Twitter Suspends 300,000 Accounts Tied To Terrorism In 2017 (bloomberg.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Twitter Suspends 300,000 Accounts Tied To Terrorism In 2017 (bloomberg.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Tuesday September 19, 2017 @01:25PM from the ahead-of-the-curve dept.

According to a new transparency report, Twitter said it suspended nearly 300,000 accounts globally linked to terrorism in the first half of the year. The company is improving automation tools used to help block accounts that promote terrorism and violence. Bloomberg reports: Of [the nearly 300,000 accounts that were suspended], roughly 95 percent were identified by the company's spam-fighting automation tools. Meanwhile, the social network said government data requests continued to increase, and that it provided authorities with data on roughly 3,900 accounts from January to June. Twitter said about 75 percent of the blocked accounts this year were spotted before a single tweet was sent, and that 935,897 accounts had been suspended since August 2015, with two-thirds of those coming in the past year. American authorities made 2,111 requests from Twitter from January to June, the most of the 83 countries tracked by the company. Twitter supplied information on users in 77 percent of the inquiries. Japan made 1,384 requests and the U.K. issued 606 requests. Turkish authorities continued a trend of aggressively policing Twitter, making 554 requests for account data and issuing court orders to remove 715 pieces of content. Other governments made only 38 total content-removal requests.

69 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

300,000 terrorists? by William+Baric · 2017-09-19 13:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

Or is it rather 300,000 accounts from people who were not politically correct?
1. Re:300,000 terrorists? by UnknownSoldier · 2017-09-19 13:38 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Ha! Good point. You know that saying:
  One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.
  --
  t's been 1 minute since you last successfully posted a comment
  Fuck You /.
2. Re:300,000 terrorists? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-19 13:42 · Score: 1
  
  That sounds like something a terriorist would say.
3. Re:300,000 terrorists? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-19 13:46 · Score: 1
  
  Man I hate terrierists, always walkin' around with their little yappy bastard rats.
4. Re:300,000 terrorists? by BasilBrush · 2017-09-19 13:59 · Score: 1
  
  No, it's not.
5. Re:300,000 terrorists? by alvinrod · 2017-09-19 14:04 · Score: 2
  
  That's a fair point, but when someone is posting videos of burning apostates alive or beheading their enemies, I question what kind of freedom they're fighting for.
6. Re:300,000 terrorists? by stephanruby · 2017-09-19 14:10 · Score: 1
  
  Your example. Not mine.
  http://www.latimes.com/world/m...
7. Re:300,000 terrorists? by Gravis+Zero · 2017-09-19 14:15 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Or is it rather 300,000 accounts from people who were not politically correct?
  Nope, terrorism.
  
  --
  Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
8. Re:300,000 terrorists? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-19 14:16 · Score: 1
  
  Found another terrorist. Get him!
9. Re:300,000 terrorists? by stephanruby · 2017-09-19 14:18 · Score: 1
  
  Given that in the UK, they'll go after idiot trolls that make racist comments targeting celebrities. Yes, that's pretty much it. Not that I'm defending those trolls, but calling them terrorists is a bit much.
10. Re:300,000 terrorists? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-19 15:08 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  There's been a great disturbance on the internet. As if a million Nazi frogs reeeeeee'd out in anger and were suddenly silenced.
11. Re:300,000 terrorists? by William+Baric · 2017-09-19 15:38 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Oh, you mean terrorism. And I guess you also mean terrorism.
  See? I can play that game too. So be very careful who you accuse of terrorism, because there's a big chance you are someone who supports a group which some people would happily consider as "terrorist", meaning you are probably a terrorist yourself.
12. Re:300,000 terrorists? by negRo_slim · 2017-09-19 15:45 · Score: 1
  
  Considering...
  
  Twitter said about 75 percent of the blocked accounts this year were spotted before a single tweet was sent
  
  It really makes ya wonder how they knew these accounts were tied to "terrorism" and what criteria are they even being used to deplatform people.
  
  --
  On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
13. Re:300,000 terrorists? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-19 16:19 · Score: 0
  
  Keep in mind that Twitter is a corporation that can suspend or delete any account they want. They are not guarantors of first amendment rights. When someone creates an account they are agreeing to abide by Twitters user terms. Some of the terms are flexible and can be interpreted several different ways depending on the situation.
14. Re:300,000 terrorists? by Narcocide · 2017-09-19 16:26 · Score: 0
  
  5-10 terrorists managing tens to hundreds of thousands of accounts each. Are you really this stupid?
15. Re:300,000 terrorists? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-19 16:45 · Score: 0
  
  I looked it up on Wiki. The definition of terrorist according to Twitter is "an account holder who acts like an asshole and causes our shareholders to loose money".
16. Re:300,000 terrorists? by rtb61 · 2017-09-19 16:59 · Score: 0
  
  It seems you want to join in the action of being the target of a law suit. Lets see, twitter is accusing people of being terrorists and supporters of terrorism, that is slander of the worst sort, seriously that kind of accusation can get you killed in a steroid fuelled law enforcer raid. Twitter, you better have proof, you better have evidence before flinging around those kind of accusations. Now add in those bullshit claims by twitter, 'er' yeah morons, supporting terrorism is a fucking crime punishable by severe penalties, why the fuck are you not reporting those crimes as you are required to by law, no escaping that fact because you fucking morons are claiming it to censor people. Fuck you, you lying sack of shit corporation, prove in it court, otherwise we know the truth, you are censoring to politically manipulate the people and to kill criticism of corporations.
  So which way is it you shit heads at twitter, where those people really supporting terrorism and you failed to report those crimes as required by law, after you specifically searched them out or you are just another corporate censor seeking to censor for profit. It is a crime to not report a crime, so why the fuck are the executives of Twitter not being investigated and prosecuted, they have now made a public declaration that yes, they are criminals after the fact for failing to report crimes.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
17. Re:300,000 terrorists? by Zemran · 2017-09-19 19:13 · Score: 1
  
  "block accounts that promote terrorism and violence" = Anyone who questions the party line. In the UK you can get arrested for researching Hamas. Hamas are a democratically elected government, being Hamas official can mean being a school headmaster. Hesbollah the same.
  
  --
  I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
18. Re: 300,000 terrorists? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-19 19:31 · Score: 0
  
  Where do they set the money free? I want to be there.
19. Re:300,000 terrorists? by stealth_finger · 2017-09-19 20:21 · Score: 1
  
  That money needs to be tight dammit!
  
  --
  Wanna buy a shirt?
  https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
20. Re:300,000 terrorists? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-19 20:26 · Score: 0
  
  that is slander of the worst sort
  Slander requires communication to a third party. Terminating an account is not communication to a third party.
  
  you are censoring to politically manipulate the people
  Private corporations are not bound by the first amendment. My website, my rules. If you don't like my rules, start your own website.
  Have you been skipping you meds again?
21. Re:300,000 terrorists? by stud9920 · 2017-09-19 20:41 · Score: 1
  
  Ha! Good point. You know that saying:
  One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.
  --
  Just because it's a saying doesn't mean it's true.
  Harming people not actively involved in an injustice is terrorism.
  Harming people or assets when the military objective is to inflict terror on the victims is terrorism. It's the definition of it.
22. Re:300,000 terrorists? by SciCom+Luke · 2017-09-19 21:20 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  In Sweden you can fired for saying that islam might not be the best thing that ever happened to the country. :-(
23. Re:300,000 terrorists? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-19 21:43 · Score: 0
  
  USA harms innocents in Middle east, fucking terrorists. Allahku Akhbar!
24. Re:300,000 terrorists? by MoarSauce123 · 2017-09-19 22:33 · Score: 1
  
  Probably both...but they forgot to include Trump's account. I doubt hate speech and libel are covered by the terms of use.
25. Re: 300,000 terrorists? by Nidi62 · 2017-09-19 23:17 · Score: 1
  
  They are both political parties, but they also have militant wings. No different than Sinn Fein was with the IRA, or the Madhi Army during the Iraq war.
  
  --
  The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
26. Re:300,000 terrorists? by pjt33 · 2017-09-19 23:28 · Score: 1
  
  The rule which talks about terrorism is
  
  You may not make threats of violence or promote violence, including threatening or promoting terrorism.
  But either it's one rule for the élite and another for hoi polloi or threatening to nuke North Korea isn't a threat of violence.
27. Re:300,000 terrorists? by tinkerton · 2017-09-20 00:36 · Score: 1
  
  I look at it differently. Once the mechanism is fully in place 90% of the work is done and you can start with very conservative criteria to minimize opposition.
  After that, you can update the criteria unannounced every day to the needs of the moment and you can counter criticism by saying the system is not perfect and will be corrected to take in account the reactions.
28. Re:300,000 terrorists? by volodymyrbiryuk · 2017-09-20 00:50 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  It's only terrorism if brown people (especially muslims) do it.
  
  --
  sudo rm -r -f --no-preserve-root /
29. Re:300,000 terrorists? by Gravis+Zero · 2017-09-20 00:55 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, you mean terrorism. And I guess you also mean terrorism.
  Yes! You're getting it now! Terrorism is extreme violence that is intended to make political change by instilling fear.
  
  See? I can play that game too. So be very careful who you accuse of terrorism, because there's a big chance you are someone who supports a group which some people would happily consider as "terrorist", meaning you are probably a terrorist yourself.
  I do not support any person or group that promotes or uses violence to instill fear. Violence is a crude and ineffective tool for people who lack (metaphoric) vision.
  
  --
  Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
30. Re:300,000 terrorists? by dave420 · 2017-09-20 01:12 · Score: 2
  
  No, the definition is using terror to further political aims, or more accurately: the use or threat thereof of violence to politically coerce a people. Terrorism isn't an act, it's a motive.
31. Re:300,000 terrorists? by dave420 · 2017-09-20 01:14 · Score: 1
  
  Because of who they liked/followed, the content of their profile, direct messages to known assholes, etc. Twitter is more than just tweeting. Not much more, but more.
32. Re:300,000 terrorists? by alvinrod · 2017-09-20 01:43 · Score: 1
  
  Twitter is a private service and can remove users for violating their terms of services. I suspect that the grant-parent poster was trying to be a bit pithy by alluding to whether these accounts were actual terrorists or merely just people who held politically incorrect view points as Twitter has also caught a lot of flak for banning the accounts of people who have been associated with the alt-right or maybe even just the regular right.
  
  I personally think it's kind of pointless to ban anyone as free speech and public discourse are far better ways of dealing with idiots like ISIS. Trying to silence them just adds some mystique and allure to their cause, especially if you already dislike the government or western society for any number of reasons.
  
  All that aside, I think you missed my point entirely. It was that with a group like ISIS, their actions make me question what kind of freedom they're fighting for since it seems they have no desire to bring freedom to anyone, but rather to extinguish it. I suppose, you could reinterpret the expression to take it that they are actively fighting against freedom instead of the usual meaning of people fighting for freedom.
33. Re:300,000 terrorists? by hey! · 2017-09-20 02:30 · Score: 1
  
  If only there were some kind of Internet mechanism that would somehow link to other information resources that could answer questions like this. I have great acronym for it too: Really Terrific For Answers.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
34. Re:300,000 terrorists? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-20 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  I do not support any person or group that promotes or uses violence to instill fear. Violence is a crude and ineffective tool for people who lack (metaphoric) vision.
  Looks like you don't belong to any nation that has an army. Violence is what keeps everything in order otherwise Politics wouldn't result in armed men being deployed.
35. Re:300,000 terrorists? by UnknownSoldier · 2017-09-20 04:23 · Score: 0
  
  > Harming people not actively involved in an injustice is terrorism.
  Like the US dropping the atomic bomb killing ~129,000 of civilians in Japan. Got it.
36. Re:300,000 terrorists? by Travelsonic · 2017-09-20 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  Twitter is a private service and can remove users for violating their terms of services
  That wasn't his point - if they claim specific reasons, they DO have to be careful, as libel could be a concern depending on the accusation, and proof/lack thereof.
  
  --
  If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
37. Re:300,000 terrorists? by JohnFen · 2017-09-20 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  Looks like you don't belong to any nation that has an army.
  You've moved the goalposts here. He said he didn't "support any person or group that uses violence...".
  Belonging to a nation and supporting the actions of a nation are two entirely different things.
38. Re: 300,000 terrorists? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-20 09:32 · Score: 0
  
  Private corporations are not bound by the first amendment.
  Please point out where the GP mentioned the first amendment.
39. Re: 300,000 terrorists? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-20 10:26 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe it was WELLS FARGO that created all thise fake accounts.
US deserves terrorism by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-19 13:45 · Score: -1

Many people have a legitimate beef with the US empire, and any terrorism is well deserved to be honest.
1. Re:US deserves terrorism by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-19 14:10 · Score: 1
  
  If by US empire you mean people like the Clintons, Soros, the Rockafellars, de Rothschilds, etc, then yes.
  If you mean every day decent people who for decades had no knowledge and no power to stop the aforementioned, then no.
2. Re:US deserves terrorism by BitterOak · 2017-09-19 15:37 · Score: 2
  
  Many people have a legitimate beef with the US empire, and any terrorism is well deserved to be honest.
  Having a "legitimate beef" with someone doesn't entitle you to commit a terrorist act against them. I have a legitimate beef with people who double park, or cut me off on the highway, but that doesn't entitle me to detonate bombs in their homes, killing their innocent children.
  
  --
  If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
3. Re:US deserves terrorism by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-19 17:06 · Score: 1
  
  You really should stop reading whatever terrorist source taught you to spell Rockefeller.
  Aside from that: "Twitter said about 75 percent of the blocked accounts this year were spotted before a single tweet was sent."
  So basically, thought crimes.
4. Re:US deserves terrorism by Kiuas · 2017-09-19 20:46 · Score: 2
  
  Aside from that: "Twitter said about 75 percent of the blocked accounts this year were spotted before a single tweet was sent."
  So basically, thought crimes.
  No, basically IP based bans and automated spam filtering.
  I don't use twitter, but they run the platform so they set the rules. If they state you cannot post X, Y or Z and you do and get autobanned for it and the tweet doesn't go through and you're prevented from creating more accounts to try to spam the same message again, that's not a thought crime, that's you not using the service correctly.
  You may freely disagree with some (or even all) of their rules and policies, but that still doesn't change the fact that free speech does not translate to 'third parties must always publish my opinion on their platform.'
  
  --
  "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
5. Re:US deserves terrorism by drinkypoo · 2017-09-19 22:13 · Score: 1
  
  Having a "legitimate beef" with someone doesn't entitle you to commit a terrorist act against them. I have a legitimate beef with people who double park, or cut me off on the highway, but that doesn't entitle me to detonate bombs in their homes, killing their innocent children.
  So what about people whose homes we're bombing? Are they entitled to return the favor, or is it right when we bomb them but wrong when they bomb us? Because nobody is bombing us because we cut them off on the highway, which makes your example complete and total bullshit.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
6. Re:US deserves terrorism by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-20 00:06 · Score: 0
  
  So what about people whose homes we're bombing?
  Nope.
  
  Are they entitled to return the favor
  They aren't entitled to return the favor.
  
  or is it right when we bomb them but wrong when they bomb us?
  It's all wrong if that's the only justification you got. Completely insufficient.
7. Re:US deserves terrorism by AmiMoJo · 2017-09-20 00:07 · Score: 1
  
  "Twitter said about 75 percent of the blocked accounts this year were spotted before a single tweet was sent."
  So basically, thought crimes.
  Wait, Twitter can read my thoughts now?!? How else could they cut people off before they tweeted?
  Or maybe they just noticed some asshat using the same IP address to create accounts in bulk and then starting to post terrorist propaganda, and banned the whole lot of them. Or maybe they deleted one account that posted something, and all the brand new accounts with zero tweets that were following them and only them in an attempt to astroturf.
  Whenever Twitter uses even a tiny amount of intelligence to deal with abuse, people come up with all kinds of crazy conspiracy theories.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
8. Re:US deserves terrorism by CaptainDork · 2017-09-20 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  So, basically, TOS.
  
  --
  It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
9. Re:US deserves terrorism by tinkerton · 2017-09-20 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  You may freely disagree with some (or even all) of their rules and policies, but that still doesn't change the fact that free speech does not translate to 'third parties must always publish my opinion on their platform.'
  That's a valid argument, especially when you say 'must'. But when the market is dominated by a few players who get together with the government to enforce a blackout then that argument becomes highly dubious.
Trump? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-19 13:47 · Score: 2, Funny

Did they suspend Trump?
Funny: Captcha was "unifies"
1. Re:Trump? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-19 21:40 · Score: 0
  
  Fear-mongering and hate speech aren't considered illegal intimidation, so he's not actually a terrorist. He's just an asshole.
transparent terrorism tied to Twitter by turkeydance · 2017-09-19 13:59 · Score: 1

Tourettes
Twitter is run by terrorists by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-19 17:13 · Score: -1

Twitter is part of a multinational project of al-Qaeda's state sponsors to suppress any public opposition to their invasion of the West. They will take down identified terrorist accounts at the US government's request and leave the rest up while banning the accounts of ordinary people who speak out against al-Qaeda. They also run in-depth analysis of their users and ship the data to Saudi Arabia. The idiots in Washington think that they're getting a good deal out of it. It should be a national scandal.
Oh so black lives matter supporters? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-19 17:57 · Score: -1, Troll

I mean some of the extreme left are doing some fucking nutty things the past 3 years, like very, very fucking nutty, I'm pretty shocked to be honest.
But... blind eye! It's the point of the message! Let them do what they like against those "nazis" - wait you disagree with me? Must be a nazi! I'm free to enforce physical violence with no retribution.
We're going down a dark path.
Yay by Hognoxious · 2017-09-19 19:26 · Score: 1

Way to go, Twitter! If that doesn't stop them nothing will!

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
But not the biggest.. by erlando · 2017-09-19 20:06 · Score: 1, Troll

The twit-in-chief is still twitting away..

--
Remember, there are no stupid questions. But there are a lot of inquisitive idiots.
1. Re:But not the biggest.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-20 01:35 · Score: 1
  
  He has been allowed to break the TOS by threatening violence against others. He is a source of advertising and revenue for twitter , so they let him stay.
Re:15,000 terrorists? by sabbede · 2017-09-20 00:12 · Score: 1

That's my question. Well, that's my question about 5% of those, as the article states 95% of them were spam bots.
But yeah, how many were terrorists, how many were "not preferred opinions", and how many were just pissed at their governments for clamping down on free speech?
twitter = terorist organization by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-20 00:54 · Score: 0

A sovereign being capable of critical thought can decided for him/her self what is and isn't fake news and what is and isn't terrorism. Free speech and all, you get what you get with it and it's worth paying for in spades, better than depotism.
First people to talk about fake news = H, Rodham Clinton and CNN = fake news
First companies to behave like facist governors = Twitter.
Being an asshole doesn't necessarily make you a terrorist or a purveryor of "fake news" (propagandist term if ever I heard it) , but being a terrorist does make you an asshole.
If you disagree, you are in my opinion a terrorist and by extension, an asshole.
0 from ANTIFA? by sproketboy · 2017-09-20 02:12 · Score: 0, Troll

WTF?
Why by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-20 03:14 · Score: 0

If it's wrong to remove hate speech they should leave isis alone. Free speech and all
1. Re:Why by CaptainDork · 2017-09-20 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  "Free speech," doesn't mean what you think it does.
  Relative to the US, it's the idea that you can say stuff and not be arrested by the government .
  
  --
  It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
2. Re:Why by 0100010001010011 · 2017-09-20 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  The 1st Amendment means that you can say what you want and not get arrested by the government.
  "Free Speech" is concept that is older than the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  Some people believe that it is an intrinsic human right that goes beyond what the constitution or any one nation state's laws.
3. Re:Why by CaptainDork · 2017-09-20 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  What some people think is irrelevant in venues where intrinsic human rights is not a concept.
  Check local listings.
  
  --
  It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
I wonder how many white supremicists by doginthewoods · 2017-09-20 04:21 · Score: 2

are being allowed to post, seeing as many of them are not classified as "terrorists" even though they bomb, burn, kill, threaten, etc.

--
Republican leadership = Idiocracy
here is a terrorist by doginthewoods · 2017-09-20 04:26 · Score: 1

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/l... will her account be suspended?

--
Republican leadership = Idiocracy
bullshit by slashmydots · 2017-09-20 05:48 · Score: 0

They hired Anita Sarkeesian. "Terrorism" probably means you politely disagree with LGBT lifestyles.
75%? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-20 06:09 · Score: 0

" Twitter said about 75 percent of the blocked accounts this year were spotted before a single tweet was sent"
How can they tell if it's a terrorist account if it doesn't have any tweets? Can someone explain this to me please.