have just chosen to not care.


This author's posts are always ridiculously sensationalized and usually lean on a bunch of misrepresentations to try to make everything sound more dramatic.

For this one, he took the time to write a hyperbolic 2500-word rant using both high-minded language and profanity to compare the topic to human rights violations and abusive relationships, but couldn't find the time to remove the TWO Twitter accounts linked in their sidebar, or even actually delete those accounts.


I just deleted it yesterday, and I'm updating the sidebar now (and also switching from Jekyll to Hugo in the process, which is why it's taking a little while). (I also need to update the index page, and probably some others. Will grep.)

As for sensationalized: https://sneak.berlin/20201029/traffic/

I'm sorry you didn't like it. I wrote about it because it was a big deal for me, having been a daily user of the site for a huge chunk of my adult life on the internet.

Twitter was one of those things that started out somewhat hackerly and interesting, welcoming bots and API users and third party clients, and is now a horse of a different color entirely. I thought that warranted a post, because it made me sad to see something really cool and fun become a victim of its own scale and popularity.


How’s the Jekyll to Hugo switch? I’ve considered it, but haven’t done it yet.

Currently just hosting on GitHub pages with their built in Jekyll support, but the mess of dependencies is kind of a hassle and Hugo seems nicer.


If you've never tried it before, I highly recommend writing your own static site generator from scratch. It's fun, and you can get a long ways with a few lines of code. Here's one I did this week: https://github.com/boringproxy/boringproxy.io/blob/master/ss...


There’s a “hugo import jekyll” command, but it doesn’t import my theme, so there’s going to be a fair amount of porting it looks like. It brought all of the posts over, though, so that’s good.

Using drone with caching for rubygems got my jekyll builds down to under 2 minutes (I use docker) but I imagine hugo will be under a second once I get it switched over. I’ll probably just commit the binary to the repo.

Shoot me an email if you’d like me to share the sources.


That was entertaining and somewhat informative, for someone who hasn't used social media outside of hacker news for a few years. However, if you are being honest with your feelings I'm concerned at your level of anger. Try to keep in mind: you have very little control over these things, being emotionally attached is therefore not useful. Check out Stoicism or Buddhism for inspiration. Accepting this will likely improve your ability to enact change, as well as improve your own well-being considerably.


Twitter (and every other social media platform) is

- Always under pressure to increase engagement to improve returns

- A marketing and lead generation opportunity for businesses

- A place to share useful information

- A place to share harmful information

- Creates opportunities for harm in the real world (bullying, misinfo from hacked accounts/state leaders using dumb passwords)

- A source of support/power for community and political organisations

And plenty more. This matches the definition of a wicked problem.

The worst part? If you leave, the problem is still there. There's no solution to this problem other than turning all social media off and banning all new social media.

(edit for formatting)


It bothers me a lot that the community I'm in is almost entirely centralized on Twitter and Telegram. There are independent sites that would become contact points in the event both went away, but it's friction, and people would lose touch. There was a much less online community that mostly met up at conventions, but those are shut down for the foreseeable future because of the mismanaged pandemic.


I'm getting really tired of this argument, and I don't think this post adds anything new to it.

Is censorship bad? Yes. Is QAnon bad? Also yes. Is there an easy answer here? No. What we're doing as a society is running a massive experiment to see the results of several bad options.

Every time I see an article like this, the author doesn't take into account that there is no easy answer here, and that while censorship is bad, all the options are had.


"and that while censorship is bad, all the options are had."

The word you are looking for is 'dilemma'.

The censorship issues is frankly probably a small thing, in the big picture, it's the general toxicity, the addiction to word-bytes of irrelevance, the odd FOMO factor etc..

There are a few nice things about Twitter, but it's really quite easy to quit.


> your original URL is no longer available to readers at all.

No. If you hover, it shows the full URL. There are extensions that replace all t.co links with the original ones.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search/?q=t.co&cat=...


Errata:

- Due to public and political _profit_

Quick hn poll has _anyone_ seen anyone else talk about “Twitter rewrites any URLs”, Facebook, google or Hyperlink auditing?

- default feed display: was designed to give you their message - twitter: “it’s what we say is happening”

- engagement base timeline - again we only allow those that have passed our filters and tests to show you most content - another “it’s what we say is happening” tweak.

- defaults to switch all behaviors: and then planned re-defaults to get 80 of the 20 that switch back each time

WHY YOU SHOULD QUIT TWITTER NOV 4

MORE THAN ANYTHING: there’s a mouth breathing ugly person at twitter making these decisions and _they actually think you’re too stupid to realize all these changes gives them editorial control_

They think you’re too stupid, they think they’re done genius that got away with it, that you can’t put 2 and 2 together

They’re gloating right now - laughing at you

2 + 2 = 4

break free, don’t give your time to be told someone else’s version of what’s happening, your time is too valuable

Lock up political profiteers


I skimmed through the article quickly, and didn’t see any mention of decentralized platforms like Mastadon or Matrix. Instead, there was a recommendation for Signal, which is one more centralized platform that also needs a phone number.


There was a link to a Mastodon instances search page:

>Spend time finding and deliberately interacting with smaller, community-operated online communities.


Twitter is not important, you might as well be talking about World of Warcraft; it's an entertainment website, not something anyone needs to use. Just because some famous people post stuff there doesn't mean its important.


As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, some organizations only post certain information on twitter.


That is the choice of those organizations.


Right, but some of that information is necessary for me to receive. Thus it is not my choice whether to use Twitter.


> but some of that information is necessary for me to receive

Like what?


Service status/outage updates, official news from government organizations.


If your government is posting information exclusively to twitter, that's the problem that needs fixing, not twitter's legal status as a utility. Additionally, an account isn't needed to view that kind of information on twitter.


I am not saying I need to make an account or that twitter should be treated as a utility. But I cannot control my government.


Fair enough


That's interesting the thing that he claims doesn't work "searching for #wwg1wga" works just fine for me.


> Quit Twitter, seriously. I’m not joking.

You waited until Nov 2020 to quit Twitter?


I read about half way through. Some valid arguments, and some not so valid (some clear misunderstanding of S.230), but it’s all worded such that it sounds like it’s coming from a right-wing nut with a chip on his shoulder (which brings the validity of the arguments several notches down).


Out of curiosity, what part of the post suggested to you "right-wing nut"? My email address is in my profile.


Sure. Keep in mind that I started reading this with an open mind, so might help for you to also 'step back' and try to view it from more neutral eyes; if you want to call me a 'left wing nut' after this, no problem for me...

You have some good points about how Twitter limits the API, and screws with your timeline and settings. I fully agree with those points. However, you seem to focus a lot on the 'bot' aspect of it. This made me suspicious as to why you would; we know a lot of disinformation campaigns use bots, so it can be a natural conclusion that some have grievances against Twitter for limiting what bots can do...

You also mention S.230: "How they expect to retain 47 USC §230 (CDA) protections with this behavior"

To me, that sounds like it's a reference to the EARN-IT Act, which is about the right's perceived censorship against them, and wanting to "punish" the likes of Twitter that "do that". Again, sounded suspicious to me.

Finally (after which I stopped reading), your example of "search censorship" on Twitter is about some QANON slogan (or something like that, I'm glad so say I don't want to know enough about them) - to me, that sounded even more of a grievance by someone on the right. As you stated earlier in the blog post, "their site, their rules"; I don't see it as a question of censorship - does prohibiting someone to yell 'FIRE!' in a crowded room constitute censorship, or preventing harm? I see it as preventing harm, by limiting the reach of something harmful (Just like France and other countries prohibit the display of Nazi symbols/paraphernalia).

Again, that's where I stopped; I don't write this to put you down, just that the way you say it doesn't validate your arguments in my eyes.


That's the most flimsy argumentation...

The author likes some bots, so he must be a Russian bot?

The author mentions §230, so he must be a right winger?

The author mentions a Qanon slogan as an example for censorship happening on twitter, so he must be a Qanon nut (I cannot be sure if the author calling out Qanon as a conspiracy theory movement was already present when you commented... but it is now at least)

As for censorship: yes, it's censorship that you're not allowed to scream fire, and it's one of the exceptions to free speech in the US that can be legally censored by the government. Not all censorship is automatically bad. Another example for "good" censorship would be child pornography.

The questions always are who does censor? and why do they censor? (and how do they publicly justify that censorship) and how sound and "obvious" is their argument?

Facebook censors nudity - as do most US TV stations (some under FCC rules) and a lot of other companies - even non-sexualized nudity, and arguments it's to protect viewers, especially kids, from naughty things. In Germany you will sometimes even see non-sexualized nudity - be it nipples or even "full-frontal" - on the public children TV channel (KiKa - Kinder Kanal). Is the US (corporate, sometimes government) approach to censorship of nudity the right one? Or the German one?

Censorship, and the reasons for it are seldom really black-and-white, and communities, from small groups, to social networks, to societies at large, have to reach some kind of consensus what goes and what goes not and reevaluate that consensus frequently.

The point is to justify when and why you censor, and from my understanding of what the author wrote, it seems the lack transparency, twitter implementing censorship with disregard for what their community wants (or at least part of it) from up top, and ever increasing amount of censorship that he disagrees with, not saying all censorship is automatically bad.

I myself tend to find myself on the "censor less" side of the argument usually, in case you wonder, tho shit like Qanon/"pizza comet" and their success sowed a little doubt recently, to be completely honest.


That's the most flimsy argumentation...

Anyone could say so is yours.

Like I said to the author, step back and view it from someone else's eyes. But if you don't want to try, your loss.


That doesn't mean anything.

And I didn't even put forth an argument of whether I consider the author left, right, center, whatever. I poked and prodded your argument, because I found it to be extremely unsound (excluding the censorship discussion).

And frankly I fail to find any set of eyes I'd be comfortable with where I could follow your argument for the author being a Russian-bot supporting right wing Qanon based on what he wrote. Just too unsound and lacking any assumption of good faith on the authors part, casting him as what is - in these parts of the internet - almost (right wing) or defacto slurs (russian bot; Qanon).

Again, as for seeing with somebody else's eyes... well, I did for the censorship argument, didn't dismiss what you said outright (sorry if that wasn't clear enough) but put forth my own argument, that in part even agrees with what you said yourself.


Wait a second, people actually use twitter? Mine is just recruiter bait


I find myself posting on social media but not reading it.

Or for twitter I follow 3 people I aspire to be more like.

I had followed a fourth but too annoying so unfollowed.

The worst part was the feeling betrayal as I unfollowed personal friends and people I communicate with. Unfortunately even one like/retweet turns your profile into political garbage.


If you’re willing to share, who are the three? Or 4.


Go ahead and complain about Twitter "censoring" things you post. Twitter's a platform. They have to choose what they want on there. Eventually it gets to "Oh, you saw that on Twitter? That's some garbage site where the users post every crazy, unsubstantiated conspiracy theory that comes along." At that point their platform is worthless. Censorship is no different than any other decision about what business you're in. If their decision makes you emotional, oh well.


I wonder if it's possible to avoid that, once it gets going. Twitter already seems like it's in the "garbage site" category, and they won't be able to fix that without throwing away the network effect that they depend on.

Anybody can post anything they want on their own sites, or a number of other completely unmoderated sites. People don't go there because their friends are already on Twitter. The conspiracy theorists follow because that's where the target is. They don't want to just post on their own site, or on sites where only other conspiracy theorists will read it. Even if those sites weren't perceived as garbage, people wouldn't go there simply because they don't know anybody.

It feels like Twitter and FB have the tiger by the ears and can neither let go nor continue to ride.


> I wonder if it's possible to avoid that, once it gets going. Twitter already seems like it's in the "garbage site" category, and they won't be able to fix that without throwing away the network effect that they depend on.

I think the real danger to Twitter is driving out the 'good' users because they don't want to be affiliated with the brand. The pandemic had the potential to end Twitter. To their credit, they realized it and did something about it.

A secondary concern is that the good users will start to retweet stuff that's borderline because they like what it says. I think we're already seeing that. There seems to be developing an attitude of "Well, it's not exactly correct, but it's probably sort of correct, so...[retweet/reply tweet]."


I missed that. What did they do to course-correct during the pandemic?


If Twitter is actively censoring content, then Twitter is not just a platform, Twitter is a curator.

Censorship is very different than any other business decision that you make. Censorship is something that is done in response from government/media pressure. Censorship costs money, but it is a cost of doing business in places like China, and now it seems to be becoming part of the cost of doing business in the United States as well.

An additional point that I think many people are not realizing is that Twitter is the defecto medium that journalists and "informed citizens" use to get breaking news in the US. Sure there is a layer of indirection in the censorship, but how is this layer of indirection meaningfully different than the censorship done on the WeChat "platform"?


I only really became aware of how bad Twitter's censorship was when I became 'gender critical', as in, I believe in biological reality and don't think that male-bodied people should be in women's prisons, rape shelters, women's sports, with young girls in changing rooms, etc. Then I saw how Twitter (and other social media sites) blocked and banned women (and to a lesser extent, men) from talking about it.

It has been an extremely shocking revelation. It is now 'wrongthink' on big sites like Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, etc, to talk about the differences in men and women.

Terrifying stuff, when you can't even discuss or debate that.


JK Rowling is still out there being able to share her opinions (similar to yours) to literally hundreds of millions of people so I doubt that this discourse is actually banned from twitter.

I also can't wait for the day where this type of regressive speech will look as ridiculous as the fear on homosexuals in bathrooms not so long ago, but we might need to wait a few more years for that.


It's especially ironic because, statistically speaking, the real threat is from cis people trying to police who gets to use the bathroom. This anti-trans panic has led to completely cisgender women being harassed and assaulted on top of the usual assaults on and harassments of trans women.

The panic depends on the weird, contradictory belief that men need to dress up to assault women. Often from the same people who will insist all men are incredibly dangerous and do their harms out in the open. Actual doublethink.


Sorry but Twitter is not legally obligated to be your platform for transphobic hate speech.


This is a great endorsement of Twitter, but unfortunately they are much more tolerant towards hate mobs than this post would imply.


regarding Twitter's censorship...

the way Twitter take down NY Post is rather interesting. Even if NY Post story on Hunter Biden is false. Twitter allowed every news outlet to peddled Steele dossier and Trump golden shower in Moscow for years without banning.

edit: then Twitter restored NY Post account but ask them to delete the original post and repost...that just hilarious.


If you think that's bad, you should see what mobs of 'gender critical' people with an itchy report button do to trans women on there.


Doubt it's worse than what we see happening to the likes of JK Rowling. It's cool to be trans on Twitter, and I'm not being flippant. Trans are basically ascendent. e.g. Meghan Murphy's suspension from Twitter after tweeting the widely held view of "Men aren't women".

You'd have to give some examples of suspensions in the other direction to help me understand.


Did you know some people that write these big dramatic goodbye posts to a social network sometimes never even used that network in the first place? They’re just farming for clicks and clout.

It’s easy to get away with because a deleted account is indistinguishable from one that never existed in the first place.

Always be skeptical.


This one has been using twitter seriously for over a decade. You can even see their past history from some tweet archive service if you do some research.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: