Slashdot Mirror
Twitter Says Trump Not Immune From Getting Kicked Off (politico.com)
Twitter legal and policy chief Vijaya Gadde told Politico in an interview that President Donald Trump isn't immune from being kicked off the platform if his tweets cross a line with abusive behavior. "The social media company's rules against vitriolic tweets offer leeway for world leaders whose statements are newsworthy, but that 'is not a blanket exception for the president or anyone else,'" reports Politico. From the report: Trump regularly uses Twitter to heap abuse on his perceived enemies and at times raise the specter of violence, such as when he tweeted last year that if North Korean leaders continued with their rhetoric at the time, "they won't be around much longer!" Critics say the tweets violate Twitter's terms of service and warrant punitive action. Dorsey, who's due to testify before two congressional committees Wednesday about his company's content practices, said he receives notifications on his phone for Trump's Twitter account. But asked if he would weigh in personally to remove Trump from the platform, he declined to get into specifics.
"We have to balance it with the context that it's in," he said. "So my role is to ask questions and make sure we're being impartial, and we're upholding consistently our terms of service, including public interest." Amid controversy over Trump's tweeting back in January, Twitter posted to its corporate blog an unsigned explanation of its thinking around "world leaders" -- without calling out Trump by name. It said blocking such leaders or removing their tweets "would hide important information people should be able to see and debate." Dorsey tweeted the policy, saying "we want to share our stance."
"We have to balance it with the context that it's in," he said. "So my role is to ask questions and make sure we're being impartial, and we're upholding consistently our terms of service, including public interest." Amid controversy over Trump's tweeting back in January, Twitter posted to its corporate blog an unsigned explanation of its thinking around "world leaders" -- without calling out Trump by name. It said blocking such leaders or removing their tweets "would hide important information people should be able to see and debate." Dorsey tweeted the policy, saying "we want to share our stance."
>"Ultimately I don't know what that court case would look like, but I bet it will turbo charge the argument that social media needs to be regulated like a public unity or a common carrier."
Indeed it would. These social media platforms seem to want to control their content and yet at the same time being insulated from liability/responsibility for that manipulation. It can't really work both ways at the same time. Having their own USERS regulate and moderate and control the content is one thing (and not the "thing" they are doing). But, otherwise, they are not acting like a common carrier by censoring, ranking, labeling, and skewing things the way they like.
Without the outrage, retweets, and ad impressions Trump generates among the social justice crowd on Twitter, Twitter would go out of business. Making people angry is Twitter's business model. And Trump is a big part of that. So, the reason why Twitter hasn't kicked off Trump yet is simple: money.
There was a recent hilarious case of twitter user bluecheckwatch who literally went through verified twitter users with far left views, and just post screenshots of their open hate speech, twitter took swift action...
By banning the user bluecheckwatch. All the racist, sexist hatred user posted evidence of is obviously still allowed, because it's targeting the correct untermensch, in the name of correct ubermensch. In modern progressive lingvo, we call it "fair and balanced".
I'm from Finland. Every single media outlet reprints the spin from everything other than Fox when it comes to Trump. Every time I go to double check from the source and then compare to what actually was said/happened, I find that story printed is either a complete fabrication, a partial lie or a spin on facts. I'm yet to actually see a Trump related story that wouldn't be one of the three, which is frankly quite frightening as it tells about a massive bias in the media.
This is in everything from all major private networks to the state broadcaster. Latter has been a bit of a shock to me, because they used to do a lot of their own investigating before they put anything into news articles or analyses, which usually stripped a lot of bias from stories they would get from AP and such. Now it's translation slack-journalism with zero fact checking (if I'm generous, and just reprinting lies knowingly, which would be assuming systemic malice), as long as it's negative about Trump.
Take it for what you will.
Twitter is the land of double standards. If you're "in with the group" there's no problem at all. Note how very few blue checkmarked jackasses that spew racism or bigotry get any type of warning or punishment. People who point this out? Banned. Your local antifa group advocating for violence, or people supporting and calling for violence under the banner? Not banned. Group of guys making in-jokes and posing memes? Banned.
Om, nomnomnom...
If Trump cannot block people on Twitter because that violates the first amendment, then I don't think that Twitter can block Trump either for the same reason. Double standards are bad for a democracy.
in no way does that work backwards. Trump can't block people because of who he is as a government official. If he starts gramming he can't block people either. if he has email he can't block people. It's not a function of the social media. It's a function of the presidency. The same way we as a people are allowed to block politicians, social media can ban them.
Just another second banana