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?

Comments

Because that would be unimaginable CENSORSHIP?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because that would be unimaginable CENSORSHIP?
You stupid leftist idiot.

Re: Because that would be unimaginable CENSORSHIP?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously? Have you seen what's happening in universities? Safe spaces, censoring debate, banning and no platforming people with wrong opinion. That is progressivism and feminism. Ideologies of the far left. All this nonsense about hate speech is merely an attempt to censor opinions and ideas. There probably are cases on the religious right too, but the left is far more guilty of this.

Re: Because that would be unimaginable CENSORSHIP?

[Anonymous Coward]

The free speech zones were championed by the Republicans. Then, when applied elsewhere, they are called a progressive idea. Much like Romney Care is a horribly progressive idea, based on a Republican's plan.

Re:Because that would be unimaginable CENSORSHIP?

[tchdab1]

Then how about flagging the candidate's offending tweets with a moderator note, "this post crosses the line of hate and criminal advocacy. If the tweeter were not a candidate for public office, this tweet would be blocked and this profile terminated."

Re:Because that would be unimaginable CENSORSHIP?

[tehlinux]

No, dude, it's OK to censor republicans. ;)

Re: Because that would be unimaginable CENSORSHIP?

[HiThere]

While I agree that those on the left, when in power, tend to unfairly deprive their opponents of the right to be heard, the exact same thing is true of those on the right. They just "censor" based on different grounds.

And I don't approve of either.

Re:Because that would be unimaginable CENSORSHIP?

[MightyMartian]

Indeed, because the Right has been just as guilty of trying to censor as the Left. Both groups show utter contempt for liberties so long as its some group that they view as an opponent who is getting the short end of the stick.

Re:Because that would be unimaginable CENSORSHIP?

[JaredOfEuropa]

Free speech means that you are free to say whatever you want. But it does not place any entity, private or public, under any obligation to offer you a platform. If Twitter decides to censor Trump, that's censorship, but it's not unimaginable since it's a private company. They are free to censor him because they think his views are bad, because they hate his guts, or because it's a full moon on Saturday.

Re:Because that would be unimaginable CENSORSHIP?

[myowntrueself]

Huh, wut?

Why does Trump get a privilege (in fact a right enshrined in the constitution) that I don't just because he's a candidate?

The thing is, this isn't even true:

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.

The kinds of things he comes out with are nowhere NEAR hate or abuse. Its all in the imaginations of the people who fear him. To describe it as hate speech is ludicrous and dilutes the whole concept of 'hate speech'. Which can't be a bad thing, IMO.

"We should stop Muslims coming into America until we can figure out what the hell is going on." is not hate speech.

Re:Because that would be unimaginable CENSORSHIP?

[AmiMoJo]

Because his posts don't cross the line for Twitter. On the rare occasions when they do ban people, it's for much worse stuff than anything he has ever done.

Generally the line is when there is a sustained campaign against an individual based on gender, race, orientation etc. and multiple complaints have been filed. While Trump has got personal on many occasions, he quickly moves on to someone else and his targets rarely complain to Twitter.

Comparing Trump to some of the trolls who have been banned is an insult to their victims. We are not talking about a few harsh, misogynist/racist words directed at them.

Re:Because that would be unimaginable CENSORSHIP?

[Intron]

The articles gives no examples to back up its claim that regular users are treated differently from Trump.

Re:Because that would be unimaginable CENSORSHIP?

[Carewolf]

Because that would be unimaginable CENSORSHIP?
You stupid leftist idiot.

Twitter started it, they introduced censorship. Now they have to be consistent about it. That it becomes really nasty is the point, hopefully they will realise they don't want to be doing censorship.

Re:Because that would be unimaginable CENSORSHIP?

[DaHat]

Not just republicans, but anyone right leaning as well... the de-verifying of Milo Yiannopoulos is one great example of this.

Re:Because that would be unimaginable CENSORSHIP?

[um... Lucas]

I don't see how you can be "pro" rights for some and "anti" rights for others.

Of course we're dealing with extremes - Trump and ISIS.

So, you'd be ok with the Chinese government ordering twitter to shutdown accounts of democracy protestors? After all, they're not in our country. Or heck, Venezuela doing the same?

That's an extremely selfish position to take - that you have more rights just because you're here (which you played nearly no role in save for luck of the draw) while others shouldn't have rights because they happened to be born elsewhere.

Re:Because that would be unimaginable CENSORSHIP?

[ooloorie]

The thing is, this isn't even true: "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."

I think it is true, actually: while, in general, Twitter sets the bar for bans fairly high, if you draw the ire of feminists or social justice advocates on Twitter, Twitter will ban people at the drop of a hat.

(In case you're wondering, no, I have never been banned on Twitter, but I also stopped using Twitter a few years ago because it seems to have been a quagmire of social justice advocacy, progressive politics, and self-promotion by third rate celebrities.)

Re:Because that would be unimaginable CENSORSHIP?

[ooloorie]

They are free to censor him because they think his views are bad, because they hate his guts, or because it's a full moon on Saturday.

Legally? Sure. But that doesn't mean they are beyond criticism. After all, they have aspirations of being a communications platform and social network and that requires more than merely being legally above board.

Re: Because that would be unimaginable CENSORSHIP?

[ganjadude]

and the funny thing about those is when I was in college, we fought tooth and nail to REMOVE those zones from campus, a university should be a free speech zone by default, the entire campus.

13 years later and the 1st graders when i was a senior are now fighting to enforce those same zones we fought so hard to tear down.

Re:Because that would be unimaginable CENSORSHIP?

[MillionthMonkey]

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.

Re:Because that would be unimaginable CENSORSHIP?

[ooloorie]

Please provide any evidence this is actually true. The only examples I have ever seen where post made towards feminists resulted in a ban, those posts involved fairly blunt threats of rape, murder, or other explicit harassment.

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.

If you could see the types of things that are spewed daily at women on Twitter, even you might be shocked.

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.

And right wing politics, Neo-nazis and racists, and terrorist groups. It's a pretty equal opportunity shitshow.

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.)

Re:Because that would be unimaginable CENSORSHIP?

[argStyopa]

Sure they are.

The real answer to the (stupid) OP question is economics. As much as liberals like to assume that they are the 'mainstream' the fact is that the country is much closer to 50/50.
Twitter, not stupid, recognizes this.

If they silence Trump (again, as you say, for whatever reason they want because they're private) a few things happen:
1) they lose half their customer base; I strongly suspect that this really wouldn't matter economically because a) they make no $ and b) I'm guessing that 99.9% of Trump voters don't 'tweet' as a lifestyle-communication thing; and
2) he gets a bully pulpit and even more press as it 'looks' like the establishment is trying to censor him; and
3) suddenly Twitter would be seen to be taking sides. For a purported neutral third party carrier of messages, they would be taking the stance that they ARE now responsible for the messages they carry - that would impose HUGE liability on them, not to mention opening a massive can of worms in terms of potential litigation regarding their common-carrier stance.

Re:Because that would be unimaginable CENSORSHIP?

[myowntrueself]

So let him dig his own grave via Twitter. If you want the world to see how unviable a candidate he is, why censor him?

Because they are afraid that Trump actually represents a majority of Americans.

Does this question really need asked?

[Anonymous Coward]

Twitter could be destroyed, or at least heavily damaged, by the republican party if it took a side. Also, like it or not, Trump is the leading republican candidate.

Re:Does this question really need asked?

[spire3661]

Twitter is ephemera and inertia. It could be replaced tomorrow on a whim. They know this.

Can't say I speak for Jack Dorsey...

[Pollux]

...But if I was him, I'd give Trump all the rope he needs to hang himself with.

Twitter shouldn't be shutting anyone down..

[brxndxn]

Free speech is free speech. Everyone else is free to ignore it. If a radical idea catches on, so fucking what. Twitter should not be shutting down Donald Trump and Lauren Weinstein should quit whining about it like free speech is some sort of threat.

Re:Twitter shouldn't be shutting anyone down..

[DewDude]

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.

Re:Twitter shouldn't be shutting anyone down..

[spire3661]

The problem is these platforms are becoming DE FACTO speech platforms to the point that either they need to start developing common carrier rulesets, or we need to develop other comms platforms that people can easily join and communicate on. I am not comfortable ceding THIS much speech to a EULA alone. These platforms are used ALOT, its time we start thinking about enforcing The First a little harder when you are reaching so many minds. Information is becoming far too malleable, which is one of the key take-aways of Orwell's 1984. I dont invoke Orwell often, but im seeing speech shaping occurring daily now.


I uploaded a short clip of the green mile to FB the other day to make a point to a friend , and as soon as it finished uploading, FB said it was blocked on copyright grounds, automatically. I was trying to show the scene in Green Mile where Percy is gloating over a dead prisoner, and Brutal viciously scolds him saying 'leave him alone, hes paid what he owed. Hes square with the house again'. Its a 20 seconds clip out of a 3 hour movie... that kind of heavy handedness is ridiculously over the top and stifled a conversation i was having with a friend.. Is that clip really a threat to anyone's revenue? Its time for new conversation about how far these platforms can stifle speech or if we need to legally limit their scope.

Re:Twitter shouldn't be shutting anyone down..

[spire3661]

A minor correction . Free Speech is the idea that you can say things. Its a spectrum like anything else going from completely permissive on one end to restricted for reasons on the other. Its a completely separate idea from the FIRST AMENDMENT, which is a limitation on the U.S. government. Generally The First Amendment of the U.S. is very permissive of speech, with exceptions for things like obvious inciting of harm (and other unspecified ' i know it when i see it' clauses).

I only mention this because people get these ideas confused and then the conversation stops being about Free Speech, and it starts being only about The First. It limits the conversation to LEGAL arguments, citing court decisions etc and drowns out any moral speech. Its boring to only look at life through the lens of the law.

Re:Twitter shouldn't be shutting anyone down..

[stdarg]

Nope, you got it backwards. The concept of free speech has nothing to do with the government. The 1st amendment right to free speech is a constraint put on the government to uphold the principle in limited circumstances, it does not define or limit the principle itself.

One's support for free speech is generally a matter of degree. If your support ends at the 1st amendment, and you think that private "consequences" for free speech are fine and dandy, then you don't support it very much.

Re:Twitter shouldn't be shutting anyone down..

[MightyMartian]

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.

Re:Twitter shouldn't be shutting anyone down..

[diamondmagic]

This is a classic appeal to authority. What if I said this:

Because there are laws against breaking DRM. By getting a business license and operating that business to do so, you are obliged to follow those laws.

.... I'd be modded down into oblivion. And rightfully so. Statute isn't correct just because it's in the statute.

Statute especially isn't right when it conflicts with other laws (i.e. the Constitution). If we actually applied rule of law in these situations, we would find these laws are null and void. You can't tell a person they can't hack their OWN PROPERTY, and likewise you can't force a person to produce, with their own property and time, a product that they don't want to make. And actually, the cake issue is even worse: How do you know that it was discrimination, unless we start prosecuting thought crimes? What, you're going to use their speech on the matter to press charges? Well that's illegal too!

Re:Coincidence

[DaHat]

This also from the great thinker whose personal blog also got linked to for "Why I'm a Defender of YouTube"

An experiment

[3vi1]

I propose a test: Create an alternate account and re-post the same things Donald Trump posts. Maybe change the names/groups mentioned in order to protect the innocent.

Then, if Twitter shuts you down, you would have a pretty open and shut case as to preferential and selective treatment.

Because he's a legitimate presidential candidate.

[Anonymous Coward]

Deal with it. Just because you aren't voting for a person in a election doesn't mean every opinion of theirs must be silenced at all costs. Give them enough rope to hang themselves if you think someone is such a monster...

Sigh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because you don't agree (or are insulted) with the man or his policies doesn't mean he should be censored. When he begins calling for the gruesome death of all people who don't agree with him (e.g. ISIL), then we will have something to talk about. The only reason this article has ANYTHING to do with Slashdot is cuz Twitter. Can we get back to technology stuffy, please?

Freedom of speech as long as it's the right one

[vivaoporto]

The very asking of the headline question reeks of "freedom of speech as long as it's the right one".

People should be able to discern speech the agree with vs. speech they don't on their own after considering every opinion made.

Speech "carriers" have all the right to censor the speech in their media as they see fit (not being the government and all) but the very moment the prevent someone to speak their mind on their platform (no matter how radical they may sound) they forfeit their right to call themselves "a bastion of free speech" and become the same as every other news media: a place to broadcast the views of their owners and target audience, no more, no less.

In conclusion, every company have the right to pick and choose what they want to enable to be said on their property but as soon as they choose to censor they become yet another biased source just like every other else.

Re:Freedom of speech as long as it's the right one

[ArylAkamov]

Your rights end where their feelings begin.

Twitter censorship

[brennz]

There are already numerous allegations of Twitter censoring and unverifying the political right or pro-gamergate folks such as Milo Yiannopoulos. Trump is actually a big attention grabber and he is capturing lots of media attention, so censoring him would hurt Twitter more.

A better question may be why they haven't come down harder on terrorist activities on Twitter

Because of the Golden Rule

[penguinoid]

He who has the gold, makes the rules. And boy, does Trump have the gold.

What is Trump saying on twitter that is so bad?

[SuperKendall]

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.

Re:Because he's a legitimate presidential candidat

[Anonymous Coward]

Being a candidate gives you the right to email above-top-secret information in the clear and not immediately go to prison... why wouldn't it allow you to post "supposedly" bad stuff on twitter?

What does this have to do with Slashdot?

[marcle]

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.

Stop.

[ArylAkamov]

Can we stop calling opposing political opinions "trolling" and "hate speech"?

The word has lost all meaning at this point.

Unless people actually think Trump is doing what he is doing for the lulz and purely to bother people.

Re:Stop.

[93 Escort Wagon]

Sort of like referring to people as "heroes" just because they died due to the actions of a bad person. If they weren't doing something arguably heroic at the time, their deaths are certainly tragic... but not heroic.

Try Introspection, Lauren

[Elias Israel]

Calling Trump a fascist and demanding he not be permitted to speak is such delightful irony that I pray the writer did it on purpose. Or, they are missing the point of liberal, modern civilization so badly that they should go back to school. And, no, I don't approve of Donald Trump. He can go hump an a-bomb for all I care.

comment from Poland

[Jacek Poplawski]

I live in Poland. I use Slashdot for a long time.
I remember first Obama campaign and pathetic political propaganda on Digg. Not just bad, it was really pathetic.
Looks like you will never learn, now there is a huge anti-Trump propaganda on Slashdot.
Twitter should shut down his account? What about facebook? Google?
Why this community is so brainwashed?

Re: The wall will be built

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck building a wall. Just put high powered lasers that will incinerate anything that crosses the line. As for illegals already in the country, we should send SWAT teams to raid to their homes.

Also, we should require valid legal resident documentation in order to rent a home.

Because the headline is bullshit

[mysidia]

Twitter gets to decide how they like to enforce their policies, and shutting down honest discussion and posting of truth on a political or social issue by someone, candidate or not, would be shameful, and drive people away from Twitter.

Nobody has shown proof of a Twitter ToS violation by Trump on Twitter.

The guy's team posted some Tweets which became controversial; However, all the tweats claimed to be "Racist" appear to not be racist, unless you have a colored interpretation driven by a politically biased agenda against Trump.

Anti-trump bloggers describing Trump's postings as ToS violations are "Seeing what they want to see".

Insane levels of Political correctness detected.

[goombah99]

How dit this idiocy reach the front page of slashdot. Is this the new management at work?

Re:The wall will be built

[MightyMartian]

Because a guy who is going out of his way to show his complete contempt for everything from the Bill of Rights to basic human decency will just make things so keen.

What do you suppose would happen if someone like Trump were elected President? Do you think the Supreme Court and Congress would just take a holiday and let him play out his Fascist dictator fantasies? His time in the White House would be horrible for everyone involved. Congress would spend most of its time dispensing with his vetoes, defunding any department he tried to turn to whatever idiotic or evil plan (if you can call what he does "planning") he had in mind. The Oval Office would resemble Nixon on steroids, as it would be the first time in over forty years that a POTUS had almost no friends on the Hill. About the only place there would be activity would be the Federal Courts and SCOTUS as Congress and everyone else that Trump screws takes his Administration to court, likely ending in impeachment for any of a dozen flagrant, even proud high crimes and misdemeanors.

He's been trying for months now

[rsilvergun]

to do just that. Every time he says something nutso his poll numbers go up. Thing is, white working class America knows something is wrong, but they don't know what to do about it. They don't believe in the income inequality fairy, but they do know that they're losing ground. Their kids aren't going to college, or if they are they leave a public university with $60k in debt. They haven't seen a raise in years that wasn't immediately eaten up by price increases.

What they want and need is the Nordic Model. But they haven't got a chance. Most of these guys spend 2 hours a day commuting to their shitty jobs listening to Rush. They spent their childhood being told that if you work hard and play by the rules and don't get ahead it's your fault. Heck, when the millennials started complaining about the 60 hour work weeks with no benefits or job security or even food security they scoffed at them. They don't want help. They were told they could make it on their own. The keep getting told this by billionaires and their media outlets. I've tried reasoning with them but it's no go. They've got an answer for every point I make spoon fed to them by those same billionaires.

But they still know something's wrong. Trumps the only man they got.

Re:He's been trying for months now

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it's not the billionaires I feel threatened by, it's people like Hillary who only see their political position and nothing more. She's the one that shuts out people like Lessig from participating in government. Between her, or any other politician, and Trump, Trump is the lesser evil. He's a bumbling buffoon versus someone who deals regularly in shady government practices.

Re:The wall will be built

[Noah Haders]

Congress would spend most of its time dispensing with his vetoes, defunding any department he tried to turn to whatever idiotic or evil plan (if you can call what he does "planning") he had in mind.

why woudl you think this? repubs own both halves of congress, and while I don't think they'll go in for his most radical stuff, they're not going to outwardly challenge or overrule him.

Re:Seriously?

[Hognoxious]

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.

Politics, Not Tech

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the kind of story that belongs elsewhere. Hey, new owners, let's keep /. tech focused.

Re:The wall will be built

[um... Lucas]

The "establishment" (who make up the majority of both Houses) Republicans are not exactly in his corner. I doubt they'll play along with anything that they think would be detrimental to their party, and especially their own jobs when mid-term elections come around.

Re:The wall will be built

[uncqual]

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.

Re:The wall will be built

[MightyMartian]

Trump draws the dots and lets his supporters connect them.

Twitter can't do that...

[Karmashock]

... and remain a viable place for people to voice their ideas.

If Twitter becomes a progressive hug box then that's all it will be... and its value as a company will be very low.

This is a mistake a lot of social media outlets are making recently. They think "oh we want to get rid of all the things that look icky to some people"... the problem is that "the internet sees censorship as damage and routes around it." which means if twitter censors people... they will appear to large portions of the user base as "damaged"... and they will be bypassed.

Twitter cannot ban something like trump because he's clearly very popular with a large number of people.

What is more, Twitter is letting ISIS say what they want... how crazy do you have to be to think Trump should be censored but ISIS shouldn't?

Nutty people.

Re:The wall will be built

[khallow]

Do you think the Supreme Court and Congress would just take a holiday and let him play out his Fascist dictator fantasies?

I think we've Godwined this far enough. I think the US Supreme Court would do the same thing they did for Obama when he played out his Fascist dictator fantasies.

The Oval Office would resemble Nixon on steroids, as it would be the first time in over forty years that a POTUS had almost no friends on the Hill. About the only place there would be activity would be the Federal Courts and SCOTUS as Congress and everyone else that Trump screws takes his Administration to court, likely ending in impeachment for any of a dozen flagrant, even proud high crimes and misdemeanors.

This is a huge thing that is missed. If Trump gets elected, it'll probably be the best opportunity this century to curb the power of the US Presidency.

maybe because it's not

[slashmydots]

I hate Donal Trump but I also have a brain. Saying "some Mexicans crossing the border illegally are felons and rapists" is not racist, it's true and an actual political problem. What Democrats (and idiots) HEAR is "all Mexicans are rapists and felons." It's not like he's tweeting "white power" or something blatantly racist.