351–360 of 1001 posts
By representing itself both as an open platform and as a company with progressive values, Twitter has put itself into an awkward in-between spot and is bound to create such controversies.
censoring the commander in chief is an active act of aggression against the american people. not only should we repeal section 230, we should view twitter as a hostile power. we should study twitters deep ties to the saudis and china. and jack should be investigated. they also should no longer be protected by section 230 and therefore should be prosecuted for the child exploitation they host
Twitter is well within the rights to do this, but I have seen tweets from blue check marks essentially calling for violence and Twitter didn't remove them. So, does that mean Twitter actually -supports- those view points now? If Twitter is going to police people, it needs to be across the board. Otherwise it's just a weird censorship that is targeting one person and can easily be seen as political. Everyone is applau…
One way to look at this is that that's exactly what Twitter has started doing. The president violated the TOS, and got the treatment prescribed under the TOS. His EO yesterday essentially asked for everyone to be treated in accordance with the TOS, so he's (ironically) getting exactly what he asked for.
It remains to be seen whether, in compliance with the EO, they apply this to everyone in a transparent and uniform way from now on. I hope they do.
Twitter is well within the rights to do this, but I have seen tweets from blue check marks essentially calling for violence and Twitter didn't remove them. So, does that mean Twitter actually -supports- those view points now? If Twitter is going to police people, it needs to be across the board. Otherwise it's just a weird censorship that is targeting one person and can easily be seen as political. Everyone is applau…
Ultimately the more and more "dangerous" opinions and people who share those opinions are silenced the more and more dangerous they become in reality.
EDIT: The nature of this comment is intended to be observational not advocational.
The White House twitter account has issued a response: https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1266367168603721728?s=... This* Tweet violated the Twitter Rules about glorifying violence. However, @Twitter has determined that it will allow terrorists, dictators, and foreign propagandists to abuse its platform. *Referring to an attached picture of a Khamenei tweet about Palestine
That's amazing. Of all the horrific thing people post to Twitter all day long, a vague statement about Palestinian independence is the "best" whataboutist comparison Trump could find to match his own threat to open fire on the country he is sworn to defend.
The neutral companies, such as utilities, online hosting or financial providers serve nearly everyone with little objections - they defer to the law rather than any internal policies. The more selective companies such as newspapers and TV channels are expected to restrict who can get published. By representing itself both as an open platform and as a company with progressive values, Twitter has put itself into an awk…
They could have just banned him and said "It's a free country and they felt like it."
Instead they're trying to high-road, and it's.. such a mistake.
censoring the commander in chief is an active act of aggression against the american people. not only should we repeal section 230, we should view twitter as a hostile power. we should study twitters deep ties to the saudis and china. and jack should be investigated. they also should no longer be protected by section 230 and therefore should be prosecuted for the child exploitation they host
Don't you have press conferences in your country? You know, where a leader or political figure can express their policy decisions without having to abide by private website ToS.
censoring the commander in chief is an active act of aggression against the american people. not only should we repeal section 230, we should view twitter as a hostile power. we should study twitters deep ties to the saudis and china. and jack should be investigated. they also should no longer be protected by section 230 and therefore should be prosecuted for the child exploitation they host
Trump would probably get banned at some point, especially if his tweets start to endanger rank-and-file Twitter employees (inspiring death threats, etc.). How likely is he to get injunctive relief if he gets banned?
I don't think Trump has thought this conflict through completely.