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."
seems to me he ought to be kicked off for it, same as Jones was. And no, there's no way in hell Twitter will turn down those advertising dollars. The only reason they dumped Jones is they're worried one of his listeners might go of the deep end (sign... again...) and they might get sued for negligence.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
"Why isn't it being enforced?" Because with unbiased reporting the democrats would never hold power again. Dems know it, Google, Twitter, CNN, MSNBC, etc know it. And that's why they are willing to throw all ethics to the wind.
Is that why the Democrats removed the Fairness Doctrine?
Oh, no wait, it was a slimy Republican did that, so that his friends could set up the Fox News propaganda channel to convince rubes that voting against their own interest was a good idea.
Your post proves how well that worked.
Too cowardly to even log in and spew your nonsense too I see.
I think you've nailed it in one regard. (From here on, you isn't you jwh, you is general)
"Some Republicans are already barking about how much the tech. giants Twitter, Google, and Facebook control they have over speech. Limiting a sitting republican presidents speech on their platform might be enough to push them over the edge and have congress start regulating speech on internet platform."
Let's think about this though. Not too long ago, if a debate came up about the overall substance of these TOS's, you'd largely support them.
They generally are against any kind of conflict or harmful actions. Be that rasicm, pedophilia, whatever.
Now fast forward to today. These TOS's haven't really changed too much - in this regard (won't get into the other dark wells of these TOS's). However, the people who once could say they supported them, are now calling for putting a leash on them.
Why?
Why would a group of people who are saying they are being silenced by these TOS's want to reel them in?
If this group had a name such as ISIS, you'd say "you violated the rules".
However, now that it's the GOP, you are saying "we need to regulate the rules".
Why?
So that you feel safe to spew your hatred.
If this doesn't reflect when you look in the mirror, you're a fool.
If they won't boot Alex Jones for inciting an armed simpleton to enter a pizza place demanding to search the basement for Hillary's secret child sex trafficking ring, they sure as hell won't boot Trump for anything.
John
They're not scared of Trump. They're scared of their own. Progressive mob tends to devour its own when it judges that they stepped out of line.
And progressive mob has gone utterly insane since Trump got elected. He was everything from Hitler to Putin's puppet to insane mastermind to just plain idiot. And twitter is literally what he's currently using to completely bypass the media lock down on anything positive regarding Trump. To the mob going utterly insane with hatred, this is a severe crime.
Which is why twitter is constantly balancing between not kicking out the man who is massively boosting the popularity of their platform, and not getting devoured from inside by their own political faction who hates the fact that twitter lets him bypass the media and all the spin it puts on anything he does and just air his thoughts as he wishes them to be aired.
Yeah I mean it's not like Palin said anything like we could be energy independent by drilling, or that Vladimir Putin couldn't be trusted
Or, Dick Cheney was actually competent in his position and we had two incredibly successful wars during his term in office.
Or, Donald Trump's apocalypse has the lowest unemployment rate in 40 years, has North Korea moving towards disarmament and is finally dealing with China's policies of outright theft.
As opposed to the Democrats who came up with, "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor", "turned Iraq from a win into a loss, never closed gitmo, and thanks to them we are still fighting in afghanistan, and sold 20% of American Uranium production to the Russians"
Tell me how do you wall this stuff off ?