91–100 of 139 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep the verified check was simply a way to impose class distinction. You should hit up Mastodon/GnuSocial.
Be wary of Mastodon for their Embrace/Extend of GNU Social, as well as their banning of entire chunks of the federated network. Find a good GNU Social site, and bask in the freedom. it feels like Twitter when it first started.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is interesting, as it reinforces the power of incumbency. If you’re the president you can say whatever you like, but if you’re a presidential challenger you have to play by the rules.
Seems a little unclear on that. Can a candidate say "If you elect me to office, I pledge to wage war against the elbonians" and post it on Twitter?
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/10/twitter-bans-bl...
One rule for them, another rule for us. This sort of thing is how Trump was able to paint "the media" as being full of hypocrites, liars and crooks.
Edited to add: not a Trump supporter myself, by any stretch of the imagination. But this is exactly the sort of thing demagogues like to point to as examples of bias and unfairness. Although Trump himself might not, in this case, as he seems to be one of the beneficiaries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep the verified check was simply a way to impose class distinction. You should hit up Mastodon/GnuSocial.
Be wary of Mastodon for their Embrace/Extend of GNU Social, as well as their banning of entire chunks of the federated network. Find a good GNU Social site, and bask in the freedom. it feels like Twitter when it first started.
I've gone through and reported a number of accounts that seem to violate this policy after the announcement and made note of the usernames and if they were a left wing or right wing organization. I'm curious to see if this will be enforced equally.
I don't think it's quite equal as there is a clause about protected groups. So I imagine that some abuse can be allowed if the target is not protected. Edits, worth pointing out that the link to the policy in depth adds an "or" to the clause in a less ambiguous way I'm not sure what a protected group is, whether there's a list somewhere, of it's all relative (who holds more 'power' is less protected)?
Specifically, there's a this policy does not apply to military or government entities loophole to these new rules, which many believe to be a workaround for these rules not applying to Trump.
Yeah, this is absolute doublespeak. Twitter's not 'enforcing' anything, and as others have pointed out, they are actually making the situation worse. Now it's clear that even Twitter says if you're rich and famous you can be abusive without the same consequences as someone who is not wealthy. Ridiculous. Nobody has ever held Trump accountable for anything. Hilariously, Twitter holds a lot of power over Trump due to c…
He is bringing them traffic and giving them more legitimacy than they have ever had before.
If they banned him he would just switch to another social network and spend the next year telling his supporters to boycott them and then find some creative ways to shaft them through the regulatory state.
Look at the situation with CNN and the ATT/Time Warner merger. Twitter is a very small fish compared to them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dear Twitter, If I'm a member of a visibly protected minority group (Black Muslim) and I tweet "Death to Zionist Sodomites occupying Holy Jerusalem" would I be suspended? Asking for a friend.
Does Twitter's policy identify protected minority groups? Asking for a friend.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is this insane to you? Where are you from?
From a country which lived under an authoritative regime and who knows what censorship will lead to.
Still, a private company can do whatever it wants.
Fact is, regardless, Twitter will never censor Trump or it’ll be the end of Twitter.
But still, it’s a private company that’s not FCC regulated (yet).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, this is absolute doublespeak. Twitter's not 'enforcing' anything, and as others have pointed out, they are actually making the situation worse. Now it's clear that even Twitter says if you're rich and famous you can be abusive without the same consequences as someone who is not wealthy. Ridiculous. Nobody has ever held Trump accountable for anything. Hilariously, Twitter holds a lot of power over Trump due to c…
> Nobody has ever held Trump accountable for anything. Hilariously, Twitter holds a lot of power over Trump due to controlling his popular account. They could hold him accountable. They choose not to. Insane. Trump is the elected president of USA, one of the most important country on Earth. The fact that you suggest a private company should police his speak is insane to me.
A private company cannot and should not police the President’s speech.
However, it can and should (insofar as it does for other users) police the President’s use of that company’s platform for speech.
The alternative is systematically favoring the government against opponents in a way which makes Twitter a de facto government propaganda arm.
that's an interesting angle.