iit is still unresolved, so, trying here instead. This is a copy & paste of the appeal: Good Morning – Thank you for this opportunity to be heard, I'd like to respond to both the publicized narrative of why @girlposts was suspended and to my guess at Twitter's internal justification. Niki and I (we), had been trying to correct everything and anything we were criticized for, long before we were suspended. (1) @girlposts had been crediting and/or tagging sources for thousands of tweets prior to suspension—examples: (1.a) nitter.cf/cinder/status/15… (1.b) nitter.cf/cinder/status/16… For background context: In 2017, @girlposts was averaging around a million likes and retweets per day, or over 2 billion impressions per month. We even received millions of engagements on mildly satirical political polls—analytics references: (a) nitter.cf/cinder/status/16… (b) nitter.cf/cinder/status/15… (which may or may not have been of public interest) (2) In regard to artificial interactions: @girlposts was not using TweetDeck at any time in 2017 or 2018. (2.1) @girlposts was averaging less than 1 retweet per day, relative to 20–30 normal tweets. (2.2) Most of our retweets were intentionally delayed 24–72 hours, specifically to avoid accusations of algorithm manipulation. Do I think @girlposts deserved to be suspended, regardless? I think the absence of any warning or attempt at reconciliation, along with the permanent duration of the suspension, were unnecessarily harsh measures for addressing the matter. Niki and I would have corrected any undesirable behavior if we had been told to do so by Twitter. We are sorry we did too little, too late, to show our remorse and willingness to reform. (3) On the topic of newsworthiness. @girlposts' tweets were featured in hundreds of news and magazine articles, and even an academic publication. (3.1) @girlposts was followed, quoted, and replied to by thousands of irl celebrities and millions of enthused fans—reference: (3.a) nitter.cf/cinder/status/16… In most cases, our intent with retweets or likes ("interactions") was to serve the best interests of our followers. I hated spam. I hated advertising. I hated myself for disappointing the expectations of our fans. In some ways, Niki and I grew up on Twitter; it really was our home. It was no accident that the respect we had for our followers resonated with them: independent.co.uk/life-style… (4) There were, among our critics, many who chose to see the worst in us. Their outrage fueled and fed off of BuzzFeed's negative PR, even when their accusations against us were outdated or baseless: (4.a) nitter.cf/cinder/status/16… I guess the question that Twitter's Trust & Safety team chose not to care about in 2018 was what % of @girlposts' 2 billion impressions per month were derived from artificial interactions? Any technical analysis, however biased on the intent of our actions, would find the answer at less than 0.1%. I made mistakes. Niki made mistakes. We wish we had been better. We have regretted our mistakes for 5 years. We would try desperately not to disappoint you if we are ever given another chance. (5) Maybe worth mentioning: @girlposts was following sometimes thousands of users per week. For 7 years either Niki or I did this by hand. In 2018 I automated this (I was the only person who coded anything for @girlposts' developer app(s). My codebases are timestamped and auditable on GitHub to verify the following claims, should you like to.) (5.1) @girlposts only followed–back users who were already following @girlpots and who had recently retweeted and liked @girlposts' tweets. (Not too dissimilar to how Obama's Twitter account treated fans.) (5.2) @girlposts did not automatically follow anyone who was not following @girlposts and who had not recently retweeted and liked @girlposts' tweets. (5.3) The selection process for follow-backs was in descending order of followers who had recently been retweeting and liking @girlposts' tweets the most. (5.4) Why did we do this? Because, after years of receiving thousands of messages from fans expressing their excitement for being followed-back manually, we felt it was what they deserved from us for their support. How we would change if allowed to: I/we/@girlposts will never sell advertising/promotion to anyone ever again, on any platform. Advertising tarnished everything it touched wherever it creeped into our lives. I hate it. Niki and I would never like, or retweet, or otherwise interact with any other account in any way that could be seen as artificial interaction. We will read any and every update to Twitter's rules, policies, and guidelines to understand as best we can how to adhere to Twitter's vision of a healthy ecosystem. (I apologize for typos / poor grammar.) Cordially,  Dillon & Niki

April 2017: @girlposts asking Jack for automatic source crediting on images/gifs shared via image-links — for new tweets that re-use images/gifs that are already enriched with source metadata in Twitter's storage — as was already done automatically by Twitter for video-links: