Slashdot Mirror
Twitter Allegedly Deleting Negative Tweets About United Airlines' Passenger Abuse (thenextweb.com)
New submitter dooode writes: As you would have read, United just had another Nazi moment where they had to "re-accommodate" a customer using some (not so gentle) force. The social web seems to have been taken by a storm by this incident. But suddenly people are noticing their tweets are being deleted -- some of them merely status questions. Does twitter make money (read bribes) to delete negative tweets? What do you feel about it? The Next Web adds that "some of the allegedly deleted tweets did not directly mention the incident with the forcibly removed passenger." On the flip side, "some of the initial tweets exposing United Airlines' abusive treatment of passengers are still very much present and actively being reshared on the platform." It's possible that the "allegedly deleted tweets" initially appeared as replies to now-deleted tweets, but TNW says they contacted several users who rejected that premise, "claiming the missing posts were standard tweets."
Steering people to a platform where they get used to being censored is the entire point of Web 2.0, isn't it? What, do you want people to learn how to host their own webpages again? Luddite.
Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
Usually it's phrased "How do you feel?" and "What do you think?". (Perhaps you could ask someone reaching into a dark hole "What do you feel?") Also, you don't normally say "What do you think about it?" because the "about it" part is implied.
"another Nazi moment"
Uh, Godwin's law? If "new submitter dooode" hasn't heard from the news, drawing any such comparisons is very much off-limits.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
...was the bizarre term used by the CEO.
I have no clue whether they "deleted tweets" and if so which and how many about what.
But can people please stop acting surprised when you centralize your communications on a commercial service you do not control, cannot run yourself on your own node because it's proprietary, and which grants itself 100% control of the contents of your communications, and then that service somehow alters or removes things you say? It's all inside their walled garden. You said that was OK when you signed up.
If you give control to someone, don't complain when they use it.
Twitter has obviously gotten WAY away from being a Common Carrier in any sense, since they are constantly cherry-picking what is and is not allowed to be seen.
Someone needs to file a lawsuit over this and soon, so Twitter can go back to being a platform.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
He brought this on himself ...
I'm not sure about this. You seem to be suggesting that he should have yielded to authoritarianism without being able to state his case. I kinda get it -- he who runs away lives to fight another day. Maybe. Yield to the dictator du'jour. Acquiesce to those in charge simply because they are "in charge". The people have no power. I don't particularly like where this is heading.
I'm trying to imagine the response if it had been an elderly black woman or a man wearing a ghutrah.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
If the rules are that everyone has to do everything a flight attendant asks (as long the flight flight attendant asks nicely) then I'm going to become a flight attendant and (nicely) ask everyone to give me all their money. And then, for an encore, I'll (nicely) ask all the hotties to have sex with me. :)
I would be interested to know if UA uses any of the "reputation management companies" on this list. Do they put in the call to Twitter and other social media platforms, or is it handled directly by corporate?
Either way, its all hands on deck for the corporate shills. They will censor where they can, and are already using character assassination as a tactic.
"United just had another Nazi moment "
This is beyond even Gawker grade shit posting.
Twitter deleting posts is a good story.
Whether or not United Airlines calling in the police to drag an uncooperative passenger off the plane (as was their right to do) is crossing the line is a good story.
Calling the actions nazi-esque (which they were not) is kindergarten level bullshit.
But maybe I shouldn't be surprised at how far this site as fallen.
I expect, despite the certain unpleasantness of the beating, that he is going to come out way ahead on this by the time the lawsuits are settled.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
what's twitter? it's become a text based implementation of an Apple style walled garden it would seem.
Steering people to a platform where they get used to being censored is the entire point of Web 2.0, isn't it? What, do you want people to learn how to host their own webpages again? Luddite.
It's clearly hate speech, and should be deleted for that reason.
You wouldn't want people to be able to shout hateful things on the internet, would you?
And besides, it's not the government that's doing it, it's a private company. They can censor anything they want because they're not bound by the constitution, and people are free to leave twitter and start their own social media service.
Also: Gab.aio is a free-speech twitter alternative. Check out their humor channel sometime - it's actually funny!
Gonna Godwin things up right in the summary?
He who runs away lives to run away another day.
There will never be a shortage of people who will toadie up to bullies in the hope of not being bullied themselves.
Just look at the House GOP caucus.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Meanwhile people cowardly watched, took pictures and made videos.
--- Signature? You must be kidding!
Bullshit. It was not a lawful order. You do not have to follow an unlawful order.
He had boarded. All restrictions and regulations about bumping people are before a passenger boards.
"So, even if United argued that there was some ambiguity in “denied boarding” based upon “boarding priority” – and that it could possibly mean removal based upon a removal priority – a court would be forced to rule against this interpretation because United drafted the contract."
Once he is on, then he could potentially be thrown off because of "Refusal of Transport", but...
"The rule, which unlike the denied boarding rule does provide for removal “from the aircraft at any point,” lists some two dozen justifications including: unruly behavior, intoxication, inability to fit into one seat, medical problems or concerns, etc. But nowhere in the list of some two dozen reasons is there anything about over booking, the need to free up seats, the need for seats to accommodate crew members to be used on a different flight etc."
Therefore it's not a lawful order. If a cop tells you to fight another person for his or her amusement or sing Auld Lang Syne, you don't have to follow it.
http://lawnewz.com/high-profil...
Are you an Oprah wannabe?
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
>"I think I would have gone quietly and complained afterward."
That strategy is only good for cases where you are merely unhappy, rather than are being treated unfairly. The airlines who do this already know that people who are bumped involuntarily are going to be unhappy, and they don't care, and won't change. Complaining might get you additional compensation, but won't get the airlines to change. By resisting, this guy may have changed things for the better for all of us.
Of the new United Training Film.
But seriously, the weather, let's see how they compete against Delta. Maybe we can make this an Olympic event
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
When all the governments started acting like Despots.
It gets in the way of calling them out for Acting like Nazis.
Spicer is just an idiot; he needs his Easter Bunny Costume back.
(Yes, really...)
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
already pointed this out, but it bears repeating: Nothing will come of this because all the major airlines were allowed to merge into 4 big ones and they tacitly collude to avoid competition. So if you need to fly sooner or later you're going to be a customer of United or you're gonna pay though the nose x10 taking the most round about routes possible (fancy going from LA to Phoenix via Barcelona?).
This is why we used to regulate public services like transportation. But as the saying goes ain't nobody got time for that...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
United ordering him to leave his seat may have been against their own, or FAA, regulations. He has a point there. He could argue to his hearts content to the attendant, pilot, boarding agent, whomever.
Not doing what a police officer orders? At that point it doesn't matter - you have to comply. The place to argue an unlawful police order is a court of law.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Pretty please give me your wallet?
You wouldn't want to bring a beat down on yourself, would you?
I'm not sure about this. You seem to be suggesting that he should have yielded to authoritarianism without being able to state his case.
This isn't authoritarianism any more than having a post deleted on a web forum by a moderator is authoritarianism. Aircraft owned by airlines are in fact private property.
Are United assholes for doing this? Yep, but don't try to confuse the issue.
Every utterance from a lawyer not a direct quote of statute is pretty much an opinion.
Yes. It's "He *who fights*, and runs away, lives to fight another day." The essence of modern asymmetric warfare.
800 bucks to compensate for "volunteering" to go home tomorrow instead of today? united did not dangle a big enough carrot. they're cheapskates, who didn't even offer-up the most they themselves would be liable for for involuntarily bumping a passenger.. and then turned around and had their computer "pick" the four lowest margin tickets to tear up instead.
fuck them, and fuck you for even one second thinking this is in any way even partially the good doctor's fault. i hope that high horse you rode in on "re-accomodates" your ass.
"He brought this on himself."
Because he lawfully boarded a plane and had a right to stay?
"Next time should they ask pretty please, with a cherry on top?"
Yes, they should, a way of doing that is increasing compensation amounts until enough people take it.
"Disregard a flight crew AND law enforcement at your own peril. News at 11."
So if a flight crew or cop said "stand up and take off all your clothes while I piss on you" you'd simply roll over and take it?
Actually, don't answer that last one.
And negroes should sit in the back of the bus or hop off the bus and quietly complain afterwards. Polite requests have always worked in the past after all.
I think there's a word that applies to situations where corporations utilize the police power of the state to enforce their corporate whims...
we should blame ourselves. People generally book by one and only one parameter, price. There are dozens of websites to help you save 50 cents on your ticket price. The airlines have responded by squeezing you for a pillow, blanket, chips, water and coming soon, taking a wiz.
China's pretty damn corrupt on it's own merits. It's sheer size makes it look more competitive than it actually is.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I'm not sure about this. You seem to be suggesting that he should have yielded to authoritarianism without being able to state his case.
That is precisely correct. In a country governed by a rule of law, the correct place to state your case is in court, when you sue the shit out of everybody, not getting physical with the cops.
If you don't like it, move to a place with no rule of law, like, say, Somalia or the Caliphate.
I've been saving the stream of "united" tweets since Apr 10 15:32. At this point I have close to 4 million tweets saved and over 700MB of data. I may have the deleted tweets, but definitely not if they don't have the word united in them.
I think some users may be confused. I can see in the data that @Jay_Beecher's earliest tweet about united was April 10th 18:12, which seems to be the one he is thinking was deleted. But that tweet is here. If he thinks its gone because he is looking at his normal tweet timeline, then he doesn't understand how Twitter's interface works. It doesn't show tweets that start with an @. Other people I checked (TalkIBC, iknowimbitter, seem to be equally confused.
Based on the data I have, I don't think Twitter deleted any tweets.
I'm trying to imagine the response if it had been an elderly black woman or a man wearing a ghutrah.
...or a first class passenger. Oh. Wait. No. That'd never happen.
I made a funny.
On what do you base the claim that, if he had cooperated with the demand he leave the plane, that he would have been incapable of filing a lawsuit later on?
This wouldn't happen on Mastodon! It's distributed and decentralized
"The plane has not "boarded" until the doors have been closed and sealed."
The plane may not have boarded, but the passenger clearly has.
"And if a US cop tells me to do something, particularly a CPD, then by fuck I'm going to follow it, or risk having my 6th vertebrae snapped when the officer picks me up in a headlock."
If a CPD tells me to strip naked and sing Auld Lang Syne at the top of my lungs, I will tell him no. And I will be legally correct. The fact that he may decide to assault me doesn't change that fact.
"so you lose one internet." Nope. I assure you, I still have an internet.
United are causing a PR nightmare here. There is not enough they can pay twitter to make them take United's side. Just censoring twitter would be pointless given how the mainstream media and every other website is crucifying United.
If we look at the deleted tweet it's clearly using an Indiana Jones clip. Possibly this one. Tagging @IndianaJones (An official studio account) may simply have caused an overzealous account admin to see it and make a copyright complaint.
As fas as I heard, they actually did that, but stopped at $800.
Which was probably a bad move, because at that point, people are waiting for the psychologically important threshold of $1000 being crossed.
I'm not sure about this. You seem to be suggesting that he should have yielded to authoritarianism without being able to state his case.
This isn't authoritarianism any more than having a post deleted on a web forum by a moderator is authoritarianism. Aircraft owned by airlines are in fact private property.
Are United assholes for doing this? Yep, but don't try to confuse the issue.
Imagine if the car industry operated this way. You buy a car, but when you go to pick it up, eh sorry, we sold it to someone else. Whether it is is legal or not by the airline industry is irrelevant to the more profound and important question: is it right? A contract is a contract, and that the fact that airlines have the power to force an overbooking clause in a ticket sale contract turns it into an "addition contract" that enforces an inequality in bargaining power for the other party (the consumer base.)
Protesting and causing stocks to dive is the only way for the customer base to address that contract inequality in general, and this specific violation of human dignity in particular.
On what do you base the claim that, if he had cooperated with the demand he leave the plane, that he would have been incapable of filing a lawsuit later on?
Yes, he would have since he would have "complied" with what is, in essence, an adhesion contract clause (that he can get bumped out if the airline overbooked.)
The greatest problem for UA in this case is that they decided to bump people already seated.
Airlines typically bump out people that aren't boarded yet, then by cheapest ticket fare, leaving disabled and people with children for last. Airlines would typically offer money upfront (not just a ticket) to get someone to volunteer. Keep rising the size of the carrot until someone willingly takes it (it is always cheaper than *this*.)
This both a moral and a financial fuck up by UA no matter how you cut it.
Yes, he should. An airplane is a dictatorship, not a democracy. Think about it this way; by refusing a legal order, he was holding the rest of the passengers hostage.
Such a dictatorship is not absolute, there are limits on what a crew can demand. The demand to leave the plane was clearly not security related; nobody would be endangered while he stayed in his seat, it would only inconvenience the airline.
Calling the order 'legal' is also highly debatable. He was already boarded, while the rules to resolve overbooking only apply before somebody is boarded. And the 'holding the rest of the passengers hostage' thing is just a standard thug excuse.
Finally, the passenger's objection was very valid.
he Progressive excuse for all manner of corporate authoritarianism and malfeasance.
"Progressive" excuse? Sorry, USian political slang confuses me immensely. Can you define what you actually mean by "Progressive"?
If you are extreme enough on the right wing, you consider everyone from Communists to ultra-Conservatives as "left wing" or "progressive". Similarly, but not identically, if you are an extreme libertarian, then basically anything in the political mainstream is equally evil, and that includes normal businesses just as much as Stalinists or Fascists.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Bullshit. It was not a lawful order. You do not have to follow an unlawful order.
Two different lawyer friends both said that they felt that the order to leave the plane was lawful and the customer was in the wrong for refusing to do so. However, that doesn't mean that the customer can't go to court and get a big payout anyway. I asked one for some more details and asked specifically if he felt that the customer was assaulted in being forcibly dragged off the plane. He said that in his opinion he felt that a jury probably wouldn't rule that way. You do need to realize that anything can happen once a jury gets the case, so the fact that he said he didn't think a jury would find that to be assault doesn't mean with absolute certainty that's the verdict they would return. But both lawyers still thought the situation was horribly handled by United and the customer can probably make big money in a settlement as they doubt it will go to trial.
This shows that you're just a pushover. I have a violent record from when i was younger. Any interaction i have with a police officer, they are very polite as am i. I comply with legal orders from them but laugh at anything in the grey area of the law. I know a few decent lawyers in the city i live in and am very well versed in criminal law. Plus they know and understand that if they try to take advantage of me i WILL fight, physically and legally. because as soon as they're in the wrong and they strike me, They are no longer(sorry its early cant remember technical term for) a person of the law, and i now have the right to incapacitate them to protect myself. Then after that i would call the police to come wipe up their scum. Fortunately that hasn't happened to me and im sure that it wont. but if i was in this mans shoes as soon as i was touched to be physically removed all bets would have been off, and i would have not been the only person with blood on my lip.The founding fathers of our nation FOUGHT for your right not to be treated this way. The laws that they have imposed in the Great Nation that fight resulted in also states that YOU can fight for your rights also, Physically if need be. I dont know what country you come from, and really dont care because from your attitude i dont want to visit and have a run in with you obvious from your comment above the law police officers.
Lawsuits? To get what, money in compensation? How does money smooth out wrongdoings? Money is not justice.
You are an idealist... What else do you think the person who was forcibly taken out of the airplane should try to do in return then? Asking for a formal apology from the airline at his home? The pride can't feed him, and it would be forgotten pretty soon. Laws changed? He can't simply change the law; besides, why would he spend even more money to lobby? A law suit is a tangible (monetary) reward that he could get at best...
I'm not sure about this. You seem to be suggesting that he should have yielded to authoritarianism without being able to state his case. I kinda get it -- he who runs away lives to fight another day. Maybe. Yield to the dictator du'jour. Acquiesce to those in charge simply because they are "in charge". The people have no power. I don't particularly like where this is heading.
I'm trying to imagine the response if it had been an elderly black woman or a man wearing a ghutrah.
There is a time and a place to fight everything. Once he was asked to get off of the plane, he was breaking the law. I, as an individual, do not believe that private property laws need protesting, even if this behavior by United was inappropriate. Protest at the gate. For one thing, he would have found that United would have made better accommodations than what they were offering people to accept as a volunteer. They would have booked him on another airline, if necessary.
The tl;dr of it all is that this situation should have never occurred; that's United's fault. Him getting dragged off the plane was his own fault once it escalated to that point.
Bullshit. It was not a lawful order. You do not have to follow an unlawful order.
Private property laws allow them to deny him access to private property at any time. Therefore it was a lawful order. Whether or not they could be sued for violating the Contract of Carriage laws is irrelevant as they have the right to ask him to deplane. He can sue if they did violate the Contract of Carriage laws, but he cannot refuse to leave private property.
Not from UA though. The law seems to side on the airline with this one pretty heavily. Maybe the police dept used could be sued, but the airline aside from bad press and stock drops won't be paying for this.
Pretty please give me your wallet?
You wouldn't want to bring a beat down on yourself, would you?
In the USA the police officer would say "Give me that wallet, its obvious drug money."
Civil forfeiture.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Simply make a service much like Twitter with a similar name, but controlled by the users, not a soulless, bought-and-paid for corrupt corporation and it's bullshit owners. Democratize that bitch! Also, while you're at it, the 140 character arbitrary bullshit limit has to go, so maybe increase it to... whatever you want to put in your account profile. Then let other people limit how many characters they want to read, as part of THEIR profile, allowing people to decide for themselves, rathr thn frcng ppl to tlk mr & mr lik ths, bc THS SHT s jst FCKNG anyng!
Like 'Twatter'?
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Is it really accurate to call it a "Nazi moment"? Were the Nazis in the habit of dragging people off of planes? I mean, I get that it's trendy these days to accuse people of being a Nazi just for disagreeing with you, but...
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
You typed "USsians" but it's spelled "Americans". Easy mistake to make.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
He who runs away lives to run away another day.
Its easy to tell who has no idea how to fight on the internet.
If you stand and fight against an opponent who can easily flatten you, you're going to get flattened. If you run away, you survive to fight a fight you can win.
Pretty sure Sun Tzu covered this shit pretty early on in his treatise.
The greatest military defeats of WWII came from leaders who refused to allow a retreat. Running away isn't cowardice, it's smart. It gives you time and resources. Winning is about picking your battles, sometimes this means that you surrender the battles that dont count or cant be won at that time so you have the ability to win the ones that count or come back when the odds are in your favour.
If Hitler had allowed his troops to fall back to the Polish/Russian border the Nazis still would have been beaten, but the Russians would have expended so many more troops and resources that eastern Europe might not have suffered 50 years of communism.
As someone who knows enough Krav to reliably beat most untrained opponents, I'll still back away from a fight if I can because:
1) Even though I'll probably win, I'll still get hurt. Hell, I get hurt enough just training.
2) I don't feel the need to win dick measuring contests.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.