This is probably a bit of a nothing story. It's an easy tactic for companies like twitter to minimize their workload simply by saying "Hey, for an average account, if it gets a tonne of reports, we just auto-suspend it". Is this open to abuse? Sure. Will it get worked out after a day or two? Probably. These social networks are full of hacks like these to try to reduce the user:moderator ratio to below 1:1.
She went from 0 to 100k followers in a day, after going public about the murder of her husband.
100% chance her account was mass reported by Russian-backed users/bot/loyalist accounts. But the account has been restored, so you are right that this was likely just some automated process that every new user is exposed to.
Not passing judgement on this at all, but just giving you another data point.
Every so often, Hololive, a famous Virtual YouTuber agency, debuts a new set of talents by introducing their biographies and Twitter accounts. Because they're so popular, they get an influx of hundreds of thousands of new followers over the course of a day or two after only tweeting once. A large number of these new accounts get restricted because of automated systems assuming it's a bot, when actually it's legitimate excitement and/or network effects.
Just a single day after showing up on the platform. Did she even get to post a single thing? This screams absolute non-sense to me, and for her safety she probably could really use the spotlight of all big platforms.
If it was a newly created account, it seems to make it far more likely that the suspension was done by their normal anti-abuse automation than being targeted.
With the publicity of this, I don't think it will remain suspended for long - unless it turns out she somehow broke some rules...that said, I'd be amazed if she's not under 24/7 electronic surveillance by Russian state.
My assumption (while knowing dick-all about Twitter's suspension mechanisms) would be a semi-coordinated flagging from a group of users. While it's hard not to notice the rightward tilt of the platform and the recent revelation of the right's fascination with authoritarians like Putin, they don't normally like to do things quite so obvious as banning their ideological opponents. I assume she'll be restored in short order.
Probably the most likely answer. But I would also assume that X has some safe-guards for this, when it comes to popular/trending accounts.
No doubt it is just a temp suspension until some human has looked at the case, but still - this came JUST after she had a public speech, and is talking against the Russian regime.
Probably an automated algorithm as they said back in the Dorsey days even when he refused to confirm why it didn't auto-populate a user's search box with Republicans as much as Democrats during his 2018 testimony. I didn't know squat about Navalny except for a blurb about him on some news show a while back. It didn't discuss his far-right extremist affiliations then, which he supposedly gave up many years ago, or his xenophobia with immigration views.
I think X would benefit from having a verification system for public figures where mass report would lead to manual review instead of insta ban etc. it could double up as a way for people to know they're following the real person.
At some point, someone needs to explain to me why political and/or public figures are still active and using this garbage platform. I would understand this if we were like in 2005~2010 when Facebook, Twitter and co. were at the top of the hype and where centralization was not a big concern for anyone, but nowadays, with all the red flags, all the shit show and all the alternatives that there are... I really don't get it.
The answer is twofold 1) Network effect combined with 2) coordination problem. One or few figures dropping off is just net loss for them, does not affect the X at all. Only way to do the change is to coordinate and do it with critical mass.
Individual action can't solve problems effectively when the cost of changing behavior is too high when others don't follow immediately. Many public figures started their mastodon/bluesky/threads accounts but came back to Twitter when they didn't get following there.
And actually it isn’t that cheap because if you post to say 4 (X, Bluesky, mastodon, Facebook), you now have to choose where you’re going to spend time reading and responding to others. On all of them or just on X, where the gravity is.
The problem I rarely see discussed is that if one user I follow posts to Twitter and Bluesky simultaneously and another totally left Twitter for Bluesky I as a Bluesky reader will have a mix of posts I have already seen on Twitter and original Bluesky posts on my timeline. There needs to be a way to somehow mark and filter crossposted content.
Yeah, that's a fair question and I usually don't do that if user posts more than 1-2 posts per day. But it's hard to know how the account will be used in advance when user says "I made an account on Bluesky, follow me there".
To me, you numbers demonstrate that it works very well: compare the whole userbases of the two platforms and you will see that the engagement on Mastodon is larger and growing fast.
someone needs to explain to me why political and/or public figures are still active and using this garbage platform.
Because that's where the journalists hang out. If you want journalists to see and report on your words and activities you have to be where they are, since they are far too lazy to go out and find you.
A huge portion of legit journos have sworn off Twitter. Entire networks have left Twitter. Most of the writers that I followed there are now found only on Bluesky.
They just haven't realized yet that Twitter crashed and has been down as soon as and ever since Elon bought it and fired all the indispensable people. This has been confidently foretold by the multitudes of impartial fair and honest observers here on HN.
So it must all just be a fever dream. Who could possibly ignore the red flags you personally don't like, completely inexplicable.
If your definition of a "garbage platform" is one that has made questionable deplatforming or censorship decisions, all platforms are garbage platforms. At least X quickly reversed this mistake. It took years for various platforms to acknowledge that censoring the Hunter Biden laptop story in the run-up to the 2020 election was a mistake.
What Im wondering is would his position with security clearances and DOD contracts obligate him to reveal any information about russian capabilities back to DOD. Would him knowing about it, thru Putin 'friendly' warning/intimidation in 2021, and not passing it along constitute some kind of treason? Hell, Pentagon didnt even know about their meeting until 2023 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/elon-musk-pu...
I've still seen no evidence there's been a meeting. Unless it was over zoom or something.
SpaceX and Starshield in particular is full of Feds.
They are getting whatever data they want. The real question is if they are being paid fair compensation for it and if it's part of something official or adhoc.
So, it's kind of the same as the claims RE Trump; what could the FSB _possibly_ have that would be more embarrassing than the things that they reveal about themselves?
I would consider the possibility that these people just find dictatorial strongman posturing appealing; it's a fairly common affliction, unfortunately.
> people just find dictatorial strongman posturing appealing; it's a fairly common affliction, unfortunately.
Absolutely nobody finds "dictatorial strongman posturing" appealing and that's not what ever happens IRL.
Do you actually unironically believe that those people think like "oh yes, bring me some more of that strong hard dictatorship", rather than simply having completely different insight and experience than you do?
(Unfortunately) I personally know so many people who will be voting for extreme far left and right parties in the upcoming European and national elections who unironically idolize "leaders" like putin, maduro, erdogan, orban, bolsonaro, kim jonh un etc and who also think that their leadership style is exactly how a society should be ruled.
Yes, far more people than I previously realized love "dictatorial strongman posturing," as long as they perceive that the "strongman" is on their side and willing to crush their enemies.
Yeah, no, I think for some people I think it really is basically the aesthetics. Notably, there are people who are into _both Putin and Stalin_. Now, ideologically that makes no sense at all, they're not at all close. But they're quite similar aesthetically.
why kompromat? could just be that Puts offered him a better deal. one of the implication from the Panama Papers -- remember those? -- was that Putin's corruption was so deep that he may control so much Russian money and assets he could be the richest man in the world. The Tsar has returned.
And money talks to money, game recognize game, dig?
I'm endlessly fascinated with what peoples' final Twitter straw was (mine was in Nov 2022). You'd think that by now, anyone who gave a shit about anything would have left, but there does seem to be a steady stream of last straws with each new fuckup.
I'm always perplexed by the people that say "this thing you claimed isn't true right now, so you lied" while ignoring that it was true at the point the claim was made. Are they being purposely dense to try and discredit things? As a person who don't have a devious bone in their body (as far as I can tell), I'm always just having to imagine what their motivations are.
When someone says "fake news(stop)" they're asking to have their comment immediately dismissed without (much) consideration. If they, instead, said: "it doesn't look like the account is suspended now, perhaps it was restored" I suspect the response would have been different.
I’m reminded of when Musk had the Ukrainian sea drones disabled in the middle of an attack because they were using Starlink terminals. He didn’t choose to warn them prior or disable before they launched. He had them disabled after launch so they lost the terminal and the drone.
Here he times the suspension at a critical time when she has begun making statements about taking up where her husband left off and she has a lot of world attention.
As an historical comparison, even Crassus died trying to increase the power of Rome. He was doing it for his own prestige and power but it was mutual nevertheless.
Crassus failed spectacularly and had molten gold poured over his head after his son was killed and legions destroyed.
I don’t want Musk’s family to suffer but I would like to see him go to Mars.
> I’m reminded of when Musk had the Ukrainian sea drones disabled in the middle of an attack because they were using Starlink terminals.
The Russian ambassador had contacted him and had told him an attack on Crimea “could lead to a nuclear response,” according to a biography of Mr. Musk by the historian and journalist Walter Isaacson.
Please note that the Ukrainian military heavily relies on starlink for communications, and that Musk thus has an outsize influence on the war. So far as is made public, he doesn't generate any profit doing that, and he's been the target of slam pieces at the slightest hickups in service.
Musk is far from spotless, but your one-sided viewpoint here is in dire need of nuance.
Last I read that story the Ukrainians simply switched to a different
link and successfully re-ran the operation the next day. No nuclear
response. Musk was played. Or rather, Elon Musk is playing at games
above his pay grade. This is a danger of megalomaniac billionaires.
He needs a quiet tap on the shoulder and remind him that his toys can
be taken away.
Just because something obscure was bombed and erased in Ukraine (that you don't really care about) instead of shooting Starlink satellites off the sky, doesn't mean there was no response and that it wouldn't trigger a disastrous chain reaction otherwise.
> This is a danger of megalomaniac billionaires
That is assuming that allowing the use of civilian communications infrastructure for war and high-profile military operations is a norm that should be endorsed, and not just as a megalomanic war profiting as we see with military industrial complex fat purses.
> He needs a quiet tap on the shoulder and remind him that his toys can be taken away.
Can they? And what exactly would be the legal framework behind this threat?
> Can they? And what exactly would be the legal framework behind this threat?
I think it's already happening/happened. Space-X is "working much more
closely with US military from now on" - what exactly that means or
what went down you or I will likely never know. But I am not surprised
at this turn of events.
Both musk and Walter isaacson have denied that’s what happened.
I don’t think there’s definitive proof, but the way you are telling the story makes out like everyone agrees this is what happened, which is simply not true.
(Starlink was never even enabled in that area according to musk and isaacson)
It is worth setting your personal distaste of the man aside and try to be objective given the complexity of the issues but also knowing that media and our own bubbles will put a particular slant on things.
Look, I get it, trust me. When you have a strong hate or distaste for someone, it is easy to start seeing anything they do or not do through a cynical or negative lens. The world is more complicated than that. I try to be more curious and less judgy.
He’s foisting himself into geopolitics and he’s going to be viewed through a lens of jingoism.
Do you also try to find context and understand the facets of every geopolitical player?
Do you figure the Russian federation needs to invade Ukraine because the western alliance against it has expanded along its border without buffer zones and competing client states?
Kim Jong Un has to be brutal because if he isn’t than he’ll lose the great game of palace politics and he and his family will be killed.
Israel has to destroy Hamas and Palestinian civilian collateral damage is inconsequential because 10 million people surrounded by hundreds of millions of people who despise them will end just like it did with Hadrian.
Hamas has to fight Israel with brutal tactics because the land its people were on is being reclaimed and soon they will all have no place to go but as a diaspora. And after that they will disappear into cultural homogeneity of where they immigrated.
You want to give Musk context? He’s a billionaire in the United States who has business ambitions in a major competing power (China). He can’t look too pro American so he supports Russia because his Chinese partners silently support Russia.
Musk is deeply interested in himself and acquiring more wealth. He’s not a good guy he just wants to be the world’s first trillionaire outside of the Saudi royalty. In short, he sucks and he’s a greedy ass.
Nuance? Context? Pick a side. You’re not a billionaire and you never will be. Musk doesn’t love you.
> Do you figure the Russian federation needs to invade Ukraine because the western alliance against it has expanded along its border without buffer zones and competing client states?
The February 2022 events were triggered because Kyiv wasn't fulfilling the peace agreement with Donetsk for years. You can check OSCE reports for the week before the invasion and see that the ceasefire was completely trashed, as well as check out what Ukrainian leaders had said regarding the Minks agreements. One of them (Poroshenko) non-jokingly claimed that lying about peace agreements was a Sun Tsy tactics. In a world based on rules, lying about a peace agreement while preparing for war will only end badly (and it did).
> who has business ambitions in a major competing power (China)
Who hasn't? Lockheed Martin?
> Nuance? Context? Pick a side. Musk doesn’t love you.
Thanks, but no. I don’t need to “pick a side” and I am extremely suspicious of rationality and motives of everyone who pushes me to both abandon my principles and reason, and to fall into perceiving everything as a perfect mortal dichotomy with no escape. I’m neither that suicidal nor brutal. And it is definitely not about someone’s “love”, objective reality exists.
Picking sides already got half-a-million people dead.
> The February 2022 events were triggered because Kyiv wasn't fulfilling the peace agreement with Donetsk for years.
I want you to go down the list of points in the Minsk II agreement and explain how Russia didn't make an absolute farce out of them - in particular, points 9 and 10. And what's more they repeatedly engaged in massive cyber attacks against Ukraine - actual destructive attacks intended to shut down their power grid and destroy banking data amongst other things.
I'd also like to hear you explain why there even needed to be a Minsk II in the first place, given that you think it was Ukraine doing all of the violations. Hint: it was not. There are even Russian documentaries about the war where, during the supposed ceasefire, they filmed themselves crossing over to Ukrainian trenches at night to bury mines in them.
> I want you to go down the list of points in the Minsk II agreement and explain how Russia didn't make an absolute farce out of them
And I don't want to serve your attitude and play a Russel's teapot guessing game.
I am not going to try and guess counter-arguments to something you can't even properly put in words, since it makes it easier for you to avoid thinking about it too much.
> And what's more they repeatedly engaged in massive cyber attacks against Ukraine - actual destructive attacks intended to shut down their power grid and destroy banking data amongst other things.
Poor banking data. Sucks to suck when you happen do be the one on hacktivist's receiving end, doesn't it? Kyiv is a willing and a nasty belligerent, not a victim. Try hosting and securing something in Russia and see just how much of a pain in the ass you'll get.
I know of enough literal CTOs getting so pissed about it, that they engaged in hacktivism themselves just to make a point. Obviously in each case it only made things worse and generated more mutual hatred.
And don't get me started on all those personal data repositories hacks and scamming campaigns.
> given that you think it was Ukraine doing all of the violations. Hint: it was not
You should read what was actually written. Not what you've imagined.
> There are even Russian documentaries about the war where, during the supposed ceasefire, they filmed themselves crossing over to Ukrainian trenches at night to bury mines in them.
There are documented cases of Kyiv engaging in airstrikes on Donetsk and then claiming those were merely air conditioners exploding. This lasted until Donetsk rebels started shooting down aircrafts, followed by the tragedy with the civilian plane.
Your argument boils down to "things happening during a steaming barely frozen conflict - bad". Well of-f-ing-course they are. That's why you have to tackle core issues, otherwise good luck treating symptoms by trying to contain thousands of motivated individuals each with their own petty vengeance and a tragic story behind it.
Kyiv literally didn't do shit to actually resolve it: they didn't do amnesty; they didn't do the constitutional reform; they were demanding Donetsk to surrender and give up all the leverage and a chance for defense BEFORE holding elections, denying Steinmeier formula and elections under OSCE observers.
All Kyiv did is complain how the sustainable peace didn't just appear from the thin air, without actually doing anything substantial to get there. Stupid war is literally the only possible thing one could achieve with that kind of policy.
Kyiv signed peace agreement with Donetsk and Luhansk, while France and Germany acting as a guarantor to the former, and Russia being a guarantor for the later.
You picked a side, the Russian federation. I’m not sure why you are so averse to owning that you picked it. The objective reality that everyone outside of your own mind is able to perceive is that you picked a side. So yes, you are that brutal. Just own it instead of vacillating and squirming.
I too am also extremely suspicious of strangers on the internet describing how neutral they are but then pushing Russian talking points. It’s very typical for their culture to rationalize as you have. So have a great day!
Don't project your ying-yang dichotomic views on me. I'm just being objective about the cause-effect. And yeah, I do live here and this is too serious to ignore bullshit.
> I’m not sure why you are so averse to owning that you picked it.
> So yes, you are that brutal. Just own it instead of vacillating and squirming.
Because I see people who picked a side screaming "ceasefire is not an option", "they died for Democracy/Motherland", "total military victory or bust" and that's just fucking disgusting. Yet somehow I am the brutal one, awesome.
Sorry, but from where I stand, it's the sidepickers who have to squirm, shill, reinvent reality, and call things that you've acknowledged few years ago as totally non-existent and propaganda few years later.
The further you are from exploding things and death, the more heroic you feel about picking a side.
At least my views are solidly grounded in facts distilled by cross-referrensing distinct sources datasources, backed by opposing interests and a desire for a just resolution for everyone.
> describing how neutral they are but then pushing Russian talking points
Oh I am not neutral, I am pro-me! I just recognize the cause-effect and don't pretend that everything that doesn't fit my views is "talking points". Real life is a bit more complicated, you know.
> It’s very typical for their culture to rationalize as you have. So have a great day!
It's typical for any human to rationalize. Look how you rationalized dismissing my points, look how you rationalize hate and perpetuating war.
> A very warped, and highly misleading description of events is all that time permits me to say.
Oh please, you just don't have anything substantial to say.
> Just stop pretending you haven't picked a side, please.
But I haven't.
If I did, I'd be making donations on drones and fancy equipment or volunteering my engineering skills. My current situation so far allows me not to get involved.
And I honestly find it super-weird how people here seem to push me into picking one. If I am forced to, I'll likely act the same way many ordinary Ukrainians did - naturally just pick a side closer to my family and friends.
I do sympathize the people of Donetsk and Luhansk, due to the fact that they basically get treated as an empty spot and I saw their own former compatriots being absolutely horrible and dehumanizing towards them (thanks to the power of the internet). It probably would be fair to say that it's the core reason Russia gets any support. The fact that the other side wasn't able to quickly turn tables on that matter indicates that there really is a serious problem and these are not really such good guys doing it all right.
> russians are very selective with their truth
> Remember the MRP pact with Hitler?
I am always in awe by the bitter-sweet irony of this particular bit. Because Russians actually remember MRP, as well as the fact that it was a direct response to the Munich Agreement and Poland and Hungary each tearing itself a piece of Czechoslovakia (yes, with Hitler), while Europeans desperately try to forget the later and play the victim of the former, despite them literally doing the same thing first and opening this can of worms themselves. But of course its the Russians who are being selective about truth.
I honestly don't understand where did people in the west even got the idea that Russians don't know about about MRP.
> Remember Budapest Memorandum?
The one that was thrown away by US and EU when they had actively supported the coup/revolution of 2014? Sorry, you were saying something about selectively honoring agreements?
You know, you probably should try having a serious talk with real Russians instead of relying on some thirdparty to build you a strawman.
> Kim Jong Un has to be brutal because if he isn’t than he’ll lose the great game of palace politics and he and his family will be killed.
Also, it's worth giving a good thought whether North Korea is in such a sorry state because of a bad persona or maybe it could have something to do with the fact that these people get international treatement equivalent to "isolate 'em barbarian animals".
It shouldn't be surprising that a country forced into a Stone Age lives like it's a Stone Age, compared to e.g. Saudi Arabia that gets more liberal over time as life goes on relatively chill. Yet somehow it is.
DPRK was more developed and wealthier than the south at the end of the UN intervention. Also they’re clearly in the former soviet and PRC sphere of influence. Saying the DPRK was forced into the Stone Age by the west gives the west a lot of credit and power and virtually none to DPRK and its own self determination.
You know, the ancient Greeks were pretty smart. At the temple of the oracle of Delphi there apparently was an inscription that read “know thyself”. I have a feeling that if you’re a citizen of the west you fundamentally do not know who you are or where you are.
One of Musk’s Achilles heels is that he is principled almost to a fault (at least that’s what it seems like from the outside since I cannot read his mind or see into his heart).
That principled view can get in the way of being practical.
One of Starlink’s stated principles is that the network is not meant for war (see the motives section I link to above). Now it could be because of moral reasons or it could be for practical reasons (compliance with new sets of laws and regulations).
Starlink has provided Ukraine with service but it is being financed by the US government. They have refused to do the same for Russia.
Earlier in the Israel/Hamas war, Musk announced Starlink service for humanitarian aid (https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/musk-says-starlink...). I haven’t followed whether that actually happened and to what degree but 6 days ago they announced service for an Emirati-run hospital in the south.
> Musk doesn’t love you
I can see how my points can come across as I’m running to the defense of the guy.
What’s actually happening is that I’m trying to seek something closer to the truth than what my gut reactions and news sources lead me to conclude.
Principled to a fault is not the phrase I would use for him. That’s maybe a person like Cato.
SpaceX has defense contracts with the US DoD. It can’t do business with Russian MoD or it loses the US contracts. It’s not about principles it’s about money.
I’m not sure I understand why you’re trying “to seek something closer to the truth” here. There is no truth in politics. Do you care about the Walton family and their truth? I’m guessing no.
Musk has inserted himself into global attention and is clearly doing and saying what’s best for Musk. If the principle of self interest is what you’re talking about then yea, I guess that’s true. He’s so self interested it’s what made him and it’s what will undo him.
You are right and I suppose further debate isn't all that helpful as it won't move the needle in either direction. I guess here's "my truth" regarding Musk if you have time for it, if you don't that's OK too.
I believe Musk very much wants to become the first trillionaire and is trying to longitudinally orient his businesses to achieve that goal. He can't really just do that in the US so it has to be a global endeavor. He's got EV factories in NA, Asia, and Europe. He wants or wanted a solar company as well as the charging stations, and his starlink will service the entire globe and can provide service to his cars and trucks across the world.
With the US he doesn't really need to politically mesh with its foreign policy because his ambitions don't necessarily require American supremacy. If he can maintain a grip on his Chinese holdings and push product there to a population 3x that of the US then he may realize his goal. He gets to be the CEO of an international megacorp where people get their transportation, power, and communication.
I believe all of his business forays are connected and as an American peasant I don't believe he has my best interests at heart. He could care less about the US rules based world order and is happy with any system that allows him to do business across the globe. So therefore I up the greens and you up the blues. Which is fine.
