Slashdot Mirror
Why Does Twitter Refuse To Shut Down Donald Trump? (vortex.com)
Lauren Weinstein writes: The conclusion appears inescapable. Twitter apparently has voluntarily chosen to 'look the other way' while Donald Trump spews forth a trolling stream of hate and other abuses that would cause any average Twitter user to be terminated in a heartbeat. There's always room to argue the proprietary or desirability of any given social media content terms of service — or the policy precepts through which they are applied. It is also utterly clear that if such rules are not applied to everyone with the same vigor, particularly when there's an appearance of profiting by making exceptions for particular individuals, the moral authority on which those rules are presumably based is decimated, pointless, and becomes a mere fiction.
Would you rather Twitter shut down no account ever, apply a sort of white-listing policy, or something in the middle?
This also from the great thinker whose personal blog also got linked to for "Why I'm a Defender of YouTube"
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Here in the United States we have something called the First Amendment which protects "Free Speech. That includes criticizing opportunistic Muslim migrants that are also potential terrorists.
Do you really not understand why the right to free speech isn't the same as the right to a twitter account? I don't personally think twitter should shut down his account but they wouldn't be violating his constitutional rights if they did so.
Perhaps you forget the actual idea behind free speech.
The idea that you can say whatever you want, and that no one can stop you; is not the idea behind free speech. Free Speech merely means the government cannot imprison or bring up criminal charges for speech they do not like.
Twitter is not a government organization, it is allowed to place whatever terms and conditions they want on the service. They own it; the users do not. It is perfectly acceptable from a constitutional standpoint for Twitter to say "we do not like your hate-speech and are removing you from the service", it would be legal for any company to say "I do not like what you wrote on Twitter/Facebook/Other Social Media; they disagree with our ethics and you are being terminated."
Another example is if you were shouting hate-speech in a public place. As long as you on public property, that is fine. However, the minute you step on to privately owned property; the owners are able to enforce any restrictions they want. Want to scream bigoted statements in front of my house? Make sure you're doing it on the sidewalk or street; if you're in my yard; I'll have you removed.
I find it ironic that people that scream the most about constitutional freedoms; are doing so in the most twisted way possible. If Trump is violating the usual TOS of Twitter; than he needs to be removed. He can't be charged with a crime for doing so; but Twitter would not be violating the constitution.
The headline presumes a lot of things.
Read the actually Twitter account and it's relatively bland, in pages of tweets I couldn't see anything that would cause an account from anyone to be suspended.
Its amazing how furious trump makes people, and sad how they themselves must lie to try and shut down someone they disagree with.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If the new owners are listening, this is exactly the sort of story that doesn't belong on Slashdot. The technical angle (Twitter?) is minimal, the political content is strong, and most of the commenters have big ugly political axes to grind.
Hopefully this is an aberration. If you just want to post clickbait and stir up outrage, this isn't the site for me.
If, on the other hand, you wanted to talk about the algorithm Twitter uses, or the resources and methods required to enforce Twitter policies, you might have a nerdish angle.
But to ask readers whether or not they approve of Trump on Twitter is trolling, and makes me wonder about your "new" direction.
I agree with all you said above, but why then can't a bakery refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding?
Because there are laws against discrimination in commerce. By getting a business license and operating that business to do so, you are obliged to follow those laws.
I'm not saying yes, I'm not saying no. Check her posting history and have a bloody good laugh.
Ummm, I mean check her posting history and make your own mind up. Yes, that.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
ISPs are common carriers, and are governed by a whole other set of rules precisely because they are essentially backbones.
Twitter is an endpoint.
Two different things.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
This is the kind of story that belongs elsewhere. Hey, new owners, let's keep /. tech focused.
No, he was impeached by the House. He was then acquitted rather than convicted by the Senate.
The impeachment was completely successful, else the Senate would never have weighed in.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
The articles gives no examples to back up its claim that regular users are treated differently from Trump.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
I do single out Islam as uniquely bad. No, you can't just replace "Muslims" with "Catholics". Catholics have a core text that can at least be invoked to "love your fellow man", "turn the other cheek", and "render to Caesar that which is Caesar's". Nor is it meant to be the perfect word of God so it can be heavily cherrypicked.
That doesn't apply to Islam.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Not just republicans, but anyone right leaning as well... the de-verifying of Milo Yiannopoulos is one great example of this.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Do these same people support the 1950s Hollywood (private company) blacklists of communists and fellow-travelers?
I may not approve of what you say, but you have the right to say it. The same goes for blacklisting. I don't approve of what movie studios did, but they did have a right to refuse to hire people based on political alignment.
Thunderf00t was banned from Twitter for a while. No, he did not "explicitly harrass" Anita Sarkeesian; his account was eventually reinstated when her accusations were found to have been utterly groundless and when there was a wave of criticism.
I'm a gay man and a gamer. I've played and posted as a man, as a gay man, as a transsexual, and as a woman. You know what I have had "spewed" at me? A very occasional "fag". That's it. The idea that women or gay men are subject to massive abuse online simply for what they/we are is bullshit.
When people like Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu have nasty things sent to them, it is not because of their sex organs (whatever they may be), it is because they are Internet trolls trying to provoke other people into insulting them and stirring up controversy. And what makes their trolling even more offensive is that they attack one of the few safe spaces and most accepting environments for minorities and outcasts, namely gaming, and they are doing so for personal gain.
No, I'm sorry, that's not true. The political bias of Twitter has been studied, and it is far more "liberal" (in the US sense of "progressive") than the US population as a whole. That represents the politics of educated, privileged, upper middle class techies, both in terms of users and in terms of the censors. (And let's not forget that Nazism and racism were progressive ideologies, so they fit the pattern.)