- they can’t fill the position they’ve had opened for a while now. This just isn’t a policy change that can happen with professional comms and PR oversight being nonexistent. That has to be fixed first

(Curse the low character limit, sorry for the reply thread 😅)

Most importantly though, this decision is not something that should have happened before finally hiring for that open comms position & individual staff can’t be commenting on this either, only official channels
This is what comms is for. They NEED to contract w/an outside agency in the meantime if -

- communicated plan for major known errors (like taking a month to take action on what is supposedly a violent threat). In combination with public litigations of high profile suspensions, there also needs to be better, HUMAN, responses to email questions & appeals for every account

- and lastly there needs to be an actual comms team ensuring the information being presented is actually correct.
This new policy also needs to come with more consistency & transparency in moderation decisions (why is this 72 hours while other similar 1st time offenses permanent) as well as a well -

- the multitude of other high profile accounts that have been banned with seemingly no transparency, there should be some genuine transparency provided in the form of data/screenshots/something when the official statement seems to so heavily contradict what the account in question is saying, -

I think it /could/ be a good rule however it comes the day after saying they won’t be doing this exact thing, there was no announcement this would happen, it seems to have changed at the same time this specific incident started to get larger media attention, this now needs to also happen for -

No, that’s a pretty common sentiment in the states as well & I’d say about 95% of the people you would say it to here would also understand it as annoyance & not a legit threat