Slashdot Mirror
Why Twitter Hasn't Banned President Trump (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Amid vocal calls for the company to act, Twitter today offered its first explanation for why it hasn't banned President Donald Trump -- without ever saying the man's name. "Elected world leaders play a critical role in that conversation because of their outsized impact on our society," the company said in a blog post. "Blocking a world leader from Twitter or removing their controversial Tweets, would hide important information people should be able to see and debate. It would also not silence that leader, but it would certainly hamper necessary discussion around their words and actions." In its blog post, Twitter reiterated its previous statement that all accounts still must follow the company's rules. The statement seemed to leave open the possibility that it might one day take action against Trump's account, or the accounts of other world leaders who might use the platform to incite violence or otherwise break its rules. "We review Tweets by leaders within the political context that defines them, and enforce our rules accordingly," it said. In response to the claims that Twitter doesn't ban President Trump because he draws attention -- and ad revenue -- to the company, Twitter said: "No one person's account drives Twitter's growth, or influences these decisions. We work hard to remain unbiased with the public interest in mind."
We all know exactly what tweet I'm talking about. Let's not dance around it. It threatens nuclear war, regardless of whether you want to admit it or not. It's not functionally different than if you were tell someone to shut up, while aiming gun at their head. You didn't say you'd shoot them, but it's the expected result if you don't. Further more, Twitter's hateful conduct policy also covers his reference to the " depleted and food starved regime". While being technically accurate, it's explicitly used in a derogatory fashion to disparage the people of North Korea.