The problem I have is how subjective all of this is, and while they say they are trying to increase transparency I don't see it.
This action suggests they keep tabs on accounts and there's some threshold they can reach over a period of time that will flip a ban on even if the actual action that causes the ban wouldn't be bannable in isolation.
I've not seen this policy discussed around any of their other bans.
The timing is also very suspicious as all the other big social media platforms banned Jones recently. That suggests that there's some level of coordination and/or Twitter is caving to outside pressure and not actually acting on their own internal policy in a consistent manner.
They have rules. Before they were enforced randomly.
Was that fovoritism? Who was at the button for that particular complaint? Who knows!
It doesn’t really matter what their rules or definitions of the terms they use are. Or how subjective people claim they are.
People will choose to use the service or not based on what they see happening.
But for the past few years, it want a question of what the terms meant exactly. People could say things that were blatant violations under the most charitable readings of the rules and nothing would happen.
Or it would.
Or they would show that someone else said thing X the rules forbid and the complainer would get banned and person who actually said it would be fine.
Now we may get some consistency (I’m not holding my breath though). That can only be a good thing.
I agree with everything you've said except for the second to the last sentence :)
This looks like just another arbitrary (and possibly politically motivated) ban to me. If they start removing other accounts of their "friends" who engage in behavior such as commenting on other's appearance, then I'd say we're starting to see consistency.
That hasn't happened yet though, and banning Jones for such a mild tweet seems to suggest it's unlikely we'll see the same scrutiny applied to others as many people would get kicked off the platform for this level of vitriol.
No it doesn't. Twitter has a reporting function and whenever content offends a bunch of people then a wave of reports is a predictable outcome. Keeping a record of previous actions on an account is not the same as monitoring it.
The problem I have is how subjective all of this is, and while they say they are trying to increase transparency I don't see it.
This action suggests they keep tabs on accounts and there's some threshold they can reach over a period of time that will flip a ban on even if the actual action that causes the ban wouldn't be bannable in isolation.
I've not seen this policy discussed around any of their other bans.
The timing is also very suspicious as all the other big social media platforms banned Jones recently. That suggests that there's some level of coordination and/or Twitter is caving to outside pressure and not actually acting on their own internal policy in a consistent manner.