Slashdot Mirror


Twitter Employee Blamed For Deleting President Donald Trump's Account (npr.org)

A reader shares an NPR report: With the push of a button, an employee at Twitter accomplished for a brief few minutes on Thursday what President Trump's closest advisors have reportedly been trying unsuccessfully to do for months: shut down the seemingly never-ending tweet stream at @realDonaldTrump. Perhaps it was an act of civil disobedience, or maybe just a "take this job and shove it" moment, but shortly before 7 p.m., the president's personal account kicked back the error message "does not exist." By 7:03 p.m., it was up and running again and within about a half-hour, new presidential tweets were forthcoming. The folks at Twitter leapt into action to find out what had happened: "Earlier today @realdonaldtrump's account was inadvertently deactivated due to human error by a Twitter employee. The account was down for 11 minutes, and has since been restored. We are continuing to investigate and are taking steps to prevent this from happening again," the company said in a statement. Two hours later, the company said, "Through our investigation we have learned that this was done by a Twitter customer support employee who did this on the employee's last day."

377 comments

  1. The REAL question is by the_skywise · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How many other accounts have simply been disappeared by a twitter employee that didn't like the account that never got noticed and remained deleted because they weren't the President of the US?

    1. Re:The REAL question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unimportant plebs can easily sign up for a new account, what's the big deal? Anyone with enough followers that deleting their account would actually matter, would by definition probably be a big enough deal to get noticed.

    2. Re:The REAL question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Troll

      This is the $64,000 question right here. Twitter has been actively censoring viewpoints they don't like and there is literally no oversight. 1984 memory holes are alive and well at Twitter.

    3. Re:The REAL question is by leonbev · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, the real question is why they restored it so quickly. I would have loved having a week or two without having to hear about the latest Trump rant on CNN.

    4. Re: The REAL question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rumor has it... Your tv has something called an 'off' switch. You may want to give it a try.

    5. Re:The REAL question is by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would have loved having a week or two without having to hear about the latest Trump rant on CNN.

      Then maybe you should watch less CNN. Do you really think that their non-stop anti-Trump ranting is in any way going to be modified by whether or not he's just tweeted something? If they can go on for a solid day about which shoes his wife wears on the way to get on an airplane, your hopes for them shutting up their one-note editorial focus for a week or two because of ANY change in communication method by Trump is just a silly fantasy.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    6. Re:The REAL question is by T.E.D. · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Loads. I hear about it from their friends on Twitter all the time. Never seen one get restore this fast though. Usually its weeks, or the user just gives up and creates a new account.

      Arguably in this case, the account in question has in fact violated twitter's TOS repeatedly. Its been making death threats and bullying other twitter users even today after restoration. If it was anybody BUT the POTUS it would have been shut off long ago.

    7. Re:The REAL question is by naris · · Score: 4, Informative

      From what I saw it wasn't deleted, it was deactivated so history and stuff should remain. also explains how it was back up in 11 minutes.

    8. Re:The REAL question is by gnick · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Trump's tweets are the only reason I have Twitter installed. They're a national embarrassment, incredibly reckless, and I wish they'd stop. I REALLY wish they'd stop. But, since they won't, I make the most of them. They're a window into the confusing mind of a very powerful man. We always know exactly what he's thinking. And, for better or worse, so does anyone else. In the sense that he's accurately reflecting his thoughts, he's more honest there than anywhere else. Even when his tweets are wildly inaccurate, I'm convinced that he believes what he tweets when he tweets it.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    9. Re:The REAL question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many other accounts have simply been disappeared by a twitter employee that didn't like the account that never got noticed and remained deleted because they weren't the President of the US?

      Not enough of them..

    10. Re:The REAL question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could be millions! We need a class action lawsuit to get all our money back! In other news, I wouldn't go so far as to recommend government regulation of twitter as I can only assume you are advocating with such a rhetorical question....

    11. Re: The REAL question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and the marionette dances at it dangles from the peformers hands.

    12. Re:The REAL question is by EndlessNameless · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Jail time incoming for this illegal misuse of corporate services and computers.

      That is extremely unlikely to happen. If a user cannot sue Twitter for deleting his account, who is going to bother with the ex-employee?

      As far as "illegal misuse", this employee was apparrently granted access to manage user accounts. Unless he circumvented security measures to get that access, he didn't break the law. Firing an employee for misuse is certainly reasonable, but Twitter doesn't need to bother if he already left the company.

      I anticipate no legal consequences. Is 11 minutes without Twitter even justification for a torte?

      Another libtard is about to realise the world isn't like their faggy echo-chamber they create for themselves.

      Ah, so we have a reason for your rush to authoritative, punitive judgment: partisan politics.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    13. Re:The REAL question is by I75BJC · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I never hear of these so-called "Trump rants". I don't watch CNN or any TV news outlets. (All the stories are virtually the same. It's just the characters, the places, or the causes/issues that are different. That's all. I ignored the Media for 6 months once, on purpose, and then listened again. Every story was the same just different characters, places, and clauses/issues. Just the same bovine scat. Like in the "Casablanca" film, at the end, when the Vichy French officer instructs his junior police officers to round up the "usual suspects". American Politics is exactly the same -- just a drama to keep the uninformed from living their lives. These sycophants want all the attention focused on theirselves but they don't desire it. But you have fallen into the Trap!)

    14. Re:The REAL question is by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      No, the REAL question is - does this ex-employee have a Patreon?

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    15. Re:The REAL question is by chispito · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      No, the real question is why they restored it so quickly. I would have loved having a week or two without having to hear about the latest Trump rant on CNN.

      Then don't watch CNN.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    16. Re:The REAL question is by Tough+Love · · Score: 0

      maybe you should watch less CNN

      CNN just reports the news, and indeed, they report being shocked/outraged/horrified by it. Thanks for that, I'm shocked by it too. Think Hindenberg, humanity. To get away from it, you need to watch less Trump, but then, there's a risk with that strategy too.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    17. Re:The REAL question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love comments like this. Makes me happy when I vote progressively and take money out of your pocket to pay for the common good. Don't like it? There's the door buddy, I'm not going anywhere and I'm making friends quicker than you are.

    18. Re:The REAL question is by Tough+Love · · Score: 0, Troll

      They're a window into the confusing mind of a very powerful man.

      More like, a window into his butt.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    19. Re:The REAL question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump's tweets are the only reason I have Twitter installed.

      Sad!

    20. Re:The REAL question is by arth1 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Jail time incoming for this illegal misuse of corporate services and computers.

      That would be nice, but nothing really sticks to Trump, and he's said that he can pardon himself if need be...

    21. Re:The REAL question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No one has enough followers that deleting their account would actually matter. Deleting the whole of Twitter would not matter except that it would probably make the world a better place.

    22. Re:The REAL question is by arth1 · · Score: 1

      No, the real question is why they restored it so quickly.

      Indeed. I have read enough stories of how others have had to fight to get access back when it was removed in error. He should have gone through the same process as others, and being met with the same runarounds and scripted first level support as everybody else.
      He has the @POTUS account for presidential use, and should not have any special privileges for his personal account.

    23. Re:The REAL question is by gnick · · Score: 2, Informative

      ...coastal liberals, they make my day.

      Wishing that DJT would stop tweeting does not make me a liberal. Wishing that everyone had access to food, shelter, and healthcare makes me a liberal.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    24. Re:The REAL question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      He can only pardon himself for federal offenses. Criminal charges from a state would still stick.

    25. Re:The REAL question is by Tough+Love · · Score: 1, Troll

      They're a window into the confusing mind of a very powerful man.

      More like, a window into his butt.

      Triggered, Ivan?

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    26. Re:The REAL question is by WheezyJoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Every story was the same just different characters, places, and clauses/issues. Just the same bovine scat. Like in the "Casablanca" film, at the end, when the Vichy French officer instructs his junior police officers to round up the "usual suspects". American Politics is exactly the same -- just a drama to keep the uninformed from living their lives.

      That's because most "news" has to be entertaining, in order to attract people's attention and keep it long enough to expose them to an ad, ask them for a pledge, or persuade them their tax money is well spent (depending on what country you're in). So they broadcast most often what they think is going to grab the most attention.

      There's actually two kinds of news. The first kind you watch only because your job depends on it. This news is boring: farming reports, commodity news, financial news and market reports, that kind of thing. You won't see Trump's Tweets there, but unless you have some reason to watch/read/listen to this stuff, you won't.

      Then there's the other news that you watch because it's at least part-way entertaining. Informative, sure, but politics, disasters, and videos of kittens being rescued from a tree are all entertaining, and the people in these businesses are in competition with each other to get more viewers. They all look the same? No surprise - in media and politics, you tend to work the same formula that succeeded in the past. FWIW, Trump's Tweets attracts attention, so infotainment news splashes them up like they're the next damn moon landing. Followed by an important message from Polident denture cleaner (keeps your teeth from being stinky and gross). Mission accomplished.

      --
      Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
    27. Re:The REAL question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF? This is some Hillary-Clinton-level paranoid delusion.

    28. Re:The REAL question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      *Wishing* everyone had access to food, shelter, and healthcare while doing nothing except whining on the internet to give anyone any of those things makes you a liberal, yes.

    29. Re:The REAL question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh come on, nobody here will believe that you watch or have watched CNN.

    30. Re:The REAL question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. Because posting to /. means that's the only step he's taken. Brilliant. Obviously being a liberal means doing nothing, which is why we have none in office. Thanks.

    31. Re: The REAL question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words, you're acting like an outraged pussy who pretends to be righteous, but really you just love drama.

      You could have saved a lot of typing and just said, "I'm a leftist."

    32. Re:The REAL question is by slashmydots · · Score: 1

      That's happening right now on Youtube to my friend's account. His conservative video keeps getting demonetized and then approved over and over.

    33. Re:The REAL question is by Kjella · · Score: 1

      That is extremely unlikely to happen. If a user cannot sue Twitter for deleting his account, who is going to bother with the ex-employee?

      Not sure what you're trying to suggest, the company has both made the terms of service and the employment contract so both favor Twitter. That Twitter can do whatever it wants with the users doesn't mean the employees can do whatever they want with Twitter, quite far from it.

      As far as "illegal misuse", this employee was apparrently granted access to manage user accounts. Unless he circumvented security measures to get that access, he didn't break the law. Firing an employee for misuse is certainly reasonable, but Twitter doesn't need to bother if he already left the company.

      I'm pretty sure that if I as a DBA "accidentally" dropped the production database on my last day of work there'd be some kind of criminal law on the books. I may not be charging with hacking as I'd only abuse privileges I rightfully have but I really doubt it would be purely a civil matter.

      I anticipate no legal consequences. Is 11 minutes without Twitter even justification for a torte?

      For Donald Trump? No. Could Twitter Inc. have a tort for the negative press this has created? Absolutely. On the premise that they could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this was sabotage and not an accidental fail trying to deactivate a name-squatter I'd be quite likely to award a reasonable sum - and then I mean reasonable in terms of what damage they've suffered, not what kind of money the employee has. I really don't see why so many here is so quick to defend malice.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    34. Re:The REAL question is by Soft · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wishing that everyone had access to food, shelter, and healthcare makes me a liberal.

      Nitpick: I thought that everybody would wish that, but liberals think society should intervene directly to force that goal, while conservatives think society will be better off as a whole if this is left to the actions of private organizations and individuals. Am I correct?

    35. Re:The REAL question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, this employee only did for a few minutes what TWITter should have done permanently a long time ago! Insane psychopathic malignant narcissists should be banned forever when first detected!!

    36. Re:The REAL question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      maybe you should watch less CNN

      CNN just reports the news, and indeed, they report being shocked/outraged/horrified by it. Thanks for that, I'm shocked by it too. Think Hindenberg, humanity. To get away from it, you need to watch less Trump, but then, there's a risk with that strategy too.

      Did CNN report the fact that Hillary paid for the Trump dossier with the shock and outrage they show with all their anti-Trump propaganda?

      You know - the dossier that "proves" Trump colluded with Russia - and was probably spoon-fed to Hillary's operatives by the very Kremlin you're so sure was colluding with Trump?

      Why the hell are Democrats so sure Trump colluded with Russia when all the evidence now suggests it was Democrats colluding with Russia?

      Hell, like we're now seeing all the Hollywood Democrat supporters being accused of sexual harassment, maybe it's because Democrats are projecting their own behavior...

    37. Re:The REAL question is by ScentCone · · Score: 1, Insightful

      CNN just reports the news

      And if they can't find any news that directly supports their chosen narrative, they simply make some up. If it's so bad they get caught red handed doing it, then they have to publicly fire people for doing it. Which has happened more than once recently, as it was bad enough even by THEIR standards of fake news that they had no choice.

      "CNN just reports the news" - that is truly hilarious.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    38. Re:The REAL question is by interkin3tic · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The bigger question that should have been clarified long before now is "The president's tweets have zero legal or military weight, right? This should be a silly question but seriously can we get a fucking answer ASAP?"

      Obviously, Trump should not issue anything resembling military commands via twitter nor should the military follow anything that looks like a command via twitter.

      The first part of that should go without saying, but given that the electoral college elites have successfully put the most incompetent person in the country on the throne, only an idiot would assume it CAN'T happen. It's in the same category as "the president should not fire the guy investigating him for corruption." The framers of the constitution failed to put that in because they wouldn't have been able to fathom a president doing such things.

      The second part is something that needs to be clarified. There's currently nothing saying tweets can't be orders. The military shouldn't have to figure out whether something is or is not an order.

      It's conceivable with this administration that top military officials would be accused of committing a coup because they didn't act on a tweet.

      That is obviously unacceptable already. Yet here we are.

      Maybe the possibility that a twitter employee could issue commands to the united states military is enough fucking absurdity to get the GOP cult to act on it? I know they've utterly ruled out the possibility that a foreign adversary like Russia or North Korea could possibly compromise national security by taking advantage of our stupidity via social media. There are a lot of liberals working at twitter, maybe that will get them to think "Hey, this is worth clarifying maybe?"

    39. Re:The REAL question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Translation: conservatives believe the church should be more powerful than the secular government.

    40. Re:The REAL question is by gnick · · Score: 1

      If you infer that "wishing" everyone had those things meant that they would materialize from thin air, then you are right that everyone would wish that. What I meant was that I would like to see those things made available by mandate even with the consequences that carries. You're not wrong; I'm not either. Forcing everyone to pay for health insurance whether they want it or not is a liberal idea that I like.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    41. Re:The REAL question is by Hognoxious · · Score: 0

      As far as "illegal misuse", this employee was apparrently granted access to manage user accounts. Unless he circumvented security measures to get that access, he didn't break the law.

      So if I'm granted access to manage the accounts payable system of a company I can give out any amount to anybody I wish? Or block payments to valid vendors until the company gets sued?

      You're in the wrong place -the DeVry J.D. reunion is over there: https://it.slashdot.org/story/...

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    42. Re:The REAL question is by Calydor · · Score: 1

      Are you quite seriously saying that if you're 'unimportant', other people and companies get to screw you over at their leisure?

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    43. Re:The REAL question is by Tough+Love · · Score: 1, Insightful

      They're a window into the confusing mind of a very powerful man.

      More like, a window into his butt.

      Triggered, Ivan?

      Wow, the Ivans really don't like the association with Trump's butt. I totally understand, having to spend so much time licking out Vlad's butt and all.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    44. Re:The REAL question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm surprised people are not ashamed to say they watch CNN.

      You might as well slap a big "RETARD" sticker on your forehead.

    45. Re:The REAL question is by bigwheel · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that Twitter was scrambling to restore the account as fast as they could. Regardless of what Mr. Fat Fingers thinks of POTUS Trump, Twitter would suffer horribly without everyone following his 3am tweets.

    46. Re:The REAL question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the real question is why they restored it so quickly. I would have loved having a week or two without having to hear about the latest Trump rant on CNN.

      Have you tried not watching CNN?

    47. Re:The REAL question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, you are incorrect.

      First, no, not everybody wishes everyone can get food, shelter, etc. Some people (maybe a lot of people) out there still hang on to tribal tendencies, and only wish for their in-groups to have nice things which wishing none for out-groups (or worse, they wish harm on those other groups)

      Second, you're off on the liberal/conservative stances

      Liberals don't believe intervention/force "should" be used. Liberals simply believe intervention is an option. Sometimes you use it, sometimes you don't. Liberals are perfectly capable of leaving certain things alone (as evident that we don't see a lot of authoritarian regimes where government is interfering with almost everything, despite the spread and adoption of liberalism). Liberals just happen to think that intervention is better on those particular hot button issues.

      Meanwhile, conservatives do not reject intervention because they think it's the better for society. They reject it because they think it's better for them. Conservatives are individualists. They don't care for the collective good. They might not even believe collective good is a thing. Conservatives are primary concerned about what intervention means for them personally: the extra taxes they might pay, the regulatory burden, how triggered they feel if somebody else decides to have a homosexual marriage, etc.

    48. Re: The REAL question is by orlanz · · Score: 1

      Are we still talking about Twitter or people's 401k, savings, SSN, mortgage, etc accounts?

    49. Re:The REAL question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The admin who did this plausibly violated the CFAA and lawyers have said that. I agree that it'd be pretty ridiculous to prosecute for that, but not more so than some other prosecutions, like the prosecution of Aaron Schwartz.

      I hope they just leave it be, though.

    50. Re:The REAL question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only retards are the alt right, who hate the truth so they yell fake news when triggered by it, just like you snowflake.

    51. Re:The REAL question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ooh, who left the gate open at the cunt farm and let Scent Cone out to as usual shoot the messenger. The alt right hates the truth, because it sshows them for the deluded selfish assholes they are.
      Poor snowflakes, all triggered by CNN.

    52. Re:The REAL question is by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      Is 11 minutes without Twitter even justification for a torte?

      Well yeah, but I'd want to take a picture of it first so I could tweet it out after I finished eating it.

    53. Re:The REAL question is by fuzznutz · · Score: 1

      Soft says: I thought that everybody would wish that, but liberals think society should intervene directly to force that goal ...

      You say: What I meant was that I would like to see those things made available by mandate even with the consequences that carries...

      Does it not occur to you that you are in agreement on the interpretation of modern liberalism?

    54. Re:The REAL question is by gnick · · Score: 1

      That's what I meant by:

      You're not wrong; I'm not either.

      It appears that I'm failing effective communication today. I was agreeing with GP and attempting to clarify.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    55. Re:The REAL question is by EndlessNameless · · Score: 2

      I'm pretty sure that if I as a DBA "accidentally" dropped the production database on my last day of work there'd be some kind of criminal law on the books.

      I work in IT, not in the court system, so I'll take a lawyer's word on that. Not yours though, unless you have the credentials. I work on the security side of the profession now, and I understand the legal stuff at a basic level.

      Federal law has the CFAA, which generally does not apply if you exercised permissions you were legitimately granted. Unless there are state/local or industry-specific rules in place, there is no basis for criminal prosecution. Not from I've seen, anyway.

      My employer has seen deliberate malicious action, and there is little point in criminal prosecution or civil suit. The time and money it takes to gather evidence, lawyer up, and go through a trial offers zero financial return. Termination for-cause usually suffices as a deterrent, and in most states it is also punitive due to the loss of unemployment benefits.

      I really don't see why so many here is so quick to defend malice.

      There's a difference between defending malice and pointing out triviality. There are accidental outages of web sites that have a larger impact than this act. People are talking about prison time, and the impact was equivalent to littering or TP'ing a house. At most.

      I'd have no problem sentencing the guy to a few hours of community service as punishment, but I'm not sure there's a law that covers this situation.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    56. Re:The REAL question is by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      CNN just reports the news

      And if they can't find any news that directly supports their chosen narrative, they simply make some up

      Excuse me, that would be Foxbart.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    57. Re:The REAL question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So everything was the same except the characters, plot and setting? In other words everything was different.

    58. Re:The REAL question is by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Because it’s controversial enough that private companies can censor people by hiding behind the “we’re not the government, so the First Amendment doesn’t apply to us” argument, but it’s definitely UN-okay for petulant individuals with corporate powers to go around deleting people they don’t personally like.

    59. Re: The REAL question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Twitter is not a government.

      You do not have to use Twitter.

      They are a private business and may restrict access however they like. On top of that if you use their service you agree to their terms of service. This grants Twitter the right to use your tweets and images for promotional purposes. Basically you have no copyright to your own speech if you use this service, they own it all and can delete or promote whatever they wish.

      Don't like it? Start your own company.

      This is different than a government because if you don't like the government you don't (easily) get to walk away and start a new government. (Aka revolution and civil war)

    60. Re:The REAL question is by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      I anticipate no legal consequences. Is 11 minutes without Twitter even justification for a torte?

      So far as I’m cincerned, it would justify a pizza.

    61. Re:The REAL question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're babbling about propaganda that's been rammed up your butt-hole.

    62. Re:The REAL question is by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

      So if I'm granted access to manage the accounts payable system of a company I can give out any amount to anybody I wish?

      That's fraud. It's a crime. You can do it on a computer, or you can do it with cash or checks.

      Or block payments to valid vendors until the company gets sued?

      Purchase orders are legally binding. Not criminal, but I'd expect the company to get sued.

      You may actually get off without legal repercussions though. Fired? Yes, probably.

      But jail? Not so sure---I doubt you've actually committed a crime, but if you have its commerce code stuff. If there were a criminal complaint, the fact that you did it on a computer makes it really easy to dump the logs for investigators though.

      You're in the wrong place -the DeVry J.D. reunion is over there:

      Sure, get mouthy just because you have no clue what you're talking about.

      I have limited familiarity with the computer crime laws in the US, and I've restricted my comments to that small area. I would be absolutely shocked if that guy ends up in prison.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    63. Re: The REAL question is by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      You're giving well established behaviour of fraud or theft. Try explaining what LAW you're arguing closing a free Twitter account has broken. I'm not saying there isn't any, just that your point is moot.

    64. Re:The REAL question is by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Same thing, different side.

      It's not even debateable. That ship sailed.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    65. Re:The REAL question is by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 1

      Everything you "know" about conservatives is wrong.

    66. Re:The REAL question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typical SJW. I don't won't to pay for my beliefs. I want everyone else to pay instead.

    67. Re:The REAL question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who said anything about having "everyone else" pay? The post you replied to clearly said "everyone," not "everyone but me."

      And WTF does this have to do with SJWs? Is every liberal a SJW now?

    68. Re: The REAL question is by gnick · · Score: 1

      You could have saved a lot of typing and just said, "I'm a leftist."

      Plenty of people on both sides of the aisle would like to see DJT's tweets reined in. It has nothing to do with being a "leftist." This seems to be the one topic where our country's united.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    69. Re: The REAL question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Contract law is my guess. There is an agreement between you and Twitter. Twitter had no reason to disable your account. It was disabled. Of course, you are likely only going to get arbitration for damages though.

      I would like to mention that just because it was easy to undo, doesn't mean the party didn't suffer damages. It does limit damage suffered of course.

    70. Re:The REAL question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but couldnt/wouldnt be prosecuted until after he's left the Office of The President of The United States.

    71. Re:The REAL question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then maybe you should watch less CNN.

      For sure, FOX fact-free fantasies feel fantastic!
      My head hurtz every time I watch the news.

    72. Re:The REAL question is by greythax · · Score: 1

      So let me get this strait. Trump tweets some obnoxious crap almost continuously, and therefor I should be mad at CNN.

      Talk about misplaced aggression....

      And misplaced mod points.

    73. Re:The REAL question is by bidule · · Score: 1

      Hillary paid for the Trump dossier

      Hillary Hillary Hillary. The losers can't stop talking.

      --
      ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
    74. Re:The REAL question is by Hallux-F-Sinister · · Score: 1

      I never hear of these so-called "Trump rants". I don't watch CNN or any TV news outlets. (All the stories are virtually the same. It's just the characters, the places, or the causes/issues that are different. That's all. I ignored the Media for 6 months once, on purpose, and then listened again. Every story was the same just different characters, places, and clauses/issues. Just the same bovine scat. Like in the "Casablanca" film, at the end, when the Vichy French officer instructs his junior police officers to round up the "usual suspects". American Politics is exactly the same -- just a drama to keep the uninformed from living their lives. These sycophants want all the attention focused on theirselves but they don't desire it. But you have fallen into the Trap!)

      It's exactly the same... except for the part that "Casablanca" is a film, and the thing you're ignoring is real life, with real, actual consequences for you and everyone around you. Otherwise, you're right. It's exactly the same thing.

      --
      Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
    75. Re:The REAL question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No letting people do what they wish and treating them with respect is liberal. Root word liberty. What you are is a selectively empathetic autocrat, like most people that self-identify as being liberal today.

    76. Re:The REAL question is by Hallux-F-Sinister · · Score: 1

      The only retards are the alt right, who hate the truth so they yell fake news when triggered by it, just like you snowflake.

      Getting all your news from one source, whatever it is, is probably not a good idea. Watching the likes of CNN is important, and beneficial. Just remember to leave your bullshit-detector ENABLED. The wise man wants to know both the truth, and the lies someone is trying to spoon-feed him, because which things the establishment-biased media, (anything corporate-owned or oligarch-funded,) want you to know or think is VERY INFORMATIVE. It reveals their motivations, and you can completely ignore those at your peril, because what they do, and what they want isn't always going to be so obvious.

      --
      Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
    77. Re:The REAL question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, why not stay uninformed, stupid asshat, and get you fake news from Twitter and Facebook or blogs. Knowledge is power, and to each his own.

    78. Re:The REAL question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up, the adults are trying to have a conversation.

    79. Re:The REAL question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In what world are you FORCED to read any twitter account, so many drama queens crying over shit that has nothing to do with them.

    80. Re:The REAL question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is he Mark Dice oh wait he got demonized permanently by you tube censorship while he has over a million subs and growing.

    81. Re:The REAL question is by gnick · · Score: 1

      Not everyone agrees with you.

      'Liberal' shares a root with 'liberty' and can mean anything from "generous" to "loose" to "broad-minded." Politically, it means "“a person who believes that government should be active in supporting social and political change."

      ...

      Liberal is commonly used as a label for political parties in a number of other countries, although the positions these parties take do not always correspond to the sense of liberal that people in the United States commonly give it. In the US, the word has been associated with both the Republican and Democratic parties (now it is more commonly attached to the latter), although generally it has been in a descriptive, rather than a titular, sense.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    82. Re:The REAL question is by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Same thing, different side.

      I will thank you not to claim a false equivalence between legitimate journalism and the likes of of Fox and Breitbart.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    83. Re:The REAL question is by AnalogDiehard · · Score: 1

      Another libtard is about to realise the world isn't like their faggy echo-chamber they create for themselves. Ah, so we have a reason for your rush to authoritative, punitive judgment: partisan politics.

      No, the libtard is being called out for their vindictive elitist disposition which has divided this country for too long. Both sides are guilty of it. We are sick and tired of these tactics, and that includes your tired and lame "partisan politics" which is to imply "it is everyone else's fault and they are never to blame" which is not helping to unite this country.

      --
      Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
    84. Re:The REAL question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "conservatives think society will be better off as a whole if this is left to the actions of private organizations and individuals."

      Conservatives think they will be better off. They care fuck all about anyone else.

    85. Re:The REAL question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want the Fed to pay to rescue me when I screw up like it rescued world markets with unlimited liquidity provisioning in 2008 and after.

    86. Re:The REAL question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything about conservatism is wrong. Fixed that for you.

    87. Re:The REAL question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really, no. It is more like liberals think it won't happen unless society intervenes, and conservatives think society will be better off as a whole if we let the poor starve to death.

    88. Re: The REAL question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Headroom_(TV_series)
      Off switches are illegal!"

    89. Re:The REAL question is by gnick · · Score: 1

      Sad!

      No, more frightened.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    90. Re:The REAL question is by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      CNN just reports the news, and indeed, they report being shocked/outraged/horrified by it. Thanks for that, I'm shocked by it too. Think Hindenberg, humanity. To get away from it, you need to watch less Trump, but then, there's a risk with that strategy too.

      Did CNN report the fact that Hillary paid for the Trump dossier with the shock and outrage...

      Why, yes, they did. Trump isn't the only asshole in the crack house, big revelation. However, he is by far the most dangerous asshole in the history of the United States since the civil war.

      shock and outrage they show with all their anti-Trump propaganda?

      What you call "propaganda", an unbiased observer would call "easily verifiable facts". Conclusion: you are not an unbiased observer. Chances are, you are a Russian, but if you are not but are instead busily engaged in selling out your own people, then you are even more contemptible. Two words for you and your ilk: ankle bracelet.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    91. Re:The REAL question is by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Trump tweets some obnoxious crap almost continuously, and therefor I should be mad at CNN.

      Are they spending hours and hours every day fetishistically obsessed with those tweets and pretending that nothing else is happening? Yes. So, yeah, you could get mad at them, or turn them off.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    92. Re: The REAL question is by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      Seems strange to me that someone can serve real jail time for downloading a movie worth a few bucks but not serve jail time for malicious misappropriation of twitter accounts which resulted in catastrophicly bad press for twitter.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    93. Re:The REAL question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many other accounts have simply been disappeared by a twitter employee that didn't like the account that never got noticed and remained deleted because they weren't the President of the US?

      You should be thanking them for doing you a favor. Private individuals have no business being on twitter. Nothing good can come of it for them.

    94. Re:The REAL question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder how much legal weight Twitter's actual written policies on account deletion combined with the employees job description would have. It's not as Donald Trump isn't objectively in violation of their policies.

    95. Re:The REAL question is by EmptyHead · · Score: 1

      LMAO! Seriously? "CNN just reports the news" I haven't seen a US based news channel report the news or perform anything resembling journalism in quite a while. CNN is one of the worst, multiple recordings of their executives talking about their biased strategies have been released, you might know that if you watched multiple channels. BBC and Al Jazeera are still pretty good. Al Jazeera gets understandably biased when middle-east issues are discussed.

    96. Re:The REAL question is by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Here's another example. Let's say I work in a restaurant. I have access to the fridge. Does that mean I can piss on the salmon mousse?

      Sabotage is sabotage. Criminal damage is criminal damage. You're the one that doesn't know anything, you glorified cable puller.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    97. Re:The REAL question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, yeah, you could get mad at them, or turn them off.

      Personal choice?! Heaven forbid!

      But make no mistake, Trump is the number 1 champion internet troll. Nobody commands the world's press like he does. I think it's fantastic. It is however a true tragicomedy. His supporters are an embarrassment to the species. He is a dementor, sucks out all the happiness and leaves only the misery.

    98. Re:The REAL question is by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Do yourself a big favor, turn CNN off. Listen to something a lot closer to reality, like Fox. Not prefect and they have their problems, however they don't go making up crap like CNN has been shown to do.

    99. Re:The REAL question is by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You're too late. MSM credibility was one of the costs of the last election cycle. CNN/NYTimes etc spent it all trying to get the bitch elected. Thinking they would get 'first question' for long enough everybody would forget.

      HA HA!

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    100. Re:The REAL question is by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Have a nice day, Ivan

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    101. Re:The REAL question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That might not be what's written in some book or charter somewhere but it's what it's devolved to. The sooner you accept it and stop rooting for your team like it's football the sooner you can fix it. Pointing out problems with democrats or soviet shitholes won't change the facts either.

  2. Cloud yeah by guruevi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Where your data can get deleted by a click of a button by a disgruntled employee and even the fucking president of the United States can't be spared nor can his data be restored in less than 11 minutes.

    Imagine if you weren't the president, would they even care?

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    1. Re:Cloud yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it was restored. This has nothing to do with The Cloud, and everything to do with server permissions.

      If I'm not the President or an entertainer, then no one cares if your account is deleted.

    2. Re:Cloud yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nothing gets deleted in the true sense. It's flagged to be hidden. If you're one of the many agencies or advertisers with API access to twitter, FB, Google, Apple accounts, you'll see everything ever posted even if the account holder cannot.

    3. Re:Cloud yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Uhh it is fucking Twitter and it is NOT YOUR DATA. You use their service and agree to their terms and conditions. And being president does not give him anymore fucking authority on Twitter than you or I. Hell, if Twitter deactivated POTUS and Trump's personal account and decided they don't want the likes of him on their service that is their choice.

      The market may decide to respond with new alternatives to Twitter because of the censorship and that is the risk Twitter will take.

    4. Re:Cloud yeah by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      Where your data can get deleted by a click of a button by a disgruntled employee and even the fucking president of the United States can't be spared nor can his data be restored in less than 11 minutes.

      . . . and just how much do you pay for your Twitter account . . . ? It's just like the rest of life: you get what you pay for.

      Imagine if you weren't the president, would they even care?

      Obviously, they don't even really care if you are president . . . otherwise, his account would not have been deactivated in the first place.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    5. Re:Cloud yeah by Vermonter · · Score: 1

      But there is always going to be someone else who has full access to your information when your information is in the cloud, just like your company's IT department can get in to every folder on every server in the company, just as the custodian typically has the keys to every door in the company.

    6. Re:Cloud yeah by T.E.D. · · Score: 1, Informative

      Restored in 11 minutes no less. Anecdotally, it usually takes weeks. Try that trick if you aren't POTUS.

      Particularly if your profile is full of name-calling and threats like his is. Good luck.

    7. Re:Cloud yeah by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 1

      The question is, when we place all of our free speech eggs into the corporate basket... should we care? Or should we rather say, "Good! This is why you don't let Facebook/Twitter/Youtube be the sole carriers of your voice and online identity."

      I, for one, think the latter reaction is more appropriate. Some are reacting like there was some "right" violated. Not at all. Company hits delete button. Because they can. Sure, this was a rogue employee, but if Twitter itself did it, the masses would be crying over their spilled free speech milk not realizing the glass was owned by Corp Inc.

      --
      I8-D
    8. Re:Cloud yeah by coolsnowmen · · Score: 1

      Where your data ...

      wait, whose data?

    9. Re:Cloud yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MY DATA IS MINE, you fucking corporate whore.

    10. Re:Cloud yeah by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      I agree in principle, but that statement isn't strictly accurate. It depends on the service and its implementation.

      There is always someone who can handle your information when it's stored in a cloud service. If it's encrypted properly, they may not actually have access to view or modify it. A closer analogy would be a bank safe deposit box. While the bank has keys to the vault and is responsible for the vast majority of its upkeep, you're the only one with the key to look inside the box.

      In the case of Twitter, I doubt there's much that's encrypted, if anything. Other services like Apple's iCloud have made a significant effort to encrypt the majority of their stored data such that it's only accessible by the client, but still manageable by the provider. Of course, the only real way to determine what's happening with your data is to read the service policies and terms of service.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    11. Re:Cloud yeah by arth1 · · Score: 1

      If I'm not the President or an entertainer, then no one cares if your account is deleted.

      You and your followers would care.
      And who is qualified to judge that an entertainer (and we have to include Trump in that) is more important than, say, a scientist or an activist?

    12. Re:Cloud yeah by Sumus+Semper+Una · · Score: 1

      Uhh, I've worked in a place where we went from our own internally hosted and managed DB to a cloud hosted one. I had master DB access before the change and after, so I could have deleted or modified a user account on the cloud or off the cloud. The cloud did not make that any better or worse. And restoring from backup or (as was the case here) changing a record that was incorrectly made inactive to active again didn't get significantly faster or slower on the cloud vs off the cloud either.

      None of this had anything to do with the cloud vs self-administered debate. And I have a feeling that they would have reacted quickly to any other high profile Twitter account being made inactive. As for accounts not as high profile, it might have taken up to a day, but what makes you think that Twitter wouldn't reactivate an account upon user request if there is no record of there being a reason that it was made inactive?

    13. Re:Cloud yeah by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Does it make a difference if the disgruntled employee is paid by Amazon vs being paid by you? Isn't your data just a gone? I mean, it's not like most CEOs personally maintain their own datacenters.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    14. Re:Cloud yeah by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Even after you agree to give it away?

      And define "your data". If you buy a car from me, am I free to tell people that a Mr Coward bought my car? Or is that "your data", too?

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    15. Re:Cloud yeah by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Twitter says that its users own their tweets, and all that personal information.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    16. Re:Cloud yeah by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Yes it does, with one you can have safeguards in place to prevent it from happening and you hopefully have vetted the people that work for you. With places like Amazon your data is quite literally handled by the lowest paid random person they could find on the Internet and you have no control over the qualifications, history or legal requirements for those people.

      What's more is that security systems with any 3rd party provider is only going to be the minimum requirements because anything 'better' cuts in the profits and whatever benefits there may have been cost-wise (which I still haven't seen any improvement of cloud vs self-hosted) go out of the window.

      If homomorphic encryption ever becomes a reality and the cost goes down significantly, I'll consider the "cloud" but until then it's a nice place to put encrypted blobs of existing backups.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  3. Testing the waters. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Itâ(TM)s a âoerouge employeeâ this time, it will be a deputized officer of the twitter thought police next time.

    1. Re:Testing the waters. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try to use characters that slashdot actually supports; yes the site is lame, but we've all got to deal with it. Also "rouge" != "rogue"; the former is something girls put on their face to make their cheeks look rosy, and I don't think that's really the adjective you were looking for.

    2. Re:Testing the waters. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A "rouge employee"?

      Well, yeah, he probably is a Red Commie... ;-)

    3. Re:Testing the waters. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it was a rouge employee though, somebody who doesn't take kindly to the orange president.

    4. Re:Testing the waters. by alex67500 · · Score: 0

      Like Star Wars: Rouge One? With the old blue-red "3D" glasses, except the blue one is blocked.

    5. Re:Testing the waters. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That feeling when the Ivan shitposting is so obvious that even browser encodings are pointing it out.

  4. Industry Pariah for 15 Minutes of Fame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hopefully throwing away probably thousands of dollars in university tuition and years of training was worth it for 15 minutes of tabloid fame, in their eyes.

    Another victim of martyr culture I suppose.

    1. Re:Industry Pariah for 15 Minutes of Fame by bazorg · · Score: 1

      Try searching for "you're hired" today on Twitter and you'll see there are enough job vacancies to accommodate people who like and those who dislike the disgraced 45th president of the USA.

    2. Re:Industry Pariah for 15 Minutes of Fame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah wonderful. So they'll be going from a life of working for a company that was professionally managed (jokes aside) to working for string and duct tape operations run by ideologues whose job postings are virtue signals.

      No company with a professional HR will touch this person now. They've proven that they'll willing to smash windows on their way out. Go ask James Damore how well his little stunt panned out and how easy it is for him to find work for a company that isn't a fly by night operation. Last I checked he's still gainfully unemployed.

    3. Re:Industry Pariah for 15 Minutes of Fame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah wonderful. So they'll be going from a life of working for a company that was professionally managed (jokes aside) to working for string and duct tape operations run by ideologues whose job postings are virtue signals.

      No company with a professional HR will touch this person now. They've proven that they'll willing to smash windows on their way out. Go ask James Damore how well his little stunt panned out and how easy it is for him to find work for a company that isn't a fly by night operation. Last I checked he's still gainfully unemployed.

      James Damore is going to make millions from Google after Google uses pretty much Damore's own words to defend themselves from the sexual discrimination lawsuits filed by women Google employees who make less money then men in equivalent positions after Google responded to Damore by saying "Pay differences between men and women are too solely the result of discrimination! So you're fired!"

      Google fucked themselves by firing Damore for his postings - by doing that, and with their words in response, Google opened the door for huge judgments in sexual discrimination lawsuits.

      Couldn't happen to a more reprehensible bunch of SJWs.

  5. Hummm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to almost every employment agreement I've seen, the now EX employee is liable, possibly even criminally for sabotage

  6. What's wrong with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If racist, repressive, reactionary accounts are deleted, what's wrong with that?

    1. Re:What's wrong with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It isn't an individual employee's place to judge who/what is appropriate.

    2. Re:What's wrong with that? by MightyYar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It means that some arbitrary process is in place to censor any point of view. Get the wrong censor, and your own pet cause could be next. It's all fun and games until a Scientologist is the censor.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    3. Re:What's wrong with that? by dreamchaser · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You are correct, aside from the ad hominem. In this case, however, it was not the business that deleted the account. It was a rouge employee on his last day. Big difference.

    4. Re:What's wrong with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I get the first two, but there's a problem with a Twitter account that is reactionary? Has the idea of "reacting" taken on a new meaning the modern world? How else do you react to news that you didn't know before without being reactionary?

      The moment you find it okay to delete accounts for doing things that are completely legal, is the moment that you are okay with them deleting your account for a completely different reason. What's good for the goose is good for the gander always applies when an entity -- government, business, or person -- has abusive levels of control that sways based on the winds of social justice.

      One day, your brand of social justice won't be the same as the mainstream and that will put you on the wrong end of their deletions that you seemingly support.

      Note: There is a significant difference between supporting random deletions and an entity like Twitter establishing policies that call out behavior that will get your account deleted (or similar), such as racist content (be it a random person, the KKK, or ISIS). As long as there is a mostly reproducible and consistent rule set used, then there is a fair playing ground. For the most part, Twitter has done this. But the unrecognized deletion of such a prominent account shows that their customer support representatives have a bit too many keys to the kingdom.

    5. Re:What's wrong with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      You are correct, aside from the ad hominem. In this case, however, it was not the business that deleted the account. It was a rouge employee on his last day. Big difference.

      Does it matter what their skin color is? Or did you mean rogue?

    6. Re:What's wrong with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It means that some arbitrary process is in place to censor any point of view. Get the wrong censor, and your own pet cause could be next. It's all fun and games until a Scientologist is the censor.

      That's why I don't use a Scientology website to communicate with people. Those bastards might just believe they have a first amendment right to what is said on their website.

    7. Re:What's wrong with that? by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      It isn't an individual employee's place to judge who/what is appropriate.

      Let's vote on it, then. Popular vote, thank you.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    8. Re:What's wrong with that? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Actually it sounds like they have a review process in place, and it worked.

      If I were designing a system to handle TOS violations I'd probably start with allowing employees to act swiftly but closed accounts go into a review queue with a note about what they did. I'd imagine Twitter has something like that in place and another employee saw it and quickly undid the damage.

      Or maybe they just have alerts set up on changes to Trump's account, since it's so valuable to them.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:What's wrong with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What was the "ad hominem"?

    10. Re:What's wrong with that? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Indeed. The poor triggered free speech warriors have already tagged this story with "censorship". People need to keep some perspective, not everything is a conspiracy against the 1st Amendment and Donald J. Trump.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    11. Re:What's wrong with that? by MightyYar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm glad you see things so black and white. I completely agree that some random religion's website is completely theirs to screw with. Twitter is not a religion, it is a company with a corporate charter. They get economic perks like tax incentives and limited liability. They are hugely influential in our national discussion. I think the public/private line is sufficiently blurred that the analogy begins to fail. If Twitter decides to tilt the decision a certain direction, it has a large impact on society. I think they probably should be able to pick and choose the kind of information that appears on their site, but then they cannot run and hide behind "common carrier" type arguments when it is convenient for them. Short of illegal posts, they become editors when they pick and choose what appears on their site.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    12. Re:What's wrong with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drink! AmiMojo mocking "free speech warriors" (what does that term even mean? Sounds like it's his version of "SJW")

    13. Re:What's wrong with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn straight. Some people in Twitter should then disable the accounts of famous people who constantly complain about Trump. That would be perfectly fine, right?

      What's good for the goose is good for the gander?

    14. Re:What's wrong with that? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      We're both speculating, but my speculation is that they only caught it so fast because it was the President. I'm think you are probably right that they have a review process in place, but I suspect it is not triggered automatically because that would cost them money. You are thinking like an engineer looking to make a robust system, but that is not necessarily who is calling the shots.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    15. Re:What's wrong with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't have to be to be considered censorship, though.

    16. Re:What's wrong with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "censor" ? Twitter isn`t the government, it`s a private corporation and they are under no obligation whatsoever to provide you service or not.

    17. Re:What's wrong with that? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      If I were designing a system to handle TOS violations I'd probably start with allowing employees to act swiftly but closed accounts go into a review queue with a note about what they did. I'd imagine Twitter has something like that in place and another employee saw it and quickly undid the damage. Or maybe they just have alerts set up on changes to Trump's account, since it's so valuable to them.

      I'd probably make the review queue weight by number of followers as well as time so that any account with millions of followers would jump right to the top of the queue. You could say that past a certain number of followers they should have a two-tier process before it gets deactivated in the first place, but even a popular account could get hacked and those 11 minutes is a lot of time to spout a lot of garbage to many millions of people. Not that anyone would notice the difference in this case, but in general I too would go with instant deactivation, rapid review.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    18. Re:What's wrong with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt this was caught by a review process, mostly because it would be a retarded process to term then verify. The correct process would be person A puts in a request for account termination, this goes into the queue of person B. Person B then reviews the facts of the case and approves it. Perhaps this type of process was in place and person B was just blindly clicking 'Accept' and only saw the account name as they were clicking? Another likely scenario of some small percentage of his followers put in support requests that they could not revel in his bile, this would have caused a spike of tens of thousands of new support tickets. Someone would notice that really quick.

    19. Re:What's wrong with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it sounds like they have a review process in place, and it worked.

      If I were designing a system to handle TOS violations I'd probably start with allowing employees to act swiftly but closed accounts go into a review queue with a note about what they did. I'd imagine Twitter has something like that in place and another employee saw it and quickly undid the damage.

      Or maybe they just have alerts set up on changes to Trump's account, since it's so valuable to them.

      Not much of a "review process" if it lets someone who's getting fired or about to quit act on it before the account is changed.

      That's a "reluctantly covering our asses" process.

      We should let cops do this, shoot all the misbehaving people in the ghetto and give their family 40 acres and a mule later if they were wrong about it.

    20. Re:What's wrong with that? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I won't play a semantics game. If you want to say that only governments can censor, then what word would you like me to use when Twitter chooses what is and is not acceptable on their site? I will happily use that word or phrase to keep the discussion going.

      As to them being "private" - they are indeed privately owned, but they only exist because the government granted them a charter and because of that they enjoy government benefits such as tax advantages and - most importantly - limited liability. If they want to trade back some of those special governmental perks, I'll happily call them "private" and let them do as they wish. But as long as they enjoy a special government advantage, we the people should be able to decide what a corporation is or isn't.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  7. Monopoly by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't communication monopolies be subjected to common-carrier regulations to prevent them from abusing peoples' free-speech rights?

    1. Re:Monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your free speech rights do not include a right to use the medium of your choice. The First Amendment does not grant you right to trespass on someone's property to exercise that right, for example.

      You do not have a fundamental, Constitutional right to use Twitter as your medium of choice for free speech.

    2. Re:Monopoly by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      Twitter unconscionably restricts users's free speech to fewer than 255 characters. We demand the full 8-bit width of a one-byte length descriptor.

    3. Re:Monopoly by Bigbutt · · Score: 1

      Anyone can set up another twitter clone. Heck, a quick search shows several clones so they're not a monopoly.

      There is no law that says they have to let you speak. The Republicans fixed that back in the 80's by removing the Fairness Doctrine and again in 2004 or so by refusing to consider reinstating it. Punishment to a company/corporation is by folks going to alternate twitter sites or just not using it.

      [John]

      --
      Shit better not happen!
    4. Re:Monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      1. That's not how free speech rights work. You are protected from the GOVERNMENT preventing you from speaking. This is a private company. They can censor anything they like (including the president, although they might have to retain his tweets, because of legal reasons).

      2. I'd really like to understand your logic for how a service that depends on other mediums for transmission could possibly be a "common-carrier". They don't provide service. They aren't a telephone company. They aren't a wireless company.

    5. Re:Monopoly by Bigbutt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As a note, the reason for the Fairness Doctrine being removed was Cable News like CNN. The Fairness Doctrine was intended to make sure everyone had a voice on the big three channels. With Cable, people aren't locked in to ABC, NBC, or CBS. You can get news from CNN or any other company that can get a cable presence. Then with the 'net, there are even more options with FoxNews and lots and lots of other sites like BBC and Al Jazeera.

      The problem with this though is folks start to gravitate to their bubbles. Don't like hearing a Conservative or Liberal spin on the news? There are sites that cater just to your ideology. You don't hear other viewpoints and worse, the viewpoints you do hear are much stronger. And even worse are News Aggregators like the ones on devices (phones and tablets) and like Facebook where they're weighing what you click on and configuring your feed to give you more of what you indicate you like enough to read. Without a conscious effort to go to alternate sites, you get into a feedback loop.

      Over the years I've found myself getting into that loop and having to work at broadening my news to include sites outside my ideology. The bad part are the aggregation sites aren't good at providing just news. I'll go to different sites and then have the "For You" sites include opinions that can be quite offensive, to the point that I have to block them from my views.

      [John]

      --
      Shit better not happen!
    6. Re:Monopoly by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      Companies are only entities because the government makes them so. If the government lacks a right they cannot grant that right to some other entity.

    7. Re:Monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Then why does a ma and pa bakery have to oblige a gay couple?

    8. Re: Monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow, a thoughtful response.

    9. Re:Monopoly by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      The Fairness Doctrine was only for licensed broadcasters which twitter, facebook, and other social media, etc... is not. It didn't cover newspapers or magazines either just radio and TV.

      It also didn't give you the right to speak it actually took away the rights for editorial opinions and required that broadcasting be for the public interest and that controversial issues be reported in a non-biased manner.

    10. Re:Monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      another twitter clone

      When do anti-trust laws applies to monopolies like twitter, facebook, and google?

    11. Re:Monopoly by lactose99 · · Score: 1

      Being a racist bigot isn't a protected class. In many places being gay is.

      --
      Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
    12. Re:Monopoly by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1, Troll

      Pretending that it's somehow equal is totally wrong. The Left utterly banished opposing opinions from the airwaves. It got so bad that conservative opinions retreated all the way to AM radio, a terrible ghetto, to be heard. I mean, come on, AM radio? It's a wonder that it still exists, and I had that thought 30 years ago. Then Murdoch started his Fox news, but what else? Prior to the rise of citizen journalism on Youtube, there was hardly anything but tame, controlled opposition which would be allowed to say something non-controversial and then refuted by the two other talking heads and the hosts.

      The recent election was the tipping point, when the mask came off and the mainstream media became a partisan force, one dedicated to the cause of electing Hillary Clinton, who we now have hard proof in the form of a confession from her campaign manager, that she was utterly corrupt. The New York Times, after its completely biased coverage, said that "We believe we reported on both candidates fairly during the presidential campaign", a statement breathtaking in its nearsightedness. Here's a leaked email showing how the Dems colluded with the press. Glenn Thrush of Politico was exposed seeking Podesta's approval of articles about Clinton. Even Thrush wrote "please don't tell anyone" and "I'm such a hack". The consequences for Thrush? He was hired by the New York Times after the election. How can you have any sympathy with these organizations that threaten people into silence with threats of doxxing? It's like the mafia. So let's drop the "both sides do it" thing because the power levels are not even remotely the same.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    13. Re:Monopoly by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      It's not even close to a monopoly, but it is hugely influential and I think you are 100% correct that they need to be forced to choose between being an editor or taking advantage of common-carrier types of protections of content. Most of these companies want it both ways, and I don't think they should be allowed to succeed.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    14. Re:Monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AM Radio still exists because compatibility. And by this I don't really mean backwards compatibility, I mean the technology is so simple that garage technology can make it work. We really do care enough to have radio simple enough to understand and repair. It's too important for ocean going vessels among other things.

    15. Re:Monopoly by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't communication monopolies be subjected to common-carrier regulations to prevent them from abusing peoples' free-speech rights?

      I think the better question is, "Shouldn't people who don't understand the Bill of Rights, and don't understand the difference between a private company and the government (or what the term "common carrier" means), be subjected to regulations that would prevent them from abusing people's freedoms by voting?

      Because using a citizen's vote, which impacts other people's lives, is definitely something that shouldn't be an option for those who seem eager to remain unfamiliar with the Constitution.

      The people running Twitter may indeed be a toxic bunch of rich liberals, but they have every right to deny you the use of the thing they provide for free use, and YOU AGREE TO THAT when you set up an account on THEIR system. And no, they're not a monopoly. There are untold numbers of ways you can communicate, and you can start your own 140-character messaging system and have it hosted by later this afternoon, if you want to.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    16. Re:Monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to be confusing free speech with the first amendment. Free speech would be a right if the first amendment didn't exist.

    17. Re:Monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the tide really went far out on the last election. So far out it let us see everything that had been lurking beneath the surface.

      On the left, you have them trying to shut down public discourse and censor free speech, under the banner of "its a corp they can do what they want". Everyone they disagree with are now nazis, who according to them are perfectly acceptable targets for physical assault, or are guilty of committing the heinous act of hate speech for opinions outside of the left's own dogma.

      Meanwhile, the Right does its part to undermine the foundation of a fair internet by dismantling net neutrality. So the refugees who actually want a fair marketplace of ideas and information won't be guaranteed a level ground to even compete on. If by some chance they actually do get a foothold even then, well it'd be a real shame if their domains were appropriated under some pretense.

      Both sides, working towards the common goal.

    18. Re:Monopoly by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Pretending that it's somehow equal is totally wrong. The Left utterly banished opposing opinions from the airwaves.

      Interesting. I try to get a balanced view and find outlets considered 'left' such as Australia's ABC, the British BBC, America's NPR tend to be the least biased. And we measure bias by how the information is delivered. eg is information given and the listener left to decide, or is an opinion forced down your throat and any opposition to it gets yelled down? Do opposing viewpoints get a chance to respond or is it just a group of old rich white guys agreeing with each other etc?
      The latter is extremely common with so-called conservative outlets. If you have some you can recommend I'd be happy to give them a run. But to be honest Slashdot is about the only place I can find a conservative opinion that gets backed up with some logic.

  8. Twitter CSR doesn't need manager approval by mveloso · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What we've discovered is that Twitter CSRs can whack any account whenever they want, for whatever reason they want. They have no real oversight whatsoever, so when this juvy decided to do something they just did it and left the building.

    Besides being an asshole move, it shows a distinct lack of internal controls.

    1. Re:Twitter CSR doesn't need manager approval by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ^^^ This. Fortunately, every company that does business with Twitter just crapped their pants too. I would expect Twitter's sales department will have fun fielding a hundred thousand revenue-neutral "how can I be sure some minimum wage rep doesn't delete [brandname] during our Superbowl commercial (or other campaign)" conversations.

    2. Re:Twitter CSR doesn't need manager approval by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They have no real oversight whatsoever,

      I don't think you're being logical. If every act of a "CSR" had to be "overseen" by a "manager," then the manager would be the CSR.

      Oversight is a log of what everyone does. We learned yesterday this isn't good enough when:

        - someone is on their last day
        - the entire industry they work in is full of radicalized Trump haters so they're not worried about getting another job, #resist, "liberals will be liberals".
        - whiteboard coding interviews, "makers," online web design classes have produced a caste of personal-brand cafe-contractor douche who spends a lot of time grooming his facial hair, and very little thinking about the obligation that comes with power, the discretion required of someone like a doctor or a lawyer who has power because of training and harsh realities, not because they were nominated or elected: what it means to be part of a profession.

      I don't think it shows a distinct lack of internal controls. Everything could be explained given internal controls I would consider above par.

      It shows a pervasive, industry-wide lack of ethics and adult behaviour norms.

    3. Re:Twitter CSR doesn't need manager approval by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would expect at least requiring a second person to approve actions like deleting accounts.

    4. Re:Twitter CSR doesn't need manager approval by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dunno about this, I find it very interesting how you mention "radicalized Trump haters", I find it interesting how the other side tries to demonize him as well. However IMHO Trumps been an asshat and a loser since before he was even a regular on Howard Stern

    5. Re:Twitter CSR doesn't need manager approval by chispito · · Score: 1

      What we've discovered is that Twitter CSRs can whack any account whenever they want, for whatever reason they want.

      I suspect that if this were a story about how a Twitter account were hijacked and used to spread malware, and the owner contacted customer support, you would be complaining that the CSR has to get managerial approval before he can deactivate the account to stop the bleeding.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    6. Re:Twitter CSR doesn't need manager approval by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then there's also the shadow ban. Someone shadow banned may not even notice it.

    7. Re:Twitter CSR doesn't need manager approval by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They have no real oversight whatsoever

      Except for the oversight that restored the account in 11 minutes. And the fact that the data wasn't even deleted, merely deactivated in case it needed to be restored later. But yeah, other than that oversight, there is none whatsoever.

      --
      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:Twitter CSR doesn't need manager approval by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a reason why past presidents have had a chain of command to disseminate information. Not only does it ensure that the information is consistent with what others in the administration are saying, it prevents external parties from having undue control of the message. You can always be misquoted by the media, but with Twitter unscrupulous admins can literally put words in your mouth.

    9. Re:Twitter CSR doesn't need manager approval by chispito · · Score: 1

      It wasn't deleted, it was disabled. I guarantee you a CSR cannot delete an account.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
  9. Not surprised by this happy go lucky company... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Twitter was a company that was born by accident. The technology was a side project that took off on its own. The four founders were more interested in playing musical chair with the CEO spot. The revenue model came years after burning through VC funding. One founder pulled a Steve Jobs by quoting Steve Jobs, listening to the music that Steve Jobs liked, dressing up in a Steve Jobs uniform (same clothes, simple style), and staging a Steve Jobs comeback after starting another company. Mark Zuckerburg called Twitter a clown car that fell into a gold mine. Deleting the president's account? Just another day at Twitter.

    Source: "Hatching Twitter: A True Story of Money, Power, Friendship, and Betrayal"

    1. Re:Not surprised by this happy go lucky company... by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 1

      Mark Zuckerburg called Twitter a clown car that fell into a gold mine

      So very much this. (Of course, the same thing can be said about Facebook.)

  10. The Big Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Was it the employee's last day before or after they deleted the account? Hah...

    1. Re:The Big Question by linear+a · · Score: 1

      Was this his "last day at work" or just his "last day".

  11. Foolish employee... by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

    It would have been much more effective if they'd banned the account for violating TOS rather than deleting it.

    It would have been a bit more embarrassing for Twitter to handle, and I'm guessing the reason it took only 11 minutes to notice was some notification system that was triggered when a billion hits went to the same dead link. Maybe if the site had been serving up a banned user message, it would have taken longer to notice.

    1. Re:Foolish employee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree. Twitter is already a shady Orwellian groupthinkery, and the President's presence is one of the few things keeping it going. Banning/suspending his account for a TOS violation would be the death knell for the platform.

    2. Re:Foolish employee... by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      I wasn't talking about it being a more successful action for Twitter, but for the presumably disgruntled employee's attempt at symbolically damaging Trump.

      And I assume if you're a disgruntled employee, actually destroying the company on your way out counts as a win, too.

    3. Re:Foolish employee... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Petulant children throwing tantrums rarely damage the target of the tantrum.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  12. Re:Winning!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Talking points from Breitbart!

    Anonymous Coward!

    Mindless reductions!

    Outright lies!

    Maybe Trump is a dumb vatnik who colluded with a foreign adversary to install his parasite family?

    Ivan!

  13. Re:Are all the editors on Slashdot liberal SJW's? by msauve · · Score: 1, Troll

    Hey - don't be like the intolerant Antifa (now there's an oxymoron) anti-free speech people. Everyone should have their say, whether you agree or disagree. You have the option of ignoring it.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  14. This is their way of screaming at clouds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thousands of Americans Will Scream Helplessly at the Sky on Trump's Election Anniversary

    Remember, these are the people who think they're smarter than everyone else...

  15. Re:Are all the editors on Slashdot liberal SJW's? by Weaselmancer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So somehow reporting that someone shut down Trump's twitter account is Trump bashing? It's a simple matter of fact.

    Oh that's right - I forgot. Any facts that you guys don't like are fake news/someone's agenda/whatever so you don't have to face them.

    Let me tell you something, my friend. Reality doesn't give two shits what you think about it.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  16. Who gives a shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This is the $64,000 question right here. Twitter has been actively censoring viewpoints they don't like and there is literally no oversight. 1984 memory holes are alive and well at Twitter.

    And why do any of you give a rat's ass?

    It's a business - not the government. They have no obligation to freedom of speech or any other freedoms.

    That's what none of you are getting. If anyone thinks that Twitter, reddit, Slashdot, facebook or whatever has a legal obligation to free speech, you are horribly misinformed.

    1. Re:Who gives a shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why do we care if AT&T blocks calls from nazi's?

    2. Re:Who gives a shit? by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 0, Troll

      Everyone in the media has an obligation to freedom of speech and ALL other freedoms or they are a traitor.

    3. Re:Who gives a shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a business - not the government. They have no obligation to freedom of speech or any other freedoms.

      Free speech (and freedom in general) isn't just a law for the government to follow. It's also a concept, a shared culture value (at least I hope it is a shared culture value). Just because there's no legal obligation for a business or an individual to uphold the concept doesn't mean it isn't a good thing to uphold, or that people can't criticize you for not upholding it.

      Put it another way:other people have no obligation to not call you/a company out for acting like an ass.

    4. Re:Who gives a shit? by burtosis · · Score: 1

      Maybe Americans should care because there is a giant push to privatize all parts of the government. Americans got the shortest end of the stick when this philosophy has been applied to privatized institutions.

    5. Re:Who gives a shit? by The+Cynical+Critic · · Score: 1

      It's a business - not the government. They have no obligation to freedom of speech or any other freedoms.

      They're a business alright, but the CEO has gone on record more than once claiming that they don't apply the rules differently based on political leanings. They're completely free to be as biased as they want to, but they should at least be up front about how they apply different rules to people with different ideologies. If they don't want traditional liberals like myself who criticize conservatives and liberals when they do/say stupid things (i.e all the time), at least don't pretend like we're welcome when we're not.

      You're not going to be hard pressed to find examples of rules being applies differently based on one's political leanings. One pretty good example of this is how they banned Milo Yianopolis for the exact same kind of mass-harassment feminists like Randi Harper (you know, that crazy meth head who was kicked out of the FreeBSD because what a toxic person she is) have been allowed to get away with for years.

      --
      "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
    6. Re:Who gives a shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And why do any of you give a rat's ass?

      It's a business - not the government. They have no obligation to freedom of speech or any other freedoms.

      That's what none of you are getting. If anyone thinks that Twitter, reddit, Slashdot, facebook or whatever has a legal obligation to free speech, you are horribly misinformed.

      You want to play the "it's a business/no free speech" card? Fine. Let's play...

      So let's now talk about the antitrust laws, and how Twitter and Facebook are virtual monopolies. When is it appropriate to apply those laws and break these private companies up into smaller companies so there will be more competition? Perhaps competition that respects free speech?

    7. Re:Who gives a shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In every slashdot post there is always that one charlatan. That satanist saying you don't own something until you piss on it and assert your dominance.

      Free speech is not an obligation for the government. Its not a law its a constitutional priority, a rule of engagement, the fitting position to not get raped by the law. You said it yourself its a "business" and it has a responsibility therein to do business. This sort of transgression is a symptom of larger problems with companies merging into one big suicidal mass grave and that is why you empathize with them because of a mutual suicidal tendency.

    8. Re:Who gives a shit? by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      They're completely free to be as biased as they want to...

      No, they are not. Bias would jeopardize their common carrier status.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    9. Re:Who gives a shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Umm no dumbass, that's not how any of this works.

    10. Re:Who gives a shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >It's a business - not the government. They have no obligation to freedom of speech or any other freedoms.

      Oh, ok then. So does that mean businesses can deny service to whoever they choose for whatever reason? Does that mean bakers don't have to bake gay wedding cakes now if they don't want too? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

    11. Re:Who gives a shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > They have no obligation to freedom of speech or any other freedoms.

      Except all the freedoms (like freedom from discrimination) that they do have obligations to.
      You are abusing hyperbole to reveal your own frothy idiocy.

    12. Re:Who gives a shit? by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Those who enjoy legal protections as members of the press incur an obligation to be honest and to disclose all the facts regardless of whether they like them. I don't see why any other kind of media should have any obligation to its users.

      Everyone can freely associate or communicate as they see fit---or refuse to associate, if they object to someone else. That's the default; that's protected by the Constitution. If a social platform wants to remove content or ban users based on their content, they are entitled to do exactly that. The users are likewise entitled to leave social media platforms that engage in such behavior if they so choose.

      That's how freedom works. Both sides are free to walk away from each other.

      I've noticed the people who demand platforms are usually the losers who no one wants to listen to. If you're getting banned, voted/moderated down, or seeing your posts removed constantly, then your attitude and your ideas are just not acceptable to that community. Take the hint and move on.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    13. Re:Who gives a shit? by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 3, Funny

      I would think the fact that they don't have common carrier status probably is a bigger jeopardy to their common carrier status.

    14. Re:Who gives a shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Can we please, just once, have a discussion about the good and bad of censorship from a non-governmental agency, without someone immediately going "X is not the government, end of discussion, lalalalaicannotthearyou"?

    15. Re:Who gives a shit? by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Good point, Google has common carrier status, Twitter doesn't. Twitter will follow in Google's footsteps for the same reasons, as soon as they acquire the legal competence. So let's just say "future common carrier status" above.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    16. Re:Who gives a shit? by Calydor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      First they silenced the losers,
      And I said nothing, because I was not a loser.

      Then they silenced those with bad attitudes,
      And I said nothing, because I didn't like their attitude.

      Then they silenced the trolls,
      And I said nothing, because trolls are bad, m'kay?

      Then they silenced the guys with an actual, if controversial, point,
      And I said nothing because I didn't notice.

      Then ... You can see where this is going, right?

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    17. Re:Who gives a shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know.... if you stopped at the Trolls line, it seemed to be going to a pretty good place.

    18. Re:Who gives a shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Why do we care if AT&T blocks calls from nazi's?"

      Where would we get the apostrophes from?

      As you saw, sentences finishing with prepositions come from me.

    19. Re:Who gives a shit? by rossz · · Score: 0

      The Constitution does not grant members of the press any more or any less legal protection than anyone else. The press has been pushing this myth for decades, telling everyone they are special. They aren't special. Freedom of the press applies to EVERYONE.

      I do agree with your claim that the press has a moral obligation to disclose all relevant facts, whether they like them or not.

      As for your last statement, demanding a platform. No one should be able to get a special platform, but everyone should have access to the same platforms. The trend on college campuses to shout down speakers you don't like should be grounds for academic punishment, e.g. suspension. If you don't like a speaker because he's too conservative or too liberal for your, don't go to the lecture. But going for the specific purpose of preventing the speech should result in expulsion on the grounds you are too stupid to be in college.

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    20. Re:Who gives a shit? by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

      This is the $64,000 question right here. Twitter has been actively censoring viewpoints they don't like and there is literally no oversight. 1984 memory holes are alive and well at Twitter.

      And why do any of you give a rat's ass?

      It's a business - not the government. They have no obligation to freedom of speech or any other freedoms.

      That's what none of you are getting. If anyone thinks that Twitter, reddit, Slashdot, facebook or whatever has a legal obligation to free speech, you are horribly misinformed.

      Try googling "Twitter payments". As twitter becomes involved in the payments space and even as a conduit for advertising, it will have to come under more regulatory scrutiny. They will have to implement SOX complaint controls into their platform to prevent a rouge employee from deleting an account on their last day. With SOX, you are supposed to have segregation of duties and controls in place that prevent any single employee from deleting to altering a record without approval from someone else. I think you are horribly misinformed. As soon as you start charging for services, you come under a different set of rules.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    21. Re: Who gives a shit? by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      A rouge employee? Why are they red? Is it a danger signal?

    22. Re: Who gives a shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His point is that it never stops at the trolls. If I have the power to silence you and you express an opinion I don't like, you could very easily start to look like a troll to me. That's all I'd need to justify shutting you up. Power corrupts.

    23. Re:Who gives a shit? by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      You're conflating a legal obligation and a moral one. People have a moral obligation to support free speech, even if they aren't legally obligated to.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    24. Re:Who gives a shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corporations derive their existence from the government, if the government doesn't have a right they shouldn't be able to grant that right to corporations

      That is a rather blatant logical fallacy.

      One thing can create another thing with different properties. It happens all the time.

      your entire argument is deprecated

      Arguments cannot be deprecated. Good use of a thesaurus, but you're not a native English speaker. Go shill somewhere else, COMRADE.

    25. Re:Who gives a shit? by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

      First off, don't even bring the fascists into this. You Godwin, you lose---especially when you do it badly. The US government isn't doing the silencing, so your analogy doesn't apply.

      If no one wants to listen to you, the government doesn't have the authority to broadcast your message into people's faces. Private citizens and organizations can decide what speech they accept on their property.

      Make your beliefs credible and palatable to your audience, or find another audience. Nobody is sticking a gun in your face.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    26. Re:Who gives a shit? by Calydor · · Score: 1

      First of all, the original isn't so much about the nazis (although they were the ones it was aimed at, true) but about how dangerous it is to just shut up while one small group at a time gets taken out of the equation.

      Doesn't matter if it's a government or not. The fact is that anyone with an unpopular opinion can very quickly find it next to impossible to get anyone to hear that opinion. Leave it up to the listeners to dismiss it, don't duct tape the mouth of the speaker.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    27. Re: Who gives a shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I have the power to silence you and you express an opinion I don't like, you could very easily start to look like a troll to me. That's all I'd need to justify shutting you up. Power corrupts.

      Is the government the one shutting you up? No? Then too bad. Private organizations and private citizens are within their rights.

      Only the government is restricted from suppressing speech. As long as the government isn't making the rules, you're free to start up your own web site, newspaper, or social media app and invite whoever you want.

    28. Re: Who gives a shit? by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      Because one day someone might label you the Nazi, so you better speak up for their speech now so you can keep yours too. It's the internet, there's many offensive things on the internet, do you really want a internet with Safe Search Filter set to High all the time?

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
  17. A possibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's possible that the employee was doing their job by deleting that account. What if people had reported that days "Bring back the DEATH PENALTY!" tweet on grounds of it being "Threatening harm to others"?

  18. Last day before or after deletion ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did the employee get told it was their last day before or after the deletion ? :-) That person has now probably just got themselves a range of job offers for life however...

    1. Re:Last day before or after deletion ? by alex67500 · · Score: 1

      And a Criminal Record in the process. That might restrict their ability to work in some industries.

  19. Obligatory by Annatar22 · · Score: 1

    Sometimes there's a man, I won't say a hero, 'cause what's a hero? But sometimes, there's a man and he's the man for his time and place.

    1. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The customer support employee abides.

  20. Maybe they should've left it down for longer by cyberchondriac · · Score: 2

    His approval rating would probably rise if they did.
    I neither voted for the guy, nor am I a "nevertrumper"; I think he's unfairly maligned much of the time (sometimes he deserves it too), but a lot of his tweets are ridiculous.

    --

    Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    1. Re:Maybe they should've left it down for longer by T.E.D. · · Score: 2

      It would be tough for it to drop.

    2. Re:Maybe they should've left it down for longer by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      >It would be tough for it to drop.

      Nicolae Ceausescu had double-digit approval ratings when he was executed (And oddly enough, today about half the rural population and a third of the urban population of Romania would vote for him if he weren't busy being dead).

      The leader always has some support, if only because there are selfish and immoral people prospering under the regime.

    3. Re:Maybe they should've left it down for longer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The magician always distracts you when does his tricks. He's got the attention of the media as if they were five year olds.

    4. Re:Maybe they should've left it down for longer by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      They are (5 year olds).

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  21. One Person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One person has that level of access at a company the size of Twitter??

    No approval process? No review process?

    Wow. Are they operating in a garage ?

  22. NPR? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of the elite media who always bashed tech for "sexism" but now it turns out is packed with gropers and rapists? Fuck. Off.

  23. The Amazing Part by dlleigh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The amazing part of this episode is that Twitter discovered the disgruntled employee's action and rectified it in 11 minutes. How did they find out so quickly? Either the employee bragged or the action set off a trip wire, meaning that particular account was closely monitored by Twitter. I doubt that even the White House would be able to get Twitter to act so quickly once POTUS or his staff discovered that the account was broken.

    1. Re:The Amazing Part by iamacat · · Score: 1

      They probably have a bot that continiously polls high profile accounts for continued availability and a convinient reactivate button on SRE dashboard?

    2. Re:The Amazing Part by burtosis · · Score: 1

      Its such a huge revenue stream for them I wouldnt be supried if it didn't break several metrics they monitor 24/7. Probably got a call internally within 2 minutes of it being down, noticed just before the phone lines and e-mail started to light up.

    3. Re:The Amazing Part by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      Either the employee bragged or the action set off a trip wire, meaning that particular account was closely monitored by Twitter.

      It is the Twitter account of Moron-in-chief Donald Trump. The entire fucking world is closely monitoring it.

      I'm too lazy to check, but I'm guessing that it took 1 minute for somebody somewhere on Twitter to notice the account returned 'does not exist' and 2 minutes for somebody to tweet about it.
      Within 6 minutes this has bubbled up to some authority figure at Twitter via Twitter and emails.
      5 minutes later the issue and short term solution have been fleshed out and implented.

  24. The Resistance Strikes Again! by pipingguy · · Score: 1

    They're just like the Maquisards in WW2!

  25. a Trump supporter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trumps' twitter account being deleted would be a huge gift to the Republican Party.

  26. Obviously it was their last day by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

    our investigation we have learned that this was done by a Twitter customer support employee who did this on the employee's last day

    Was it the employee's last day before they deleted Trump's account?

    1. Re:Obviously it was their last day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was my question. Was it his last day and he decided to do it, or did he decide to do it and now it's his last day.

  27. Don't kill the goose that lays the golden egg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Twitter is kind of a ghetto, and the President's presence on the platform is one of the few things keeping it going. God help them if they ever ban him or he leaves.

  28. As the employee left Twitter HQ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for the last time, he was overheard quoting Dickens:

    It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.

  29. Re:Winning!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    except it was American voters that "installed" him.

  30. Twitter should retaliate by naming the person by DeplorableCodeMonkey · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They got lucky that the person was smart enough to not delete the account. There are plenty of political radicals in SV that would have not been so rational. Since the threat of firing was already gone, the only way Twitter can punish them now is to publicly name the person who did this. That is also a good way to make it clear to other employees that if they follow in this person's footsteps, Twitter will not hesitate to nuke them in defense of its interests and users.

    Like it or not, Trump is not just some user. He is almost a full blown asset with a monetary value to Twitter because he drives so much user engagement. Had the person deleted the account, Trump would have had a few options. One of which is Twitter's nightmare: move to Gab. Right now, Gab only has a few hundred thousand users and the neo-Nazis retards have a loud and proud presence there. I can guarantee you that if this SJW had deleted the account, Gab would have grown at least an order of magnitude within a few days. With 90 days, it would probably have at least 5M, if not 10M, users. Twitter would have also lost a huge source of engagement which would drive the conversations there down even further.

    If Twitter management cares about shareholders (we know they don't, as Dorsey is still in charge), they'll take swift and brutal action against this person and their career.

    1. Re:Twitter should retaliate by naming the person by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

      Bad idea. First, naming him/her would lead to instant fame and possibly financial gain. Whereas a "here's two weeks Starbucks money and an agreement that you'll never talk about this" is better for Twitter. Second, it's possible this was a more stupid than malicious move (e.g., "herp derp lets see if I can delete the president's account, herp derp, oh shit oh shit oh shit"). In that case, the problem is really more on Twitter's crappy process and controls than it is on the worker bees dropped on the anthill.

    2. Re:Twitter should retaliate by naming the person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are the face of evil on the internet!

    3. Re:Twitter should retaliate by naming the person by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as "deletion" of social media account. It is cute that you think the data goes away when you "delete" your account though.

    4. Re:Twitter should retaliate by naming the person by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Since the threat of firing was already gone, the only way Twitter can punish them now is to publicly name the person who did this. That is also a good way to make it clear to other employees that if they follow in this person's footsteps, Twitter will not hesitate to nuke them in defense of its interests and users.

      I agree, they should name the this terrible person, and also publish a link to his or her Patreon or GoFundMe so everyone knows what not to pay money to. If there's a bar they frequent, Twitter should publish the phone number to call if someone wants to complain and definitely not pay off this person's bar tab by credit card, debit card, or Paypal. This is the least they should do.

      I would go further, and also pay the person responsible a huge sum of money so they're forced to pay higher taxes, which I understand, from what Trump and other right wingers say, is the worst thing in the world.

      It's time this individual was given what they so richly deserve.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    5. Re:Twitter should retaliate by naming the person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [Trump is a] full blown asset with a monetary value to Twitter

      Is he? What does Twitter gain if I visit Trump's feed? I see no ads. I don't need to be logged in. How, precisely, has Twitter benefited from my visit to Trump's feed?

      This is an honest question; I genuinely don't understand.

    6. Re:Twitter should retaliate by naming the person by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      He's going to need it, unemployable now.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    7. Re:Twitter should retaliate by naming the person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or Trump could communicate like very other fucking president has in the modern era - on the record, above board, in a room full of press representatives.

    8. Re:Twitter should retaliate by naming the person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's time this individual was given what they so richly deserve.

      A free ride?

  31. Gay Wedding Cake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Oh, deleting accounts of blacks and gays is acceptable? I seem to remember a recent court case about a wedding cake for a gay wedding that LEGALLY decided differently.

    Good to know racism and sexism is ok, as long as you are a private company. Thanks for sticking up for racists!

    1. Re:Gay Wedding Cake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      kind of late to the party buddy, the blame train has left.

    2. Re:Gay Wedding Cake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Oh... FFS... blacks and lgbts are protected classes. Businesses can't discriminate based on protected classes. They can discriminate based on anyone's opinion though. They can ban people because they're spouting hate speech regardless of race or sexual orientation.

      Donald Trump is not a race. At least not yet.

  32. Re:Are all the editors on Slashdot liberal SJW's? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Is rather be like the "intolerant" antifa than what they stand against.

    The Nazis hate black people, brown people, Jews, Muslims, gay people, transsexuals, women, foreigners and so on.

    Antifa hate the Nazis.

    Those are not equivalent.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  33. Re:Are all the editors on Slashdot liberal SJW's? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I take the libtard bias with a grain of salt. Slashdot, to me, serves as confirmation of the existence of bigger stories. Cross check it with real news and find the full story. Too many people are afraid to look at multiple viewpoints. My coworkers included.

    When some "alt-right" site talks about something like say "amazon wants to invade your home/privacy" and then a site like this one talks about the amazon echo, doorbell and lock, you start to see the truth. Sensationalist as most "alt-right" sites are, they are giving real information. The sensationalism is simply a warning of the dire implications of a given story. Ignore it at your peril. Governments and corporations typically do NOT have our best interests in mind.

  34. Re: Winning!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With stock prices skyrocketing and an improved business environment, Iâ(TM)m winning every day now since last year. But he lied about something: Iâ(TM)m not tired of winning! Iâ(TM)ll take another 7 years of it.

  35. Here we go - NAZIS!!!! Aaaaaaa! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Oh, deleting accounts of blacks and gays is acceptable? I seem to remember a recent court case about a wedding cake for a gay wedding that LEGALLY decided differently.

    Good to know racism and sexism is ok, as long as you are a private company. Thanks for sticking up for racists!

    Yes, I will stick up for racists. One has every right to be a racist, bigot or whatever. They have a right to speak their mind. But we also have the right to not listen to him - to censor him: tell him to get off of private property for instance, like a website.

    Now, does the racist have a right to walk into a synagogue and start pontificating of the evils of Jews? Nope.

    Does Twitter or any other media outlet have to allow the Nazi to share his views? Nope.

    Do you have a right to tell him to STFU? Yep.

    Does the government have a right to tell him to STFU? Nope.

    1. Re:Here we go - NAZIS!!!! Aaaaaaa! by cogeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wish everyone understood it like this. Protecting our rights isn't about protecting only the rights of those we agree with. Everyone has the same rights. We have to specifically protect the rights of those we disagree with if we expect them to do the same once our rights are the ones being violated.

    2. Re: Here we go - NAZIS!!!! Aaaaaaa! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The sole point of freedom of speech is so that you canâ(TM)t be jailed or killed for your opinion. Not because your opinion isnâ(TM)t wrong, but rather because whoâ(TM)s to say the guy in power is right?

      You have no obligation to let people post things that you think are evil on your website. Thatâ(TM)s just ludicrous. America has a long tradition of valuing FREEDOM. Letâ(TM)s give people the freedom to regulate sites as they see fit.

    3. Re: Here we go - NAZIS!!!! Aaaaaaa! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You totally missed the point, dipshit.

      If a baker can be forced to make a dick cake for a gay wedding, Twitter can be forced to make a dick cake for Trump.

      You can't have it both ways. You must live by the same stupid fucking rules you try to force on everyone else.

    4. Re:Here we go - NAZIS!!!! Aaaaaaa! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wish everyone understood it like this. Protecting our rights....

      And something else I wish everyone understood: Twitter isn't a common carrier, it is a service. There are no "rights" at stake in this discussion.

      I, for one, don't want these companies ensconced a public institutions. That would be giving the fox the fucking keys to the hen house.

    5. Re: Here we go - NAZIS!!!! Aaaaaaa! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gay apples and fascist oranges...

    6. Re:Here we go - NAZIS!!!! Aaaaaaa! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have to specifically protect the rights of those we disagree with if we expect them to do the same once our rights are the ones being violated.

      I don't expect Nazi-wannabes to protect my "right" to be an asshole on some corporate website.

    7. Re:Here we go - NAZIS!!!! Aaaaaaa! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does the government have a right to tell him to STFU? Nope.

      Funny. I seem to recall Donald Trump trying to tell us we shouldn't be able to take a knee during the national anthem.

    8. Re: Here we go - NAZIS!!!! Aaaaaaa! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bakers AREN'T forced to make dick cakes for gay weddings. They aren't forced to make dick cakes for anyone. Bakers ARE expected to sell the cakes they make, in the range of customization they offer, to anyone who hasn't directly acted in bad faith (failure to pay, abusive behavior, etc).

  36. Re:Are all the editors on Slashdot liberal SJW's? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is rather be like the "intolerant" antifa than what they stand against.

    The Nazis hate black people, brown people, Jews, Muslims, gay people, transsexuals, women, foreigners and so on.

    Antifa hate the Nazis.

    Those are not equivalent.

    By defining "Nazis" an anyone who doesn't agree with Antifa, Antifa ARE Nazis.

    Look at it this way:

    Both Antifa and the Taliban respond to statues they don't like in the same way: tear them down.

    Both Antifa and Mussolini's Fascists stated that they will violently attack people simply for preferring different economic policies.

    When an organization has that much in common with the Taliban and Mussolini's Fascists - and masks themselves just like the KKK - there's a problem with that organization.

  37. Re:Are all the editors on Slashdot liberal SJW's? by alex67500 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, this. It's probably the most famous Twitter account, which happens to be a technology firm, so News for Nerds kind of qualifies. I don't think TFS is very biased either, it's quite factual. The only thing it fails to mention is if said rogue employee will be charged, but I'd be amazed if they aren't...

  38. Your data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who said it's your data? Have you read the TOS you agreed on?

    1. Re:Your data? by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Yes, I don't participate in services I don't agree with the TOS. But the Twitter TOS specifically is pretty clear that "users own their content".

      Do you really think Twitter wants to own any one of the channels? If they owned the data, people wouldn't be able to criticize the president, because then it would be "Twitter says".

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  39. No longer a job reference now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whatever this employee worked out recently, Twitter will no longer be a reference for future job searches. Oh well.

    But I'm sure now whenever someone has "Twitter" on their resume, they will be asked "You aren't the CSR that deleted Trump's account out of anger on your last day of work, were you?"

    If this employee just started a new job or will be starting on Monday, I'm guessing the employment offer might get withdrawn. That's just BAD customer service and I wouldn't want a loose cannon like that working for me.

  40. Re:Who gives a shit? Everyone should... by I75BJC · · Score: 0

    Twitter is probably considered a "Public" means of communications (or a public utility). Just like the telephone -- Telecomms can't drop access just because they don't like people or what the people stand for or say. The Federal Government has state many, many times that a business can't discriminate based on laws that are not part of the USA Constitution. Such as, Real Estate Agents/Realtors, Hotels and other Accommodations, "public" convenance, Medical businesses (doctors, hospitals, clinics), Bakeries, etc., etc. It is not a stretch of any sort to expect that USA Constitutional rights would apply to Twitter -- especially when it affects Political Speech! Political Speech is the most protected type of speech that there is under the USA Constitution. The US Supreme Courts has spent decades (and centuries) defining "free speech" and the other parts of the First Amendment. You don't get to redefine what they say. You do get your own options. But it's only your opinion.

  41. Leave it to the left to laud childishness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Somebody 'accidentally' deleted the US President's twitter account and nobody at Twitter was paying attention? Beggars believability. Prolly did it for the publicity and the employee'll wind up with a bonus paid by Clinton Foundation (put this in for the tin hat folks). For those of you celebrating these gaffs and feeling oh so vindicated... Get over it - election's over, the left is corrupt and eating itself, and DJT's tweets are at least not a bunch of obsequious platitudes. Or would you rather be lectured by Dr. Obama for another 4 years about how entitled you are, oh wait, you probably would...

    1. Re:Leave it to the left to laud childishness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off and die you filthy bootlicker, I'll yet drag your mouthbreathing piece of shit mungface to the 21st century, kicking and screaming, and there ain't a goddamn thing you're gonna do about it.

  42. take out the trash by mejustme · · Score: 0

    > the president's personal account kicked back the error message "does not exist."

    Cannot help but think: "...and nothing of value was lost."

    1. Re:take out the trash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > the president's personal account kicked back the error message "does not exist."

      Cannot help but think: "...and nothing of value was lost."

      Or restored 11 min later....

  43. Give that (wo)man a medal! by Tough+Love · · Score: 0

    Give that (wo)man a medal! Hmm, actually, a gofundme. Really.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    1. Re:Give that (wo)man a medal! by TexasDiaz · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I was thinking an International Peace Prize for the 11 minutes of peace brought to the world.

    2. Re:Give that (wo)man a medal! by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Give that (wo)man a medal! Hmm, actually, a gofundme. Really.

      Wow, the Ivans found this post too!

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  44. Re:Are all the editors on Slashdot liberal SJW's? by CajunArson · · Score: 0

    Bullshit.

    Antifa hates black people, brown people, Jews, Muslims, gay people, transsexuals, women, foreigners and so on who don't lick the boots of the right "progressive masters" when told to do so.

    --
    AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
  45. Re:Who gives a shit? Everyone should... by Tough+Love · · Score: 3, Informative

    Twitter is probably considered a "Public" means of communications (or a public utility). Just like the telephone...

    Common carrier is the legal term you're looking for. Yes, megatechs guard that status jealously, it helps keep employee costs down.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  46. Give them a medal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A real American making sure Putin's little bitch is reminded of who he really is.

  47. Re:Winning!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From another Trump voter....

    Calm down my friend. Trump doesn't need this kind of help, he's defending himself quite well and the Looney Leftists are still going full bore meltdown and embarrassing themselves. Let them keep at this self destructive behavior and don't give them any ammo to use on you..

    This whole "Bernie got robbed" and "Hillary lied" stuff is going to torpedo what's left of their boat quite well. I'm guessing it will be President Pence for two terms before they sort it all out and are able to field a viable candidate again. Obama and Clinton have literally ruined their party for at least a decade and if they keep up the stupid tantrums even longer.

  48. Re:Are all the editors on Slashdot liberal SJW's? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0, Troll

    LOL u joking bro? They shut down the speech of people they disagree with with violence. Antifa are not Anti Fascists. If they were...they would attack Hillary, Bush and Sorosï. They wear masks and black shirts. They bear a great resemblance to the very people they claim to oppose. At what point do you ask yourself, "Hans, are we the baddies?"

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  49. Nazi Gay Marriage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if an LGBTQ Nazi wants to announce their marriage over Twitter? Wouldn't that be discrimination? If they can get a baker to make them a cake (and that's been established on slashdot as correct), then why wouldn't they be able to force twitter to make them a tweet.

    Being a business in America means operating in the public square which means you can't be against anything liberals are for cause they'll sue you.

    1. Re:Nazi Gay Marriage by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      What if an LGBTQ Nazi wants to announce their marriage over Twitter? Wouldn't that be discrimination?

      I would love to have that happen just for the smuggled viral video of heads exploding on the Twitter censorship staff.

  50. Best 11 minutes of Trump's presidency so far by GameboyRMH · · Score: 0

    Thank you, kind hero, for 11 minutes of calm peace and quiet. This will go down in history as the second best moment of Trump's presidency, after the lulztastic childish temper tantrum that will ensue when he gets impeached late next year.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  51. This is manufactured drama. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is manufactured drama.

  52. self-fulfiliing excuse? by JustNiz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    >> this was done by a Twitter customer support employee who did this on the employee's last day.

    Was it their last day before they did it?

  53. Because of laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (Posting anon to keep mods.) Because in the US, we have laws against discrimination. Depending on where you are, there are certain rules. In most states, you aren't allowed to refuse service based on race, religion, sex, orientation. Also performing a service does not mean you support/approve/agree with them.

    1. Re:Because of laws by laurencetux · · Score: 1

      and adding any or all of

      Honey
      Almonds
      Peanuts
      Sorbital Based Sweetener
      Valerian Root
      Lemon

      to the cake "forgetting" or "not knowing" that members of the wedding party are allergic could not cause any more than normal liabilty

  54. Re:Are all the editors on Slashdot liberal SJW's? by shmert · · Score: 1

    If I were that employee I'd have posted to the account instead of deleting it. What words to put in his mouth, though? I'd be hard-pressed to come up with something offensive enough to shock anyone. Maybe take the other tack, and admit to some of his shit.

    --
    You drank my drink, you drunk!
  55. Re:Winning!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump's campaign manager is under indictment and confined to house arrest. Another campaign worker pleaded guilty to lying about the Trump campaign's collusion with Russia.

    Whatever noise the self sabotaging democrats are making pales in comparison to the serious crimes that Donald Trump has clearly committed and is being held accountable for.

  56. Re:Are all the editors on Slashdot liberal SJW's? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1, Troll

    Stating the obvious to the three of you:

    Hillary, Bush, and Soros are not "fascists". They don't become fascists just because you disagree with them. Fuck I hate Bush's regime with a passion, but the nearest I ever criticized it as remotely close to certain 1930s European regimes was in committing a similar war crime - namely conspiracy to wage war. Ideologically these are not fascists - they are not white supremacists, they do not promote violence against ethnic or religious minorities, they do not advocate violence against peaceful political opponents, they do not intend to use the state to punish political opposition, and so on.

    The loose coalition of groups that labels itself Antifa has been pretty consistent in attacking groups that self identify with the political labels most people consider fascist: neo-nazis, white supremacists, white nationalists, etc.

    Fascism is wrong. Most ordinary people "get it". Being against Fascism is not wrong, and while we can have a healthy debate about the use of violence against Fascists, we can reasonably agree that someone doesn't become a Fascist just because they disagree with you, but that people whose ideological make up is based upon violence and the racial superiority of the dominant racial group do fit most definitions of Fascist.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  57. Re:a true hero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a post of good, comrade. Job is well done. Please see your PayPal account for rubels.

  58. Service used by US Government by tepples · · Score: 0

    It's a business - not the government.

    It's a business that provides services to agencies of the United States Government. The law holds government contractors to a higher standard than other private sector businesses.

    1. Re:Service used by US Government by mrbester · · Score: 1

      Trump's personal account is part of a government contract now, is it?

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
  59. Leave it to the right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Leave it to the right to bitch about the left supposedly lauding "childishness", while electing a man-child at the highest position in the United States who posts tweet after tweet after tweet of the most childish nonsense.

    Pot, meet kettle.

  60. At least Twitter supports Unicode by tepples · · Score: 1

    Twitter unconscionably restricts users's free speech to fewer than 255 characters. We demand the full 8-bit width of a one-byte length descriptor.

    Individual characters in Tweets are from a set larger than 255, <cough>unlike on Slashdot...</cough>

  61. Re:Are all the editors on Slashdot liberal SJW's? by msauve · · Score: 0

    Ah, I see an Antifa fascist drove by and modded me down, proving my point.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  62. @POTUS retweets @realDonaldTrump an awful lot by tepples · · Score: 1

    The White House's @POTUS account is a government contract. President Trump's personal account (@realDonaldTrump) is de facto a government contract to the extent that @POTUS is largely composed of Retweets from @realDonaldTrump. When @realDonaldTrump was briefly deactivated, half the Tweets on @POTUS became unavailable during that time.

    1. Re:@POTUS retweets @realDonaldTrump an awful lot by mrbester · · Score: 1

      I could automatically retweet everything Trump's personal account vomits out (I don't need to, though, as there's plenty that do that anyway). Does that make my account "de facto" a government contract? Of course not. Don't be so fucking stupid.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
  63. Re:Are all the editors on Slashdot liberal SJW's? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Shutting down free speech with violence while wearing masks and literal blackshirts is not fighting fascism. It is fascism!

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  64. And there was much rejoicing by whitroth · · Score: 1

    But couldn't he have deleted *Trump*, not just his twitter account?

  65. Re: Just another Fucking Example... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course you're an ac

  66. Blamed? by PPH · · Score: 1

    Why start out on such a judgmental note?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  67. Violation of ToS by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    From what I've heard (I don't use so-called 'social media' of any kind, not for at least 10 years now) Trump's account on Twitter should have been deleted a long time ago for violation of Terms of Service (hate speech, etc) and it certainly should be deleted now for posting 'fake news' and 'alternative facts' (read as: PROPAGANDA). Of course the downside to that would be the American people wouldn't have daily reminders of what a jackass he is, since he proves that on a daily (sometimes hourly) basis, with practically every single 'tweet'.

    1. Re:Violation of ToS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Slashdot is considered a social media site so your first statement is wrong - you use social media
      2) The ToS for these site state various things that are against the rules, then throw in the kitchen since catch-all ("which is in our opinion" ... "in our sole judgment" ...) letting them arbitrarily label just about anything as a violation, so any account can be suspended at any time. Then enter subjectivity to rule enforcement, AKA bias.
      3) "Hate speech" is a great example of point 2 - please give an objective definition of "hate speech" that cannot be abused against the ruling party's enemies. You can't? Remember, at some point the powers that be will change and the shoe will be on the other foot. Don't wish for enforcement mechanisms unless you are willing to accept the consequences.

      Note that what this employee did happens all the time at Twitter and similar companies, with accounts being removed because someone felt like it. The difference here is there were too many "political" ramifications, so it got undone.

    2. Re:Violation of ToS by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      1. I don't post anything relevant about my life here, I don't use my real name, and I don't have 'friends' or 'likes' or any of that shit. This is NOT 'social media', it is a 'news aggregation site with commenting'. If you're using it as 'social media' then I feel sorry for you.
      2. Then they should boot Trump off. He's an embarassment to Twitter -- and the American people.
      3. Trump is nothing but hate and lies, and likely a traitor. Don't like that I say that? Tough shit.

    3. Re:Violation of ToS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The trend today is to try to ban what you don't like, while ignoring that by the same rules, what you are saying can also be banned. That is why the assault on free speech is so insidious. People are setting themselves up to reap what they sow. So you don't like what Trump says - ban him. Someone with power doesn't like what you say - ban you. Ans you better not complain when they do since that would be hypocrisy.

    4. Re:Violation of ToS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is NOT 'social media', it is a 'news aggregation site with commenting'..

      According to Slashdot Media, the parent of Slashdot, "Slashdot is the first and leading social media destination for technology professionals and IT decision makers".

      Whether you want to admit to yourself you use social media or not, the fact is you do. Rationalizing it by saying you don't post personal information as you post on a PUBLIC FORUM with POLITICAL COMMENTARY just speaks volumes about you.

    5. Re:Violation of ToS by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Slashdot is ANTIsocial media, you festering malodorous gob!

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    6. Re:Violation of ToS by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      And Antifa calls themselves antifascist? So what? People lie all the time.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    7. Re:Violation of ToS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is nothing about Trump to like in the first place! He needs to GO AWAY! He is an EMBARASSMENT to this country!

  68. Re:Are all the editors on Slashdot liberal SJW's? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's too bad you hate a president who defends babies, religious freedom, freedom of speech, and citizen safety: he may be at times uncouthed but better than a silver tongue devil (most politicians). Also I'm pretty sure impersonating the President on Twitter would land you in jail right quick.

  69. Re:Winning!!!! by bobbied · · Score: 1

    Just so you know the actual facts...

    Manafort has been charged with what amounts to tax evasion and none of it has anything to do with the Russians. Also, all the charges allege activities that happened BEFORE Trump's campaign was even a pipe dream, 4 YEARS before Trump announced back in 2012. Also, remember that Manafort's position as campaign manager ENDED right after Trump was the obvious nominee, so had nothing to do with the campaign in the general election fight with Clinton.

    The campaign worker who pleaded guilty to "Lying to the FBI" (Again, no charges related to the Russians) was an unpaid worker, who attempted to set up meetings with the Russians for opposition research purposes, was rebuffed by the campaign. They told him to pound sand...

    How does any of this indicate actual collusion with the Russians? I'm not seeing it.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  70. Don't wait to act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No wonder most people have left

    You should follow their example, it would raise the S/N ratio a little.

  71. Re:Winning!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They told him to pound sand

    So you do concede there was an attempted approach? That's a significant shift from "zero contact". Unfortunately, Jeff Sessions subsequently lied about this, under oath, on more than one occasion. He is finished, and will likely be the next one wearing a wire (if he isn't already...)

  72. treason? by retchdog · · Score: 0

    This treasonous fuck should be EXECUTED immediately, along with Shillary!!!

    --
    "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    1. Re:treason? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This treasonous fuck should be EXECUTED immediately, along with Shillary!!!

      Patience padwan, patience.

      The DNC is going to war with Hitlary this week and the infighting will leave many SJW corpses in the ditches of Arkansas and beyond.

      This is just a distraction. Sit back and watch the old school dems fight with the SJW dems for a week or two.

      THEN charge the winners with treason.

  73. Re:Are all the editors on Slashdot liberal SJW's? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Nazis hate black people, brown people, Jews, Muslims, gay people, transsexuals, women, foreigners and so on.
    Antifa hate the Nazis. .. .. ..
    aaaaand everybody hates the Jews
    But during National Brotherhood Week...

  74. Re:Are all the editors on Slashdot liberal SJW's? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lol you don't know a goddamn thing yet you think you're smart and informed. Bless your heart

  75. CIA by swdave · · Score: 1

    Knock Knock Knock

  76. Twitter employee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not the hero we deserved, but the one that we needed. For 11 minutes the orange fucktard was gone...

  77. Re:Are all the editors on Slashdot liberal SJW's? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The so-called "nazis" that Antifa "protest" against are just regular Americans who have unpopular views. They don't do anything harmful and they just want the right to speak. They're harmless.

    Antifa, on the other hand, are violent thugs who have gotten multiple people killed and caused who knows how much property damage.

    I don't fear the so-called "nazis." They're a bunch of harmless dorks with Tiki torches.

    Antifa terrifies me. They live for violence.

  78. Re:Are all the editors on Slashdot liberal SJW's? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shutting down racist speech with violence while wearing masks and literal blackshirts is fighting fascism

    FTFY

  79. Re:Winning!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They told him to pound sand

    So you do concede there was an attempted approach? That's a significant shift from "zero contact". Unfortunately, Jeff Sessions subsequently lied about this, under oath, on more than one occasion. He is finished, and will likely be the next one wearing a wire (if he isn't already...)

    Yep, there was an attempt to collude with the Russians:

    Clinton lawyer kept Russian dossier project closely held

  80. Disappointed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was hoping this was some anti-Doomsday mechanism designed to allow smarter minds a chance to get him to retract a bad tweet that could set off WWIII, kinda like the 5 second delay on the SuperBowl that protects us from other tits. Now I find it's just a disgruntled Twitter employee.

  81. Re:Are all the editors on Slashdot liberal SJW's? by fatwilbur · · Score: 1

    That's the ironic beauty of what we fought for in WW2 - we fought for the right for Nazis to express their opinions without being physically attacked for it. Only when we have all ideas out in the open can we hope people become smart enough to review the choices and make smart decisions.

  82. Re:Are all the editors on Slashdot liberal SJW's? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Is rather be like the "intolerant" antifa than what they stand against.

    The Nazis hate black people, brown people, Jews, Muslims, gay people, transsexuals, women, foreigners and so on.

    Antifa hate the Nazis.

    Those are not equivalent.

    Antifa defines anyone they do not like as "Nazis". The number of actual Nazis in the USA today is under 200. Somehow, Antifa thugs find people who they think are Nazis everywhere.

    You may think Antifa has the ability to read minds, and can tell who is really a Nazi in spite of the fact that they do not say they are a Nazi, do anything Nazis do, etc. Those of us with common sense understand that these people are low life thugs who make up stories about Nazis to justify their hateful violent authoritarian tendencies.

  83. Cuban Missle Crisis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if during those 11 minutes, Trump was coked out of his gourd as usual and about to tweet something that would lead to WWIII? The employee could have just averted the end of the word.

  84. Re:Winning!!!! by Shotgun · · Score: 1

    Trump's campaign manager is under indictment and confined to house arrest.

    And what is Podesta up to these days?

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  85. Twittr Employe Credited for Deleting Trump's Acct by Drunkulus · · Score: 1

    There, fixed it for you.

  86. Re:Winning!!!! by Shotgun · · Score: 1

    But American voters were "influenced" when a nefarious actor exposed emails that demonstrated the corruption of Hillary and the DNC, confirming what people already thought they knew about her. And it is that unfair influence that the Democrats seek to set right.

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  87. Re:Winning!!!! by bobbied · · Score: 1

    Attempted? Not by the Trump campaign. In fact, the one guy who claims he was trying to set getting opposition research information, was told to pound sand by the campaign, then he pleads guilty to lying to the FBI. That's NOT a Russian connection... Actually, it's evidence that there WASN'T a connection.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  88. Re:Are all the editors on Slashdot liberal SJW's? by Shotgun · · Score: 1

    No one was bringing Weinstein into this debate.

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  89. Re: Just another Fucking Example... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Speaking of a butthurt cocksucker ...

  90. As punishment, the employee's twitter account by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    should be deleted. Serves him right.

    1. Re:As punishment, the employee's twitter account by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      No, no. The punishment should be he has to watch Barney for a day.

  91. No "Second gunman" anyone? Bueller? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, go ahead and kick the man for treating everyone the same. Oh, that was the President's twitter account? What was he doing on Twitter, FFS.

  92. Re:Who gives a shit? Everyone should... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    Hmm, do we have evidence that Twitter has ever been used for "communications"?

  93. Re:Are all the editors on Slashdot liberal SJW's? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Literally nothing in the definition of fascism involves clothing, violence or free speech.

  94. Suppose... by Xenna · · Score: 1

    Suppose someone would have deleted Hitler's Twitter account. They would've been a hero now. Oh wait...

  95. Re:Are all the editors on Slashdot liberal SJW's? by msauve · · Score: 1

    "Hillary, Bush, and Soros are not "fascists". They don't become fascists just because you disagree with them. "

    They do if you use the same definition that Antifa does.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  96. CNN != the only news source by Hallux-F-Sinister · · Score: 1

    No, the real question is why they restored it so quickly. I would have loved having a week or two without having to hear about the latest Trump rant on CNN.

    Some scientists are now suggesting that there are other news organizations that will tell you the same corporate-friendly, pro-war, anti-American (America the theory, the ideal of individual freedom, not America the ESTABLISHMENT, they're pro-establishment,) such as MSNBC, for example.

    Of course, if you want real, actual news, news that ISN'T slanted (or completely missing when not reporting on something is) in favor of the interests of their corporate MASTERS, you might consider news that is VIEWER-SUPPORTED instead?

    You might consider Democracy Now, for instance, or The Young Turks Network, as just a couple examples. Actually, they also do sometimes go on about Trump and his nonsense, but at least you'll have the full context when you get your news from these and similar sources, and in the case of the Young Turks, they do manage to make the nightmare that is having Trump be "president" (hahaha) more bearable by pointing out what a miserable, petulant, stupid, incompetent CHILD he is.

    Visit democracynow.org, tytnetwork.com if you're interested, and care to know what is actually going on.

    --
    Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
  97. Re:Are all the editors on Slashdot liberal SJW's? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, the editors do have infinite mod points.

  98. Unrealistic to believe it was human error by HermMunster · · Score: 1

    I don't believe it was a human error for a moment, simply because it is unrealistic that any Twitter employee would even remotely be looking at President Trump's data. What are the damn odds that this was just done inadvertently? Twitter does have a political bias itself, so I don't doubt that a cover up (however minor it is) is going to occur.

    That employee had no business being there at all.

    That employee likely should be fired. This isn't some employee curious and hit the wrong button on some celebrity that she was interested in. This is someone that deleted the account of the President because of her political agenda and/or she wanted to be a footnote in history.

    I'm saying she because we so often just assume it was a "he" so it is only equal to assume "she" now. You don't have to be a "he" to be dangerous in today's world.

    --
    You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
  99. Re:Winning!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's documented evidence that Sessions lied, yet again. Why is he lying? What is he covering up?

  100. It was your purchase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean the one the RUPUBLICANS bought first but decided at delivery time they didn't want it anymore? That one? Yeah, they actually DID report about it.

  101. Same for Russia too. In the USA, I mean. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then again, trump's twats are official presidential missives when they want and those twats of a private citizen when they want that instead, so maybe the use of twitter is less important than you feel.

    1. Re:Same for Russia too. In the USA, I mean. by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Trump's inane tweets aside, Twitter seems very popular with the media elite (some would say compulsory). If you believe that the media is influential (and I do), then it follows that Twitter is also influential.

      Also, KFC did that really cool thing where they followed 11 guys named Herb and the Spice Girls.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  102. no, not quite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Wishing that everyone had access to food, shelter, and healthcare" makes you a LEFTIST if interpreted as you clearly meant it.

    Everybody (in the US anyway) has ACCESS to those things - they just need to pay for them. Every creature in nature must work constantly to obtain the food water and shelter it needs to continue living. You almost certainly did not mean you needed "access" to those things but rather that you wish everybody had those actual things given to them, whether they worked to earne them or not.

    A classical "liberal" cares about the rights and freedoms of individuals in the face of government. Most people in the US who have been self-identifying as "liberals" since about the time of the 1968 DNC convention are actually big fans of massive government running rough-shod all over the rights of pesky little individuals as long as that massive government is taking money from some people at confiscatory rates and handing it out to others to buy their obedience and their votes or that massive government is being used to ram some "progressive" social or political egenda down the throats of political opponents. That's NOT "liberal" at all but rather "leftist" and depending upon intensity may even be "jack-booted leftist"

    Incidentally, "wishing that DJT would stop tweeting" guarantees that you are NOT a classical "liberal", who in an earlier era would have said that he disagreed with possibly everything DJT tweeted but would defend to the death his right to tweet.

    1. Re:no, not quite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Everybody (in the US anyway) has ACCESS to those things - they just need to pay for them.

      Pedantry. In this context having "access" clearly means you can take advantage of it with no barriers including cost.

      > who in an earlier era would have said that he disagreed with possibly everything DJT tweeted but would defend to the death his right to tweet.

      DJT has no right to tweet. No one does. He has a right to say whatever he wants, but since Twitter is a service provided by a private-sector company, they can decide whom they want to provide the service.

    2. Re:no, not quite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every creature in nature must work constantly to obtain the food water and shelter it needs to continue living

      Not actually true. Consider, for example, essentially all birds and mammals. They all have childhoods. Heck many of them start out their lives effectively blind. Ditto for many kinds of social insects. What constant work do drones in a beehive do, for example? More importantly, consider all the kinds of social animals that will actually care for the sick and injured members of their society. As much as you want to imagine nature as being all about adversarial competition at all levels, it's also full of examples of cooperation.

      Most people in the US who have been self-identifying as "liberals" since about the time of the 1968 DNC convention are actually big fans of massive government running rough-shod all over the rights of pesky little individuals as long as that massive government is taking money from some people at confiscatory rates and handing it out to others to buy their obedience and their votes or that massive government is being used to ram some "progressive" social or political egenda down the throats of political opponents.

      The really sad thing about political discourse in the US, and in general I suppose, is all the people like you who are just so absolutely convinced of the party line that it's basically impossible to ever have a rational discussion with you. Considering that, around 1968, there were plenty of "conservatives" who were first generation descendants of slave owners, bitter about the loss of their "property", claiming that the liberals were the ones who wanted a government that runs rough-shod all over the rights of pesky little individuals is just absurd. Let's not forget that state-enforced racial segregation was still a thing in 1968. It was largely finally abolished in law that year in the Fair Housing Act, but managed to persist in some forms for a few more years. Coincidentally, the actual practice of racial segregation continued for quite some time after that. Just a few years later, in fact, Fred and Donald Trump, members of a real estate dynasty in New York ended up in some hot water over racial discrimination in housing. This is just five years later and is coincidental because of the subject of your next remarks.

      Incidentally, "wishing that DJT would stop tweeting" guarantees that you are NOT a classical "liberal", who in an earlier era would have said that he disagreed with possibly everything DJT tweeted but would defend to the death his right to tweet.

      In fact it doesn't at all. "wishing that DJT would stop tweeting" is just another form of free speech. It falls under disagreeing with what he says, not under interfering with his right to say it. It is fair to point out of course, that his Twitter account should be suspended or deleted under Twitter's actual policies. That's more a criticism of the way that "public" speech is being taken over by private organizations that engage in censorship, however.

    3. Re:no, not quite by gnick · · Score: 1

      You almost certainly did not mean you needed "access" to those things but rather that you wish everybody had those actual things given to them, whether they worked to earne them or not.

      Yep. That's what I meant. Where was the confusion?

      Incidentally, "wishing that DJT would stop tweeting" guarantees that you are NOT a classical "liberal", who in an earlier era would have said that he disagreed with possibly everything DJT tweeted but would defend to the death his right to tweet.

      I wish that people with BO would stop getting on elevators too. Doesn't mean I'm fighting to ban them.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  103. No justice! by woboyle · · Score: 1

    This person should get an award for reducing the noise on Twitter!

    --
    Sometimes, real fast is almost as good as real-time.
  104. Your post is sharp with daggers. Reduce them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your post is sharp with daggers. Reduce them.

    Be civil.

  105. Re: Just another Fucking Example... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And so are you. What of it?