There's a substantial difference between a normal suspension that is "routine" and can get lifted automatically and quickly, vs. being told you're suspended permanently, can't appeal, and isn't allowed to try to register new accounts.
I don't know anything about the article, but I know Twitter suspended my account immediately after confirming my email and following 1 person. I appealed and they restored it, I logged in and they immediately suspended my account again with no explanation. I don't think it's a conspiracy, just that their automated bots can be trolls
Twitter and Facebook, without government intervention have naturally become the influencing platforms of choice for those with the most lucre. Having enemies banned is such an opaque process that nobody can tell if there was a payoff for a ban or not. Changes are never well explained. If either was a government system, complete suspension would be required to take place with a forensic analysis showing inadequacies, vulnerabilities, and hacks. Then after those were addressed the systems would be restored with documented and known procedures and processes for these things.
But for Twitter and Facebook, it's all business as usual. Everyone knows they are both corrupt to the core.
It's a marketing ploy by AT&T to label some kind of slightly better (maybe?) 4G as 5G, kinda like when phones started to say 4G which didn't mean 4G LTE.
Yep, would recommend mods rename it to something like "My Twitter account was banned due to Short selling trolls" or something that actually described what the article is about.
I like that one of the suspensions the author complains about was for impersonation... then they prove why Twitter was absolutely right to call out their "satirical" impersonation with such a clickbait title
Does anyone know if this guy was actually genuinely debunking Tesla myths? Or was this just another guy crazily fighting on one side of a seemingly ridiculous twitter fight?
The most insidious part of this is that it’s so boring. That means people can rules lawyer to precipitate bans and unless there’s some high profile person, I find it hard to maintain interest through all the details.
"I started the @tesla_truth Twitter handle on November 27, 2018 to refute the disinformation campaign orchestrated by a group of Tesla short sellers who called themselves “$TSLAQ”, noting their intent to bankrupt the company in order to make money betting against the stock."
1. This is a truly bizarre take on what shorting is, but Musk describes shorting in a similar way, so I guess it's not surprising that a fanboy ate it up.
2. You don't need a disinformation campaign to short Tesla. You can be a long Tesla shareholder and that is A-OK. You can also look at Tesla's valuation & current financials and think holy moly, what are these people smoking. Welcome to the free market, where we collectively price things based on the interplay between these 2 groups.
3. I can guarantee you that only some statistically insignificant number of shorters care if Tesla goes bankrupt or not. They, in their judgement, see a market opportunity where Tesla is overpriced, and they're calling it. Some of these people might be Tesla owners or fans, who cares.
Then the rest of the article is just a general screed / immature clickbait stuff (like, I don't know, putting "Steve Jobs is Dead" for clicks or whatever). People need to grow up.
Short-term prices aren't driven by fundamentals, but by rumors/sentiment/herding. So thinking that a bunch of short sellers might orchestrate a rumor campaign against a volatile stock isn't much of a stretch.
I wouldn't hark on the bankruptcy semantics. Obviously, the original statement doesn't necessarily mean that the bankruptcy will be the result of short selling.
This kind of thing is done on occasion. I remember the same being done to Newbridge at the start of the tech bubble, including short-sellers arranging damaging interviews with people who claimed they were executives with the company. It's far easier now with social media.
It's not just Tesla either Facebook, and I believe Microsoft as well were caught paying for entities to harm Google's reputation. There are vast amounts of money involved.
1. As I read it the quoted text doesn’t describe or attempt to define shorting. It describes a subset of short sellers. Straw-man?
2. Again, I see no contradiction here.
3. Why does this matter? The article is about censorship on Twitter. If there is just one shorter that can censor Twitter for market manipulation purposes, then that’s a problem, right?
25 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 62.7 ms ] threadBut for Twitter and Facebook, it's all business as usual. Everyone knows they are both corrupt to the core.
You get demoted / get the checkmark removed for being a popular right wing individual.
You get suspended for saying the scientific truth that there is only two human genders.
You get suspended for basically everything that is not what Twitter / classic woke culture believe.
Why would you assume they would not suspend you? Just realize Twitter is a garbage company and move on to another service.
You have to restart without trying to get a boost using popular figure's name or photo.
1. This is a truly bizarre take on what shorting is, but Musk describes shorting in a similar way, so I guess it's not surprising that a fanboy ate it up.
2. You don't need a disinformation campaign to short Tesla. You can be a long Tesla shareholder and that is A-OK. You can also look at Tesla's valuation & current financials and think holy moly, what are these people smoking. Welcome to the free market, where we collectively price things based on the interplay between these 2 groups.
3. I can guarantee you that only some statistically insignificant number of shorters care if Tesla goes bankrupt or not. They, in their judgement, see a market opportunity where Tesla is overpriced, and they're calling it. Some of these people might be Tesla owners or fans, who cares.
Then the rest of the article is just a general screed / immature clickbait stuff (like, I don't know, putting "Steve Jobs is Dead" for clicks or whatever). People need to grow up.
Naming his account as he did made it easy for Twitter to ban him
Short-term prices aren't driven by fundamentals, but by rumors/sentiment/herding. So thinking that a bunch of short sellers might orchestrate a rumor campaign against a volatile stock isn't much of a stretch.
I wouldn't hark on the bankruptcy semantics. Obviously, the original statement doesn't necessarily mean that the bankruptcy will be the result of short selling.
It's not just Tesla either Facebook, and I believe Microsoft as well were caught paying for entities to harm Google's reputation. There are vast amounts of money involved.
2. Again, I see no contradiction here.
3. Why does this matter? The article is about censorship on Twitter. If there is just one shorter that can censor Twitter for market manipulation purposes, then that’s a problem, right?