Twitter Rules: Difference between revisions

{{a|design|{{image|Twitter blue check|png|}}}}Loving [[Twitter]] as the [[JC]] does — one of his many standing mottoes is ''[[get off Twitter]]'' — and given the great world-wide focus on Twitter and the studied outrage of those whose blue-check marks over the weekend became degraded,  ad since their reposting by “chief twit” today, the JC thought he would take the opportunity to have a look at the [https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules Twitter Rules].

As terms of service go, in all honesty, they’re really not bad.  

The idea should be for them to be as plain, simple, clear and unambiguous as possible, with as little room for argument, so that anyone — even a bedroom hacker, even the fifteen Russian sex-bots who follow the [[JC]] — should know ''instinctively'' where they stand and what they must, and must not, do.

And, as a platform designed for all the world, and not just we sainted few of the [[Libtard|liberal metropolitan elite]], the Twitter Rules should really follow common sense. They should be intuitive enough that ''you don’t need to read them'', and if you do, what you find in them should surprise only those whose grasp of the basic tenets of civil society is means they shouldn’t be on Twitter in the first place.

And, as we say, Twitter’s rules are ''not'' bad. Very little legalese — though you can see a few places where the legal eagle in charge of the TOBs just help herself — “in a manner intended to artificially amplify or suppress information or engage in behavior” has a face only a legal ninja could love — and they make do broad sense.

''But they could be neater still''. So the JC took the opportunity to give them a once-over.

{{tabletop}}