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."
After all, twitter was having plenty of problems, Trump being on the platform probably brings them more users and ad revenue than anyone else.
So, if you threaten to destroy an entire nation or people, and you don't have the ability to carry out your threat, you get booted off Twitter. But if you make the threat and actually have a credible possibility of making it happen, then it's newsworthy and they leave it on.
Translation: We're scared of Trump and don't want to have to take action unless it's for something that no one will criticize us for.
Cowards.
Make a policy and stick to it, or don't have one.
I'll point out that President Trump as already had a federal judge declare that he can't block people on his Twitter feeds. Citing the idea that his account is a "designated public forum" after a number of journalist were blocked from tweeting at him. If that is the case how exactly could Twitter than turn around take that designated public forum away citing their own TOS?
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.
If people got kicked off Twitter for calling people names, 90% of them would be gone.
Technically, he is not. They could kick him if they really wanted too. Removing him would be the worse thing they could possibly do. Probably the business equivalent of corporate suicide. 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.
I don't think any of us, pro trump or anti-trump, want that bunch of baboons attempting to police what we can say online. As much as we find Trumps tweets annoying, our best bet is just to ride this out. It will be over in a few years.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
>"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.
How can a service like Twitter be a "designated public forum" and be safe from unilateral blocking when the networks it is carried on are the private property of the telecoms on which they can carry whatever traffic that they please?
Hell if I know. You'd probably have to ask Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, the person that made that ruling. Right now social media is trying to have it both ways when it comes to hosting content. They want to be treated like a common carrier when they don't want to be held responsible for content on their networks, but they also want the power to pick and choose what content is on their networks when it goes against their arbitrarily chosen terms of service.
T would complain 24/7 if booted. Do you really want to hear that all the time from him?
Table-ized A.I.
When the US government threatens actions against a belligerent country, that's a political policy. Agree or disagree, we all have the freedom to discuss the policy done in our name.
When a private individual threatens serious violence, that's a felony.
I'm pretty sure Elon Musk is a Republican. He has donated money to the Republican party.
He donated to Marco Rubio, but he also donated to Hillary Clinton.
Between 2003 and 2015 he donated $258,350 to Democratic candidates and $261,300 to Republicans.
to convince rubes that voting against their own interest was a good idea.
Perhaps they think that is better than voting for people that despise their culture and call them "rubes".
You do realize that Trump has not actually been kicked off, right?
Both of those guys represent a metaphorical gravy train for Twitter. Their chances of actually getting kicked off are close to zero, regardless of noise from the Twitter policy chief.
It wasn't just a name. He was saying he raped children.
He did, but not on Twitter. He called Unsworth a "child rapist" in an email. The worst he said on Twitter was "pedo guy".
Also, for what it's worth, Musk later apologized.
How does Elon Musk not get kicked off for calling a guy a pedophile and a "child rapist"? What is the standard? Why isn't it being enforced?
The standard? https://help.twitter.com/en/ru...
1. No targeted harassment (i.e. repeated behavior that causes alarm/annoyance/distress). I think there have been a total of two tweets from Elon Musk in this case, so it hardly seems repeated.
2. No unwanted sexual advances. This clearly wasn't.
3. No promoting violence on the basis of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, religion, age, disability. Musk wasn't promoting violence nor was this one of the protected categories.
4. No hateful display names or profile images.
Elon Musk's tweets clearly haven't broken the Twitter rules. It should be stressed that "11001000100 think the tweets shouldn't have been made" and indeed "most people think the tweets shouldn't have been made" are both very different from "violate the standard"
So. the only way you think the left can compete...
No. I don't think there is anything even close to a Left in US politics.
Why, just why is anyone paying attention to anything on twitter. Seriously it only becomes of note, anything what so ever, when it leaves twitter. On twitter the message is nothing, just another mindless scream into nothing, the only impact it has, is once it leaves twitter and enters the rest of the internet. Twitter only seems to provide a service to create comments so that people can complain about them on other platforms and serve advertising of course. Corporate main stream media, is the only thing that gives twitter any impact, just on twitter and no one gives a fuck, so what does twitter do when it's messaging is pretty useless without the rest of the internet.
So place comment on twitter and then post on the rest of the web about that comment, twitters apparent role.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
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.
Who says they need a "policy" to do anything? They're a public, for-profit corporation. They can decide whatever they want in terms of who they're going to publish, and who they won't. They don't need to create a list of rules and follow them. They make the rules. There's no expectation that it's some kind of "public square", except for idiots. They're a data gathering and marketing company. People who are calling it a "public square" need to get their heads out of their asses and go talk to some real people in the real world.
You're not a "customer" of the company. You're voluntarily giving up all of your "content". They owe you *nothing*.
I don't respond to AC's.
I'm here for the buffet.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Today, we got a little insight into how Donald Trump feels about that "culture".
Oopsie.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The judge ruled not that Twitter is a designated public forum, but that the replies section to the President's tweets are a designated public forum:
I don't know public forum law well enough to judge the decision (pdf) fully, but here's an attempt at an analogy:
A "meeting for hire" company starts running open to the public events where one person makes a statement and then anyone else can come in and discuss it with them and others. If the government starts paying them to run public events where it makes official government statements for public discussion, it can't bar specific people from entering and joining the discussion, as it is still a public forum even though they've hired someone else to set it up. At the same time, the "meeting for hire" company wouldn't be required to accept the government as a client.
Ouch! that almost looks like a gender based pay gap. Then again, I suppose Musk does come across as that type of person...
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".
Twitter could also ban Mother Teresa if her "tweets cross a line with abusive behavior" (probably somebody could pick a better example who is not dead).
This whole article is just to rile and trigger the idiots of all persuasions, apparently, judging by the equal amounts of stupidity displayed by both Trump lovers and haters in these Slashdot comments.
[blockquote]Musk called a guy a pedo (child), not a pedophile (child lover). [/quote]
Literally nobody speaks this way. It certainly wouldn't fly in a courtroom (The test is usually "What inference would a reasonable person make?") and when you rules lawyer everyday speech in real life, you just sound like one of those confused people that thinks playing dumb on word meanings somehow makes them..... clever. Hint: It doesn't.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
The media lock down?
WTF the most popular news show loves Trump. I would say they can't get enough of him though strictly speaking that's not true. That time he phoned up after rambling at the hosts for half an hour he pretty much did get kicked off.
But seriously you're delusional, since you seem to believe fox news somehow isn't part of the media.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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.
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...
Of course he's immune from being kicked off Twitter, he is the best advertisement they could ever possibly buy (which they have for literally zero dollars).
He has abused people.
He has fanned hate speech.
He spreads blatantly false facts.
He has urged people to kill other people.
He has posted multiple times trying to goad other countries into literally nuclear war.
But he's still here. Gotta bring in those advertising dollars!
"Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try." -Homer Simpson
Do you think reprinting stuff *also* from Fox News would help make the news more accurace? ;)
Ezekiel 23:20
You think it's just stuff about Trump, but more likely you just noticed it there. I noticed a while ago that stories about technology (which I know a thing or two about) are usually also "a complete fabrication, a partial lie or a spin on facts." Somehow, I get the impression that a story about a local parade would probably fall into one of those three. Probably all of them at different points if the story is long enough. Not to long ago, I was involved as a volunteer in a STEM education event that was covered by local media. The reporter interviewed the main organizer of the event, and got his name wrong. Despite the fact that the event had a wireless microphone he could use so he referred to himself as "wireless Mike."
Normally, I'd just attribute these things to incompetence, but it seems like it happens so much, even that strains credulity. As the old saying goes, sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
"Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown
Twitter has kicked off a lot of moderate conservatives, while allowing racist hate, and threats, and offers to murder, from leftists.
If Trump got kicked off twitter, he would move to gab.ai, and millions, maybe tens of millions, of people would follow him there.
Twitter would not have stopped Trump. Twitter would have just shot themselves in the foot.
> The first amendment applies to the government, not to private entities
Are you sure about that? I can cite several examples were government has regulated private industry.
One example is the tweet you responded to. The government - not twitter - decided that Trump could not block trolls.
This video cites several examples of government over-ruling such rights of private industry:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UgGY22bCMU&t=491s
Remember: Democrat partisans are small-minded hatemongers who hold ordinary Americans in haughty contempt.
No, I'm pretty sure the OP specified that held the idiotic and evil Americans in contempt. Now there's a very visible group of them in one of your political parties, which is also clearly the one you support. Maybe you should try to support people who are less idiotic and less evil? I don't mean Democrats, I mean use the Republican primary system to select people who are a) good people and b) at least average intelligence. A good first step would be tossing anyone out who says torture is a good idea. It wouldn't hurt to stop voting for people who say the solution to terrorism is murdering the wives and children of people who might be terrorists, either.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
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.
Why am I supposed to be believe that you are more competent than the reporters that you criticize?
There is a simpler and more likely answer than a vast global conspiracy by every media outlet in every country (except Russia) in the world to make Trump look bad, and that's explanation is that you really don't know how to fact check anything and instead your sources for "what really happened" are wrong. I've noticed that you didn't provide any examples of what the media said, and what you determined "really happened", or how you determined what was really "true"...
Fanatically anti-fanatical
This seems pretty simple, by taking Trump's account away, they are closing that public forum to everyone. Why can Twitter do that, it's because the first amendment can't force a private business to keep a forum open, but it can prevent the government from violating people's rights in the forum as long as it is open.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Throwing Trump off Twitter etc. would be as pointless as throwing almost anyone off. They get it wrong so often.
For instance, almost immediately in this thread. this comment, in part:
"when he tweeted last year that if North Korean leaders continued with their rhetoric at the time, "they won't be around much longer!" "
Do you not yet know how to speak Trump? You should. He's simple to understand. This comment, "they won't be around much longer!", certainly doesn't mean "I'm gonna bomb 'em ,dude!". It's reasonable to interpret it as "they risk a revolt when the world starts really, really sanctioning them". For instance.
But if his tweet was a threat of violence, then consider this scrap of a comment right here, a bit later:
"the full force of Mueller and US law on him like a ton of bricks"
A ton of bricks. Seems like a physical threat? Oh? Explain please, the language is plain and direct. Unless you choose to see nuance sometimes, and not others. Or scrap from a comment:
"Suck my nuts, moron."
Sexual abuse? Coerced? Of course not, it's just some infantile comment.
But to get further into misunderstanding Trump (and others), two quotes claiming to be from Bob Woodward's forthcoming book:
"Trump also suggested that Democrats had more power and influence within the Justice Department than Sessions.
Hopefully this is presented, in context, as a fairly direct statement, and one with a reasonable foundation. After all, he was newly elected than, and inherited a Justice Department in no way transformed from the Obama administration, so yes, lots of Democrats in positions of power and influence within Justice. Of course. Feel free to try and refute this. Facts and/or reasonable suppositions would be best, but don't let the lack of those stop you, for it hasn't before...
"Sessions responded with a rare rebuke of Trump, saying, "The actions of the Department of Justice will not be improperly influenced by political considerations." "
This second quote is probably interpreted as a rebuke of Trump, as it is presented so. But Sessions could have been saying, in essence, "I won't let political considerations improperly influence the Department". Seems reasonable to me. Not even a rebuke, but both a reasonable and mandatory statement.
Oh, did you notice the turn of phrase "improperly influenced"? Think that one over. Over the past 14 years now. Do you see it yet? I doubt it, but don't give up so easily.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
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
Try the chicken. I hear the orange sauce is good with it.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Technology stories is actually what got me started on not trusting the media about a decade ago. When you're actually educated and have worked in industries that are almost universally hated in the circles that appear to be producing overwhelming majority of journalists, you start seeing that things you read in the news outlets are sometimes diametrically opposed to reality.
Some of the translated ones clearly are, but there are quite a few actual on point reporting. Unlike US, we maintain a working relationship with Russia to this day. It's a precarious balancing act as it has been for last half a decade, but we have quite a bit of expertise on the topic. We lack the interest to be hostile to Russia, so much of reporting is quite neutral and does go over the relevant biases in reporting.