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.
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.
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.
He who runs away lives to run away another day.
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...
>"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.
Bollocks.
The police can under the right circumstances do a strip search.
That does not give a police officer the right to demand you strip off on the street.
The airline was WRONG.
It was NOT over booked, they wanted seats to transports staff. They should have known this before anyone boarded and gone though the process before anyone got on the plane. United screwed up big time and I hope this costs them millions.
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.
Before condemning Twitter for oppressing your sacred tweets, perhaps we should establish if they did actually delete them or not. So far we have some claims from some dubious accounts that tweets went missing, but no actual evidence. No tweet ID numbers, no archived copies, no orphaned responses to the missing tweets... When tweets are deleted, it doesn't kill of replies to them, it just breaks the reply chain and you can easily see what happened.
I'm calling bullshit on this one until someone produces some actual evidence. If you don't need proof then let's have a conversation about how Slashdot deletes "controversial" posts and how awful that is, because even though I have no evidence I swear it really happened!
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC