Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Twitter Communications Social Networks The Internet United States

Twitter Says Trump Not Immune From Getting Kicked Off (politico.com) 342

Posted by BeauHD from the preferentially-treated dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Twitter Says Trump Not Immune From Getting Kicked Off More

Twitter Says Trump Not Immune From Getting Kicked Off

Comments Filter:
  • People read those posts, and Twitter can show ads.

  • They'd be crazy if they booted him off though! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sd4f ( 1891894 ) on Tuesday September 04, 2018 @09:55PM (#57254114)
    After all, twitter was having plenty of problems, Trump being on the platform probably brings them more users and ad revenue than anyone else.

    • "Making a big deal" out of it like this ensures that they get full news coverage and exposure.
      They'll never boot him. Well... maybe once he's out of office.

  • 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.

    • 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 get it now. It's ok for the US (or, in this case, the US president - I sort of hope he doesn't speak for your whole government) to threaten, that's you being big boys. Rawr! Go get 'em tigers! It's just not ok for, well, literally anyone else. That's belligerence, or felony behaviour.

        Thank you, that was truly enlightening.

        • Seriously, what alternative do you suggest ? Do you want regular citizens have the legal ability to threaten violence and war, or would you want to take that option away from the government ?

  • So I guess Twitter is more powerful than the Feds (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Noishkel ( 3464121 ) on Tuesday September 04, 2018 @09:57PM (#57254124)

    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.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      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?

      • 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 res

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by strech ( 167037 )

        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:

        We hold that portions of the @realDonaldTrump account -- the “interactive space” where Twitter users may directly engage with the content of the President’s tweets -- are properly analyzed under the “public forum” doctrines set forth by the Supreme Court, that such space is a designated public forum, and that the blocking

    • Re:So I guess Twitter is more powerful than the Fe (Score:5, Insightful)

      by markdavis ( 642305 ) on Tuesday September 04, 2018 @10:08PM (#57254172)

      >"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.

    • 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.

  • Yeah he is. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jwhyche ( 6192 ) on Tuesday September 04, 2018 @10:00PM (#57254144) Homepage

    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.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      It will be over in a few years.

      Will it ?

      The problem is not Trump per se, it's the the voters that put him there. Had it been a dog, a monkey, or even Ralph Wiggum, they would have voted for him/it anyway, because they wanted to do a big finger at the "establishment", whatever the fuck that is.

      Trump supporters know exactly what kind of disgusting piece of shit he is. The elected him because of it. And just like with Trump, they'll vote en masse, first in the primaries, then in the presidentials, for the next fucking moron in line for the

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by TFlan91 ( 2615727 )

      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

      • Why?

        Because inconsistent enforcement means that, say, a black woman can make insanely racist and sexist comments, encouraging physical violence against white men, and not face any repercussions, while a white male gets a temporary ban for using the word "n*gger" in a completely non-offensive academic context.

        It's not the rules that are the problem, but rather who enforces them. The jackasses who run and maintain those platforms have no problem with hate and violence when it's coming from people they agree with

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by guruevi ( 827432 )
      I don't think it will have one iota of difference on the left which is pretty much the only users of Twitter. We had a president and his FBI spying on the Trump campaign, spying on a president-elect and continue spying onto a sitting president and the left doesn't care, as a matter of fact, they support those traitors.
    • Regulation would be fine as long as it is guarenteed free speech like what you are free to say in public per the first amendment. That is, regulation that would stop companies from limiting speech with TOS and expand the freedom of people. Treating social media like a utility would simultaneously give social media companies cover since they would no longer be responsible for what is said on the platform and people would have less limits put on them than today.

      Unfortunately, that's not likely the legisl

    • 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.

      Possibly, though I expect the outrage would fizzle out pretty quick as Republicans sigh in relief when they realize they don't have to defend his tweets anymore.

      The other question is what it does to the platform, the risk is US Conservatives write off Twitter as a Liberal haven and it loses relevancy. But currently I think a lot of people are starting to think of Twitter as "that thing Trump says crazy things on". I'm not sure he's worth the damage he's doing to their brand.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by mea2214 ( 935585 )
      Trump is the only reason I read Twitter after he became the R nominee for POTUS. Reading his tweets over the years both fascinate and scare the shit out of me because this is POTUS acting like the biggest crank you used to read on alt.conspiracy. I have yet to read a single tweet of his that would even remotely qualify as inappropriate to suspend his account. They may be inappropriate coming from the so called leader of the free world but that's not Twitter's problem. Sure he once threatened North Ko

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by jwhyche ( 6192 )

        I like the ideal of the POTUS being able to go around the media and talk right to the people with out it being filtered a third party. Reminds me of Roosevelt's fireside chats.

        On the other hand I wish Trump had better filters on what he says. Granted, some of it is a great source of amusement. Eris would be proud of some of the Trump/Twitter moments. Still there are times when even I, a moderate Trump supporter, say, "What the fuck" to something he has rattled off.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

          I like the ideal of the POTUS being able to go around the media and talk right to the people with out it being filtered a third party.

          Too bad the White House must use Twitter. They can't set up any sort of "diary" or "web log" thing because the White House doesn't ahve a web site or other communications medium where people can talk back and forth directly to the president.

          It's a pity such technology doesn't exist.

          In other words, the White House can set up their down damn blog where the president can post wh

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Not that I don't think Twitter _could_ do that, it would be a big mistake for them. Does anyone have a second of doubt that Trump wouldn't switch to something like Gab, Mastedon, or whatever. And does anyone doubt he would mandate that @POTUS, and every Executive branch federal agency also move?

    Sure that's not Twitter's main focus, but if every one of those went, and blacklisted Twitter... I'm not sure that would be good for Twitter's traffic numbers. But I am sure that it would be massive for whatever

  • Then probably 50% or more of Twitter users should be tossed off the platform. It's just a cesspool. Much as any form of social media is, and this going back to the heady days of usenet.

  • Twitter's business model (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ooloorie ( 4394035 ) on Tuesday September 04, 2018 @11:35PM (#57254504)

    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.

  • So what? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DogDude ( 805747 ) on Tuesday September 04, 2018 @11:36PM (#57254506)
    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*.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Apparently Twitter is so pervasive and influential that we're told it's a threat to our election process when foreign adversaries are left to operate unchecked on their platform, and so it must be policed. Apparently the same people clutching their pearls about preventing 'meddling' also take the position that this company should be given free reign to use their dominant position in the space of online communications to operate as they see fit, with the potential ability to shape public opinion towards th
  • If a social media network banned a high-level government official, it would alert people to the fact that corporations are the real government and they can't be allowed to act as censors. They can eliminate peons that sound exactly like Trump by the millions, but his account is invincible.

  • This is a stupid non-story (Score:4)

    by spitzak ( 4019 ) on Wednesday September 05, 2018 @12:47AM (#57254742) Homepage

    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.

  • "if his tweets cross a line with abusive behavior."

    What, you mean apart from threatening another nation with a nuclear attack, or the numerous instances of boorish, abusive and just generally shitty behaviour? What do they count as "abusive behaviour", when it's clear he's not only crossed that line, but pole vaulted it while wearing a jetpack.

    There's an often used word for this in Cockney rhyming slang: cobblers.

  • Trump has repeatedly broken Twitter's code of conduct over the past three years and no one in the company gave a shit.

    Rules are to be followed unless you're someone driving people to the platform. It is that simple.

  • Wrong (Score:3)

    by GrandCow ( 229565 ) on Wednesday September 05, 2018 @06:10AM (#57255454)
    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!

  • Kicking Trump off Twitter would be the worst thing you could ever do. Please let me suggest a far more intelligent solution.

    I propose that you don't silence Trump, you simply muffle him. Put him in a sound dampening box. Essentially, let him tweet all he wants...just don't publish most of them. Sure let a few go out now and then after review. And let a few other morons like Kanye West type folks see it and be able to reply so that Trump thinks he is getting replies. And show Trump metrics that he is gett

    • Take your shadow banning-lite proposal, and now apply it to your own progressive heroes as they try to fund raise through small donations and build public awareness. Does it still seem like a good solution?

      Oh, think that won't happen once you start tolerating and allowing these kinds of practices? You think what goes around, doesn't come around?

      It's bad enough there's an uphill battle in fighting the corruptive influence of a political system flush with cash, but now we have a movement to normalize allo

  • 45 million followers and gab.ai say Trump stays (Score:3)

    by walterbyrd ( 182728 ) on Wednesday September 05, 2018 @08:38AM (#57255830)

    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.

    • And then when people find Gab.ai missing from the Apple and Google app stores, they might start questioning why there isn't anti-trust action to prevent these tech titans from colluding to keep free-speech Twitter alternatives from getting traction. Hmmm....

      Yes, Twitter, ban Trump!

  • You do know that you don't have to read his tweets, right?

    Just checking ... sometimes I wonder about you guys ...

    (Me, I got it covered, I don't read anybody's tweets ...)

  • Since they and you mostly get it wrong... (Score:3)

    by rickb928 ( 945187 ) on Wednesday September 05, 2018 @10:04AM (#57256248) Homepage Journal

    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.

Slashdot Top Deals

Waste not, get your budget cut next year.

Close