There is a Substack associated with the suspended twitter account [0].
They have made a recent post about the suspension of said account and all of the users other twitter accounts [1]. It states that twitter told the user "the account was “artificially” amplifying information".
That's not even a relevant question - the excuse given by Twitter was "the account was “artificially” amplifying information" not "bots were 'artificially' amplifying the account"
How can you trust someone who says "There was not outside amplification"? How would the controller of the twitter account differentiate between simple virality and outside amplification? Of course, it's lame that Amy can buy a bunch of bots to get Bob's account canceled.
And then there's the challenge of "Hmm, if I'm a PR firm hired by Maxwell, what can I do? I know, we'll hire a bunch of sock puppets. And then we'll report the account!"
If so, I want BrooklynDad_Defiant, the Palmer Report, Duty to Warn, the Gravel Institute, and ReallyAmerican1 removed immediately. There is no way these folks always manage to be at the top of every trend organically.
100% agree. It sure is funny how these accounts are always surfaced as the first reply. Especially with that BrooklynDad account. It was always the first hot take reply to any Trump tweet.
Of course BitwiseFool and I have no proof beyond our observations so please don't ask for proof of Twitters internal workings. Note we have no proof of why this Maxwell trial account was suspended other than twitters word. They provided us with no data or proof. This is very common now. Folks take the word of tech companies as hard fact and any other speculation is not allowed.
Any twitter employee want to use a throwaway account to set the record straight? Doubt it.
Or for being a part of a network that was doing so. I suspect that it is more likely that they were just part of a system that was promoting tweets and reposting material
Substack handles paid subscriptions, which is distinctly non-trivial to "host your own". They've also publicly advertised a strong anti-censorship position, and a lot of their userbase will abandon them if they change stances.
While it's certainly a possible concern, not all platforms descend in to censorship. I think it's reasonable to wait until there's at least warning signs before criticizing a specific site.
> We reserve the right to remove any content from Substack at any time, for any reason (including, but not limited to, if someone alleges you contributed that content in violation of these Terms), in our sole discretion, and without notice.
A lot of platforms unfortunately have these blanket disclaimers. Fortunately Substack hasn't gone down that road yet, while Twitter, Facebook and Google are already over the horizon.
According to the FAQ, it seems like you can add your own music to the player as well. So portable DJ device. Plus, clever tool by the Kanye team to get a bunch of fan remix tracks in the wild when the album is finally released.
One of my grade school teachers taught me a trick for 7x8. She would tell us to think of the grades one would have to pass before reaching the 7th and 8th grades of school... 5th and 6th. Thus, I will always remember that 7x8=56.
A new post on digitalmusicnews.com points to Microsoft, Google, and Amazon.
"Now, according to more sources talking to Digital Music News, Microsoft, Google and ‘possibly Amazon’ are all entertaining the idea of buying Spotify, though $10 billion could be considered an aggressive ask."[1]
They have made a recent post about the suspension of said account and all of the users other twitter accounts [1]. It states that twitter told the user "the account was “artificially” amplifying information".
[0] https://patriotone.substack.com
[1] https://patriotone.substack.com/p/twitter-suspension