If they'll single out political leaders and give them special protection from being blocked, the leaders should lose their ability to block others. Twitter is admitting that they are a "town hall" here and they need to let everyone speak their mind to their politicians.
I think the fundamental property of a block feature should be complete undetectability that the user has been blocked by the user in question. For example Usenet killfile: you never know if you're in somebody's killfile unless they tell you so. Twitter's block function obviously fails this test, which makes it completely useless: once you realize you're blocked, just create another account to continue harassing the user who blocked you.
So you're saying Twitter already has a block function that actually works? Then it's all the more baffling they also have one that doesn't work, and yet is somehow more well known.
My point is that "mute" is strictly better than "block", so there's no reason to have "block" in the first place. Even if somebody likes the misfeature of the blockee knowing they're blocked, you can always tweet "I just muted @theannoyingperson", so that @theannoyingperson knows they're muted.
I feel like this effectively makes Twitter an avenue for propaganda dissemination, giving world leaders who frequently blur the line near facism a "no-rules" platform to give out (mis)information. I mean, trump just denied climate change on Twitter and then threatened to bomb a country that has millions of people (aka killing millions of civilians). I can't be the only person who, at the very least, is a little freaked out by trump's presence on Twitter and this announcement
Isn't Twitter much more akin to something like a bulletin board or a printing press? Certainly the platform on which speech is disseminated should be viewed independently from the speaker?
A large number of twitter users frequently advocate for the removal of donald trump, twitter ignored it until now but basically just officially responded "no"
People have been suspended from Twitter and required to delete posts for pretty mild, joking stuff like "we should get rid of men", but Trump has not. @jack has stated a few times that Trump gets exempted from the rules because of the "newsworthiness" of his tweets - this just makes that official.
Popehat got suspended for doxxing. See the screenshot in your link. The person is abusing him, and should also be banned, but doxxing is bad.
Mosquito ban sounds like a natural language mistake - only a human would understand the subject he's threatening to kill is the mosquito pictured, and your link confirms Twitter said it was a mistake.
Obviously Twitter should enforce rules for sex and racial discrimination. Joking doesn't make those things OK.
Trump is a military leader - making threats, like any military and police person, is part of their job. Would you support banning Barack Obama for threatening Assad?
See the tweet in the link above - Popehat published the person's phone number and physical address. The person is an asshole but Popehat shouldn't have done that.
He published the business address and phone number of a lawyer. Calling publishing a screenshot of a threat sent voluntarily with that person's contact info as a signature "doxxing" is pretty weird.
Introducing non-Twitter contact details for someone you're having an argument with on Twitter is doxxing. The contact details were sent to Popehat, not to all Popehat's followers.
Pretending it shouldn't count in this case for some unspecified reason is weird.
IOW not silencing obviously stupid, downright heinous, or otherwise extremely dangerous speech from a certain political leader or three serves as public display of their outrageous opinion, hopefully serving as self-public shaming or something.
Honestly I'm still baffled by the situation as a whole (i.e how such despicable people came to be in power and stay in the office), which I feel is kind of unprecedented.
It seems that every time someone mentions the dreaded three word phrase "freedom of speech", someone else pipes up with this thoughtless pre-canned response: "It's not government!! It's not government!!" (or that XKCD comic)
Has it ever occurred to anyone parroting this that you can discuss the actual concept of freedom of speech outside of the sphere of influence the government has on it?
It does seem to have become a bit of a meme, someone says free speech and a line of replies show up with variations of "That only applies to blah blah".
It would be nice if instead there was a discussion about the intrinsic value of free speech in society, and how the open marketplace of ideas has a pretty impressive track record.
I agree, and you can even disagree in that discussion.
But to not have the discussion in the first place because of this meme of free speech solely being a citizen/government issue and not a concept in itself is a damn shame.
My problem with the discussion of free speech as a societal issue and not a governance one is that free speech will be an effect of a more fundamental shift in society, namely thoughtful consideration of another's talking points.
If you want free speech, you must foster a society in which it can exist without being exploited to coerce masses of people to think in the way you want them to by deceptive means.
So in this way, crying free speech in the streets is useless until people start preventing themselves from falling under the corrosive spells of populists.
You fix deception (edit: originally used 'populism' here in the sense of manipulating the concerns of the average citizen) with more free speech. More and more to shed light on lies before it can become something nasty.
I think you're getting it backwards, you can't reverse engineer a perfect society to cradle free speech, the society advances and becomes less violent through more speech.
Going back to the original point though, I think that it's totally fair to discuss freedom of speech alongside twitter as the company has in the past used it in their PR for positive gain. I actually agree that twitter is private and can enforce or ban what they like. What I don't agree with is thought-terminating cliches like not being able to discuss it because of the narrow view that freedom of speech is solely a citizen/government relationship.
In saying that, thank you for expanding on your thoughts.
There is a certain threshold of gullibility that can swing the society one way or another if you just start encouraging free speech without any tools to interpret and deal with it and its cognitive load. Either you have people eventually start being able to handle intellectually honest discussions, or everyone starts spewing shit and the people just succumb to the most enticing argument they hear and start parrotting it. (The latter is what we are seeing in today's society.)
There are famous public safety exceptions to free speech that we all agree on. We don't allow people to yell "fire" in a theater for example. The current discussion is about if nuclear posturing threatens public safety.
> We don't allow people to yell "fire" in a theater for example.
Can we stop using ungrounded dicta from a since-overturned decision suppressing core political speech as if it were an uncontroversial statement of an established valid limit on free speech?
You seem confused about what freedom of speech is. It doesn’t mean you can run your mouth anywhere you want without repercussions. It’s about the right to criticize ones own government without prosecution.
People have the right to tell someone they disagree with that they aren’t welcome here anymore. It’s kind of like ‘yeah I heard your opinion and it’s not welcome here’ - no freedom of speech has been infringed upon; I have the right to tell you to buzz off if I do please too
Freedom of speech is not solely "about the right to criticize ones own government without prosecution". It's fair to discuss it as a concept in itself.
Especially when the past leadership of the very company the article is about has enthused the free speech angle of the company.
But kudos for putting it in a sentence and not lazily breaking out that xkcd comic.
I actually agree that with the second part of your initial comment in that a private company can enforce the rules of speech that it sees fit.
What I was getting at, is that there seems to be this knee-jerk reaction recently where when someone mentions freedom of speech and a private platform in the same sentence, it's like a trope that lets people say "a-ha! this isn't a freedom of speech issue as it's not government, disregard all of this!".
It seems that people treat freedom of speech solely like a legal doctrine, when it's a broad concept that has legal implications in jurisdictions worldwide. I guess it's fair to say that the conversation will always sway towards what legal protections are offered or infringed, but that shouldn't prevent us talking about how private companies and individuals choose to explore it.
Maybe what we need then is a term separate from 'Freedom of Speech', which is inherently tied to the constitution, so that people can break away from what you see as a parrot-like response and engage in the greater debate of 'Should we be listening or not?' regardless of government involvement. It would make for a much larger and more rich discussion, I'm sure.
I just don't like the idea that private companies have some obligation to be bi-partisan; because that's the way some people are throwing around the term "Freedom of Speech" like it's this ticket to say whatever you want to anyone you want.
That goes to the core of the problem though. The term isn't at all inherently tied to the constitution. It's an American-centric trope. I'm neither American nor live there so the constant clawing of the phrase back to that is tiring.
I'm Canadian myself and it's not my constitution either. If you're going to get mad when people react to that term then maybe ask yourself if you could sway more opinions by finding an alternative way to express the same thing.
To me this is the same as a UX problem. Don't get mad at the user for the way they interpret your interface.
I don't know where you read that I'm getting mad. I pointed out that your interpretation of what freedom of speech actually isn't anywhere near where it is when it's discussed as a principle, and went on to highlight that that interpretation is often used to shut down conversation.
To say that it's a UX problem is to lend credence to the idea that all interpretations are equal. My assertion is that the narrow legal interpretation is a recent phenomenon that's nowhere near as 'equal' as talking about it as a concept.
Even the article on Freedom of Speech on wikipedia states that it's a principle, and then directs the user to other articles on legal implications of freedom of speech by jurisdiction.
Not that wikipedia is an absolute authority, but it acts as a demonstration that the language people generally use when talking about freedom of speech is that it's a principle and a set of ideas.
The fact that there are legal implications in jurisdictions doesn't mean that we have a UX problem with the word, nor does it mean that we need "new word" in order to talk about it from the angle in which it's most commonly approached anyway.
It won't let me reply a thread deeper any longer but I hear what you say and understand your perspective.
Apologies, I wasn't trying to accuse you of being mad; I honestly thought you were trying to express yourself that way given the frustration you have with the 'XKCD-like' responses.
That said, it's still been a much more amicable argument than many on the internet. I actually think you are mostly right, and probably more well informed on the subject matter than I.
I'd still be interested to see this whole discussion framed in a creative way that avoids the term 'freedom of speech' entirely because for better or worse, it's just one of those polarizing terms that seems to degrade conversation more than aid it.
Hey, the internet isn't the best place to hash out a common understanding anyway as we'll spend most of the time trying to level out our terminology before proceeding. But likewise, thanks for the perspective.
I think you're definitely getting at my point. There's the recognition of your inherent freedom of speech in the Bill of Rights, but it is not derived from the piece of parchment, just recognized by it. And if the US Federal Government can't impede that right, why should some random corporation that's never even turned a profit be able to?
Sure, Twitter could be a free speech venue. Or it could be a venue with content standards that apply equally. Either of those has a kind of fairness.
But it chooses instead to be a proaganda outlet that lets everyone participate, but select politicians participate on a preferential bases with greater latitude, reinforcing the power of the already powerful and further marginalizing the already marginalized.
Are there really people here suggesting that Twitter block the POTUS? Look, he's a madman, but he's also the president. It's not up to Twitter to try and alter the national dialogue.
> Are there really people here suggesting that Twitter block the POTUS?
There are people seriously suggesting that Donald J. Trump be held to the same standards with regard to content as other Twitter users, rather than Twitter being a biased, pro-Administration propaganda organ.
Twitter has clearly decided against that (that's been clear for some time, but now it's official.)
> Look, he's a madman, but he's also the president.
And that's why reporting about him is valuable and ought to be protected, and it certainly a reason that he has disproportionate power of government tools of communication.
It's not a reason for a private entity to grant him preferential liberties in a discussion forum that are not granted to others, particularly his domestic political opponents.
Allowing accounts of world leaders does not make twitter "a biased, pro-Administration propaganda organ". It makes twitter a place where world leaders are given a generally unfiltered communication tool. This has nothing to do with bias. If anything it is arguably the absence of bias.
> Allowing accounts of world leaders does not make twitter "a biased, pro-Administration propaganda organ"
Allowing accounts of “world leaders” (so designated by Twitter) does not.
Allowing such accounts freedom from content and participation standards that are applied as a bases for restricting or banning other participants, OTOH, does.
"Pro-Administration propaganda organ?" Before the election, it was a useful propaganda organ. A decade from now, I think it will be seen as a record of the thoughts of a senile old man who somehow became the leader of a large and powerful nation.
Not always (see Russia), but Trump recognized Twitter's power while Clinton did not. I don't expect that asymmetry to happen again; either both candidates will hire Twitter teams, or Twitter will go out of business.
With Twitter granting preferential status to “world leaders” not available to others including internal critics and challengers to such leaders, asymmetry no longer needs to occur as a matter of candidate recognition, because it's baked in as a matter of Twitter policy.
Even if such privileged were granted to official challengers, there would be a by-policy assymetric, because in practice political debate which affects election outcomes is continuous, not just during particular phases of the electoral cycle.
If that disturbs you, you'll be shocked to find out that there are also some people who believe that he should be held accountable to the laws and constitution of the United States, although that set of people appears to not intersect with the set of Republicans in power.
If Twitter would ban you or me for saying what Trump says, why shouldn't Trump be banned? It's a matter of fairness and uniformly applying the rules.
As the president, he'll easily find other means to get his message out, just not on Twitter.
The only sort-of argument I can see here is that the modern state gives the government a monopoly on the use of force, so there is something special about the government already, and maybe Twitter should reflect that by not banning the government for acting that way. But I don't really buy that logic.
In the end, either Twitter is a place where threats of violence are allowed, or not. Letting only some people make such threats makes no sense.
I could almost understand this if they had a policy of not blocking anyone else who posted similarly hate-filled speech, but they don't. If you're not in the white house you're going to have a bad time.
So the policy is, "We don't allow hate speech unless you are extremely famous and well-known and then hate speech is totally fine".
because the whole post is PR speak for "we are going to continue letting donald trump deny climate change and threaten to kill millions of civilians on twitter" under the facade of free-speech protection
Also weird that they chose to use the phrase "world leader" instead of president or country leader or something like that. There aren't really that many world leaders around. So Twitter can still prevent the leader of some other country from having their say?
Trump using Twitter isn't the problem. In fact, it actually gives us a weirdly detailed bit of oversight into his actions and thoughts (such as they are). I actually think this is helpful when dealing with someone so erratic and uninformed. Everyone in their right mind sees his tweets for what they mostly are: Frustrated bloviations and childish temper-tantrums.
The problem is electing someone as President who would use Twitter the way Trump does. We should never have done that in the first place and, thankfully, that's an error We The People can correct.
Addendum:
I do, though, think that Twitter's response is inadequate. They have a community. Their community is being turned toxic by this man and his ilk. His use of Twitter as President isn't the problem, but Twitter needs to address the effect of people like him on their platform and the world in general.
And that way more complicated than just banning a warmonger President. Sadly, I'm not sure Twitter has shown themselves to be up to the challenge.
Twitter will never ban Trump's tweets because he alone saved the company from coming to an end. Twitter is giving leaders free reign to tweet as they deem fit while everyone else needs to adhere to their code of conduct. It's a bit two-faced but from the perspective of running a business I see why twitter did this.
The simple fact of the matter is that the President of the United States -- no matter who they are -- occupies a special place in our society. So, yes, Twitter is right to treat him differently than, say, Milo.
And, yes: I'm sure this is all very good for Twitter's business...
In Twitter's position, I'd be concerned that my platform would be used for evil in a society where the population is particularly susceptible to propaganda. I wouldn't want to help a modern day Hitler get his message out "on my dollar."
Twitter isn't trying to maintain free speech on their platform with this ruling on world leaders, as they have removed and censored plenty of users before at the request of governments or because of rule/TOS violations, etc.
They're probably just keeping trump because it puts them in the spotlight and gets them a ton of money, thinking its for "free speech" is extremely idealistic imo
A few years ago I would have agreed with this, now I'm not so sure. We haven't had a third party candidate elected essentially ever, and the Democrat/Republican parties seem to have no intention of putting forward reasonable candidates. I don't think this comes from a place of ignorance, more so malice.
I can't imagine I'm the only one who finds it endlessly suspicious that Americans were given the choice they were this election.
When our choice in leaders is determined by groups of individuals who's only goals are attaining the power and resources to force their agenda on the general population, by any means necessary, how are we supposed to avoid/undo scenarios like this?
Without his tweets, we'd only know about how crazy and unbalanced he is via the "biased" and "corrupt" and "failing" media... with Twitter, we get to see it directly from his keyboard, thus leading to better debate about his fitness to serve.
That being said, it's a double standard, most ordinary people would have been banned before they tweeted half-way down the first column of what's in that ad...
So far he didn't cause something worse than, or similar to, what's going on in Libya and Syria, or introduce policies like the Affordable Care Act, and the economy's alright. He's doing better than the previous cabinet; whether you like him as a person or not.
> So far he didn't cause something worse than, or similar to, what's going on in Libya and Syria
So you're saying that because the US is not physically on fire with untold civilian deaths due to violent uprisings and political unrest, everything must be "alright?"
> or introduce policies like the Affordable Care Act
Shame on those who would like all citizens of their country to have the same access to healthcare that wealthier citizens have!
> He's doing better than the previous cabinet
Care to elaborate? He's avoided doing anything about any of the actual real issues affecting this country and the world (e.g. climate change, opiod crisis, resurging racism/white supremacy, sexual assault, and the list goes on). In fact he's made a lot of those worse since taking office. Meanwhile, he would rather focus on other "important" issues like contradicting himself, engaging in shouting matches with DPRK, tax reform that benefits his family and friends with deep pockets, spending an unspecified amount of tax payer money on a useless border wall, talking about (but not actually doing anything to) improve infrastructure, and trying to deny healthcare to folks that do not have it.
>> So far he didn't cause something worse than, or similar to, what's going on in Libya and Syria
>So you're saying that because the US is not physically on fire with untold civilian deaths due to violent uprisings and political unrest, everything must be "alright?"
I suspect he's referring to the USA's usual military aggression towards other countries. Unlike just about every president before him, Trump (for all his many many many faults) hasn't attacked another country (yet). I'd wager that, so far, Iraqis and Afghanis think Trump is better than Bush II!
What were the racist comments about Mexicans? I know he made some comments about illegal immigrants, but most Mexicans in America are not illegal immigrants.
> We should never have done that in the first place and, thankfully, that's an error We The People can correct.
Assuming enough people in enough places that 'matter' (not a majority of the voting population.. if you recall) wants that shitshow of a president to be replaced.
Twitter is here to serve and help advance the global, public conversation.
Twitter is there to make money for its shareholders by showing ads to regular users in exchange for cash money.
Elected world leaders play a critical role in that conversation because of their outsized impact on our society.
World leaders are a cash cow for Twitter, who doesn't give a hoot about how they came to power. I doubt they'd deny an account to a Saudi prince, for example.
Blocking a world leader from Twitter or removing their controversial Tweets, would hide important information people should be able to see and debate. It would also not silence that leader, but it would certainly hamper necessary discussion around their words and actions.
These two statements are mutually exclusive; if leaders are dependent on Twitter to get information out (they're not) then it ought to be run as a public utility in a truly open fashion. Meanwhile, someone being on or off Twitter would seem to have little impact on other people's ability to discuss their doings on Twitter.
But if we're to accept Twitter's stance, then political leaders ought not to be able to delete their tweets, since the purported necessity of seeing and debating them is undermined if they can retroactively edit the record of their own public statements.
We review Tweets by leaders within the political context that defines them, and enforce our rules accordingly.
Twitter is absolutely not going to mess with anyone who could seize any of staff or assets by force, but would like to retain a shred of dignity.
No one person's account drives Twitter’s growth, or influences these decisions. We work hard to remain unbiased with the public interest in mind.
Please think of Twitter as a public utility even though it is actually a for-profit business with a PR problem.
We are working to make Twitter the best place to see and freely discuss everything that matters. We believe that’s the best way to help our society make progress.
NYSE: TWTR has been in a 2 year trough since falling to ~1/3 of its 2014 high and would really like to like to have and eat its cake simultaneously, pretty please.
Thanks for this, seems appropriately cutting. The whole situation has put Twitter in a weird place, and I can understand why they don't want to cut Donald off, but it's clear that this post is just "We don't want to", but with a few paragraphs of spin. I wish they would be more honest about it.
Personally, I don't think it should be Twitter's responsibility to censor Trump. He has a way of shoehorning himself into public consciousness, and I think the public (especially the mainstream media) needs to self-censor and stop paying him so much attention. I wouldn't care if Donald tweeted whatever he wants, except that it always seems to end up in the news.
The fact the president of the United States made an inflammatory public statement is news whether you like it or not. Foreign governments make decisions and tailor their own rhetoric based off of the Twitter messages made by the president.
“Ignore him and he’ll go away” was fantastic advice I wish the media used in 2015 and 2016; a different candidate would have won the Republican primary were it not for the president’s overwhelming media coverage.
That advice no longer holds true. I agree that sensationalizing public statements is destructive to society.
I don't necessarily think his comments should be ignored, just treated like what they are: childish rants that don't have a strong connection to reality.
Foreign governments are going to do what they do either way -- we are past the point of pretending that our POTUS isn't a flaming dickhead. By giving him additional attention, we're validating him as an important part of the American dialogue. He should not be that, whether he is the POTUS or not.
It's true that because of his position, he is now afforded certain powers that make him difficult to ignore. But I think his nighttime Twitter rants are just "acting out" for attention. If he was 5 years old, we would know to pay attention when he's being serious and ignore him when he's not. But we don't.
Honestly, I think at this point we just have to wait it out and try to minimize the damage he does to our society. I can only hope that the experience will be sobering enough to incite actual social change.
I don't think they should be getting rid of him, particularly - like other posters, I think he does more damage to himself politically via tweet than any of his opponents could.
But I do think this issue highlights the long-standing tension between platforms-as-utilities (which involve public rights-of-way, so to speak) vs as commercial entities that can choose their customers, or not. The fact that a politician can delete their tweets or block people while ostensibly using Twitter in their official capacity is directly at odds with the happy talk.
It's good that Twitter as a commercial entity has brought instant global publication into reality from a technological point of view, but I wish it were a federated protocol instead, that's not subject to the desires of any authority. As long as it's a commercial platform, the need to extract economic rents from it inevitably take priority over ethical questions.
Twitter is there to make money for its shareholders
Everyone already knows Twitter isn't a charity. This fact does not mean that the company can't have a worthwhile purpose like "advancing the global, public conversation".
They don't have to choose one, they can have both.
World leaders are a cash cow for Twitter
So what? World leaders can also help defense contractors and kindergarten teachers. How does that affect whether their statements should visible for public conversation?
In response to your first comment, TWTR has never made a profit. Ever. Stopped reading your post after that because, you know, you’re wrong. Just saying
Having a goal of making money for shareholders and actually achieving that goal (making a profit) are two different, separable things. I can have a goal of running a marathon and be unable to. Both can be true without contradiction. (And following up with two tired memes doesn't add anything to further conversation constructively.)
This decision to treat public officials as a different class makes sense to me, especially in light of Twitter's (eventual) decision to let Politwoops continue operating despite violating the TOS for API usage: https://www.wired.com/2016/01/twitter-reverses-itself-on-pol...
I blocked Trump on Twitter a long time ago for my own sanity. It's understandable that Twitter won't ban him, but that doesn't mean we have to read what he tweets.
"Blocking a world leader from Twitter or removing their controversial Tweets, would hide important information people should be able to see and debate."
I actually agree with this.
"We review Tweets by leaders within the political context that defines them, and enforce our rules accordingly."
Certain world leaders have sometimes posted tweets that would likely get anyone else banned. I would prefer Twitter to be more explicit about what they're doing -- namely not enforcing rules against hateful and abusive content when exposing such content is seen a net benefit.
If Random Q. Person posts something that's abusive enough to violate Twitter's rules, there's no particular benefit in allowing that content to remain. If Powerful Famous Person posts the same thing, there's arguably substantial benefit in letting it be exposed.
On the other hand, applying the same rules to both would also be a valid policy. I merely suggest being a bit clearer about what those rules are and how they're enforced.
Blocking a user from Twitter or removing their controversial Tweets would hide important information people should be able to see and debate. It would also not silence that user, but it would certainly hamper necessary discussion around their words and actions.
Except that it's only newsworthy in a recursive way. They give him a platform to break their own rules and be controversial. The simple fact is they want him to be controversial on their platform, not someone else's. This is a dangerous game.
I think it is hilarious when people argue with Trump on Twitter, because I realize he is 71 years old. He's literally someone's old grandpa on Twitter. How many 71 year olds do you know on Twitter? How many people do you know would argue and talk shit with a 71 year old grandpa on Twitter?
I understand he's not just _any_ 71 year old grandpa, but it's so funny to think about it that way.
114 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 81.9 ms ] threadExample: @Popehat got suspended for posting screenshots of someone abusing him: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170803/16341437919/twitt...
Example: This guy got suspended for killing a mosquito: http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-41097947
Mosquito ban sounds like a natural language mistake - only a human would understand the subject he's threatening to kill is the mosquito pictured, and your link confirms Twitter said it was a mistake.
Obviously Twitter should enforce rules for sex and racial discrimination. Joking doesn't make those things OK.
Trump is a military leader - making threats, like any military and police person, is part of their job. Would you support banning Barack Obama for threatening Assad?
https://imgur.com/0gIrajl
Pretending it shouldn't count in this case for some unspecified reason is weird.
PR. No thanks.
Honestly I'm still baffled by the situation as a whole (i.e how such despicable people came to be in power and stay in the office), which I feel is kind of unprecedented.
Has it ever occurred to anyone parroting this that you can discuss the actual concept of freedom of speech outside of the sphere of influence the government has on it?
It would be nice if instead there was a discussion about the intrinsic value of free speech in society, and how the open marketplace of ideas has a pretty impressive track record.
But to not have the discussion in the first place because of this meme of free speech solely being a citizen/government issue and not a concept in itself is a damn shame.
If you want free speech, you must foster a society in which it can exist without being exploited to coerce masses of people to think in the way you want them to by deceptive means.
So in this way, crying free speech in the streets is useless until people start preventing themselves from falling under the corrosive spells of populists.
I think you're getting it backwards, you can't reverse engineer a perfect society to cradle free speech, the society advances and becomes less violent through more speech.
Going back to the original point though, I think that it's totally fair to discuss freedom of speech alongside twitter as the company has in the past used it in their PR for positive gain. I actually agree that twitter is private and can enforce or ban what they like. What I don't agree with is thought-terminating cliches like not being able to discuss it because of the narrow view that freedom of speech is solely a citizen/government relationship.
In saying that, thank you for expanding on your thoughts.
Can we stop using ungrounded dicta from a since-overturned decision suppressing core political speech as if it were an uncontroversial statement of an established valid limit on free speech?
There are limits imposed upon free speech by the force of law, but no, we don't all agree on them.
People have the right to tell someone they disagree with that they aren’t welcome here anymore. It’s kind of like ‘yeah I heard your opinion and it’s not welcome here’ - no freedom of speech has been infringed upon; I have the right to tell you to buzz off if I do please too
Freedom of speech is not solely "about the right to criticize ones own government without prosecution". It's fair to discuss it as a concept in itself.
Especially when the past leadership of the very company the article is about has enthused the free speech angle of the company.
But kudos for putting it in a sentence and not lazily breaking out that xkcd comic.
What I was getting at, is that there seems to be this knee-jerk reaction recently where when someone mentions freedom of speech and a private platform in the same sentence, it's like a trope that lets people say "a-ha! this isn't a freedom of speech issue as it's not government, disregard all of this!".
It seems that people treat freedom of speech solely like a legal doctrine, when it's a broad concept that has legal implications in jurisdictions worldwide. I guess it's fair to say that the conversation will always sway towards what legal protections are offered or infringed, but that shouldn't prevent us talking about how private companies and individuals choose to explore it.
I just don't like the idea that private companies have some obligation to be bi-partisan; because that's the way some people are throwing around the term "Freedom of Speech" like it's this ticket to say whatever you want to anyone you want.
To me this is the same as a UX problem. Don't get mad at the user for the way they interpret your interface.
To say that it's a UX problem is to lend credence to the idea that all interpretations are equal. My assertion is that the narrow legal interpretation is a recent phenomenon that's nowhere near as 'equal' as talking about it as a concept.
Even the article on Freedom of Speech on wikipedia states that it's a principle, and then directs the user to other articles on legal implications of freedom of speech by jurisdiction.
Not that wikipedia is an absolute authority, but it acts as a demonstration that the language people generally use when talking about freedom of speech is that it's a principle and a set of ideas.
The fact that there are legal implications in jurisdictions doesn't mean that we have a UX problem with the word, nor does it mean that we need "new word" in order to talk about it from the angle in which it's most commonly approached anyway.
But it chooses instead to be a proaganda outlet that lets everyone participate, but select politicians participate on a preferential bases with greater latitude, reinforcing the power of the already powerful and further marginalizing the already marginalized.
There are people seriously suggesting that Donald J. Trump be held to the same standards with regard to content as other Twitter users, rather than Twitter being a biased, pro-Administration propaganda organ.
Twitter has clearly decided against that (that's been clear for some time, but now it's official.)
> Look, he's a madman, but he's also the president.
And that's why reporting about him is valuable and ought to be protected, and it certainly a reason that he has disproportionate power of government tools of communication.
It's not a reason for a private entity to grant him preferential liberties in a discussion forum that are not granted to others, particularly his domestic political opponents.
Allowing accounts of “world leaders” (so designated by Twitter) does not.
Allowing such accounts freedom from content and participation standards that are applied as a bases for restricting or banning other participants, OTOH, does.
It's always before an election.
With Twitter granting preferential status to “world leaders” not available to others including internal critics and challengers to such leaders, asymmetry no longer needs to occur as a matter of candidate recognition, because it's baked in as a matter of Twitter policy.
Even if such privileged were granted to official challengers, there would be a by-policy assymetric, because in practice political debate which affects election outcomes is continuous, not just during particular phases of the electoral cycle.
As the president, he'll easily find other means to get his message out, just not on Twitter.
The only sort-of argument I can see here is that the modern state gives the government a monopoly on the use of force, so there is something special about the government already, and maybe Twitter should reflect that by not banning the government for acting that way. But I don't really buy that logic.
In the end, either Twitter is a place where threats of violence are allowed, or not. Letting only some people make such threats makes no sense.
So the policy is, "We don't allow hate speech unless you are extremely famous and well-known and then hate speech is totally fine".
Which is, IMHO, total bullshit.
The problem is electing someone as President who would use Twitter the way Trump does. We should never have done that in the first place and, thankfully, that's an error We The People can correct.
Addendum:
I do, though, think that Twitter's response is inadequate. They have a community. Their community is being turned toxic by this man and his ilk. His use of Twitter as President isn't the problem, but Twitter needs to address the effect of people like him on their platform and the world in general.
And that way more complicated than just banning a warmonger President. Sadly, I'm not sure Twitter has shown themselves to be up to the challenge.
And, yes: I'm sure this is all very good for Twitter's business...
Twitter isn't trying to maintain free speech on their platform with this ruling on world leaders, as they have removed and censored plenty of users before at the request of governments or because of rule/TOS violations, etc.
They're probably just keeping trump because it puts them in the spotlight and gets them a ton of money, thinking its for "free speech" is extremely idealistic imo
A few years ago I would have agreed with this, now I'm not so sure. We haven't had a third party candidate elected essentially ever, and the Democrat/Republican parties seem to have no intention of putting forward reasonable candidates. I don't think this comes from a place of ignorance, more so malice.
I can't imagine I'm the only one who finds it endlessly suspicious that Americans were given the choice they were this election.
When our choice in leaders is determined by groups of individuals who's only goals are attaining the power and resources to force their agenda on the general population, by any means necessary, how are we supposed to avoid/undo scenarios like this?
P.S. Loved the Full page NY Times ad of his tweets - https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cviq5rBWYAQeh56.jpg
That being said, it's a double standard, most ordinary people would have been banned before they tweeted half-way down the first column of what's in that ad...
...video of (or live attendance at) his speeches, and via the actual concrete actions he undertakes in government.
* Mocking the parents of a man killed in action serving his country in the military.
* The "grab em by the pussy" tape.
* Racist comments about Mexicans.
* Mocking a disabled reporter
* 'Both sides' about actual nazis.
* Having no knowledge of policy
* Constant lying
We don't need twitter to tell us that he's unfit, unhinged and incapable of doing the job.
> So far he didn't cause something worse than, or similar to, what's going on in Libya and Syria
So you're saying that because the US is not physically on fire with untold civilian deaths due to violent uprisings and political unrest, everything must be "alright?"
> or introduce policies like the Affordable Care Act
Shame on those who would like all citizens of their country to have the same access to healthcare that wealthier citizens have!
> He's doing better than the previous cabinet
Care to elaborate? He's avoided doing anything about any of the actual real issues affecting this country and the world (e.g. climate change, opiod crisis, resurging racism/white supremacy, sexual assault, and the list goes on). In fact he's made a lot of those worse since taking office. Meanwhile, he would rather focus on other "important" issues like contradicting himself, engaging in shouting matches with DPRK, tax reform that benefits his family and friends with deep pockets, spending an unspecified amount of tax payer money on a useless border wall, talking about (but not actually doing anything to) improve infrastructure, and trying to deny healthcare to folks that do not have it.
I suspect he's referring to the USA's usual military aggression towards other countries. Unlike just about every president before him, Trump (for all his many many many faults) hasn't attacked another country (yet). I'd wager that, so far, Iraqis and Afghanis think Trump is better than Bush II!
<speculation>
There's also the business of his 'foreign policy', which will likely engage us in a war with DPRK or someone else.
In other words, the track record is OK thus far (1/4th of his term), but the potential points towards yet another bullshit war to "save" his ego.
</speculation>
Captain Bone Spurs just hasn't found the right opportunity to send other people's kids to get shot up.
Yeah but, that didn't stop him from getting elected in the first place, if anything it made him more endearing to his base.
Assuming enough people in enough places that 'matter' (not a majority of the voting population.. if you recall) wants that shitshow of a president to be replaced.
Twitter is there to make money for its shareholders by showing ads to regular users in exchange for cash money.
Elected world leaders play a critical role in that conversation because of their outsized impact on our society.
World leaders are a cash cow for Twitter, who doesn't give a hoot about how they came to power. I doubt they'd deny an account to a Saudi prince, for example.
Blocking a world leader from Twitter or removing their controversial Tweets, would hide important information people should be able to see and debate. It would also not silence that leader, but it would certainly hamper necessary discussion around their words and actions.
These two statements are mutually exclusive; if leaders are dependent on Twitter to get information out (they're not) then it ought to be run as a public utility in a truly open fashion. Meanwhile, someone being on or off Twitter would seem to have little impact on other people's ability to discuss their doings on Twitter.
But if we're to accept Twitter's stance, then political leaders ought not to be able to delete their tweets, since the purported necessity of seeing and debating them is undermined if they can retroactively edit the record of their own public statements.
We review Tweets by leaders within the political context that defines them, and enforce our rules accordingly.
Twitter is absolutely not going to mess with anyone who could seize any of staff or assets by force, but would like to retain a shred of dignity.
No one person's account drives Twitter’s growth, or influences these decisions. We work hard to remain unbiased with the public interest in mind.
Please think of Twitter as a public utility even though it is actually a for-profit business with a PR problem.
We are working to make Twitter the best place to see and freely discuss everything that matters. We believe that’s the best way to help our society make progress.
NYSE: TWTR has been in a 2 year trough since falling to ~1/3 of its 2014 high and would really like to like to have and eat its cake simultaneously, pretty please.
Personally, I don't think it should be Twitter's responsibility to censor Trump. He has a way of shoehorning himself into public consciousness, and I think the public (especially the mainstream media) needs to self-censor and stop paying him so much attention. I wouldn't care if Donald tweeted whatever he wants, except that it always seems to end up in the news.
“Ignore him and he’ll go away” was fantastic advice I wish the media used in 2015 and 2016; a different candidate would have won the Republican primary were it not for the president’s overwhelming media coverage.
That advice no longer holds true. I agree that sensationalizing public statements is destructive to society.
Foreign governments are going to do what they do either way -- we are past the point of pretending that our POTUS isn't a flaming dickhead. By giving him additional attention, we're validating him as an important part of the American dialogue. He should not be that, whether he is the POTUS or not.
It's true that because of his position, he is now afforded certain powers that make him difficult to ignore. But I think his nighttime Twitter rants are just "acting out" for attention. If he was 5 years old, we would know to pay attention when he's being serious and ignore him when he's not. But we don't.
Honestly, I think at this point we just have to wait it out and try to minimize the damage he does to our society. I can only hope that the experience will be sobering enough to incite actual social change.
But I do think this issue highlights the long-standing tension between platforms-as-utilities (which involve public rights-of-way, so to speak) vs as commercial entities that can choose their customers, or not. The fact that a politician can delete their tweets or block people while ostensibly using Twitter in their official capacity is directly at odds with the happy talk.
It's good that Twitter as a commercial entity has brought instant global publication into reality from a technological point of view, but I wish it were a federated protocol instead, that's not subject to the desires of any authority. As long as it's a commercial platform, the need to extract economic rents from it inevitably take priority over ethical questions.
Everyone already knows Twitter isn't a charity. This fact does not mean that the company can't have a worthwhile purpose like "advancing the global, public conversation".
They don't have to choose one, they can have both.
World leaders are a cash cow for Twitter
So what? World leaders can also help defense contractors and kindergarten teachers. How does that affect whether their statements should visible for public conversation?
who could seize any of staff or assets by force
Are you fucking kidding me?
Eating first is by far the more common usage. The Wikipedia article has a surprisingly thorough exploration of the historical usage of both variants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_can%27t_have_your_cake_and...
I actually agree with this.
"We review Tweets by leaders within the political context that defines them, and enforce our rules accordingly."
Certain world leaders have sometimes posted tweets that would likely get anyone else banned. I would prefer Twitter to be more explicit about what they're doing -- namely not enforcing rules against hateful and abusive content when exposing such content is seen a net benefit.
If Random Q. Person posts something that's abusive enough to violate Twitter's rules, there's no particular benefit in allowing that content to remain. If Powerful Famous Person posts the same thing, there's arguably substantial benefit in letting it be exposed.
On the other hand, applying the same rules to both would also be a valid policy. I merely suggest being a bit clearer about what those rules are and how they're enforced.
I understand he's not just _any_ 71 year old grandpa, but it's so funny to think about it that way.
"Examples of what we do not tolerate includes, but is not limited to behavior that harasses individuals or groups of people with:
violent threats; wishes for the physical harm, death, or disease of individuals or groups;"
What happens if Donald tweets a nude photo or a member of the Saudi royal family posts a video of a state beheading? Are those going to get deleted?