Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Twitter Censorship Government Social Networks The Internet Politics

Twitter Says It Will Restrict Users From Retweeting World Leaders Who Break Its Rules (techcrunch.com) 76

Posted by BeauHD from the rule-breakers dept.
The social media giant said it will not allow users to like, reply, share or retweet tweets from world leaders who break its rules. Instead, it will let users quote-tweet to allow ordinary users to express their opinions. The company said the move will help its users stay informed about global affairs, but while balancing the need to keep the site's rules in check. TechCrunch reports: Twitter has been in a bind, amid allegations that the company has not taken action against world leaders who break its rules. "When it comes to the actions of world leaders on Twitter, we recognize that this is largely new ground and unprecedented," Twitter said in an unbylined blog post on Tuesday. "We want to make it clear today that the accounts of world leaders are not above our policies entirely," the company said. Any user who tweets content promoting terrorism, making "clear and direct" threats of violence, and posting private information are all subject to ban. But Twitter said in cases involving a world leader, "we will err on the side of leaving the content up if there is a clear public interest in doing so." "Our goal is to enforce our rules judiciously and impartially," Twitter added in a tweet. "In doing so, we aim to provide direct insight into our enforcement decision-making, to serve public conversation, and protect the public's right to hear from their leaders and to hold them to account."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Twitter Says It Will Restrict Users From Retweeting World Leaders Who Break Its Rules More

Twitter Says It Will Restrict Users From Retweeting World Leaders Who Break Its Rules

Comments Filter:

  • "Break its rules"... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 15, 2019 @05:54PM (#59311872)
    which are subjective at best...

    • Re:"Break its rules"... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by hey! ( 33014 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2019 @05:57PM (#59311882) Homepage Journal

      So. It's their house, so it's their rules.

      • Re:"Break its rules"... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by chispito ( 1870390 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2019 @06:16PM (#59311938)

        So. It's their house, so it's their rules.

        So they're a publisher?

        • So. It's their house, so it's their rules.

          So they're a publisher?

          Doesn't matter. What matters is that they are a private business. The ToS that everyone agrees to upon signing up is a legal, binding, contract.

        • No. Under U.S. law, platforms are not publishers. Paraphrasing 47 USC 230 [cornell.edu] using modern-day terminology: "No provider or user of [a platform] shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another [author]."

          The exact wording in the statute differs because the terminology for participants in Internet communication hadn't yet stabilized in 1996 when section 230 became law:

          (c)(1)No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

          (f)(2)The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.

          (f)(3)The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.

          • Re: No platform is publisher of other author's inf (Score:4)

            by astrofurter ( 5464356 ) on Wednesday October 16, 2019 @01:11AM (#59312944)

            Thank you so much for posting a link to the actual text of CDA 230. As any reader who peruses it can clearly see, that law was intended to facilitate filtering of lewd content to protect children and families.

            CDA 230 was most clearly was not intended as blanket cover for partisan censorship of overtly political speech by (then non-existent) platforms with monopoly power over public debate.

            • Re: (Score:2, Redundant)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              That exception is necessary because otherwise spammers would sue for infringing their 1st Amendment rights. Commercial services would immediately turn into a hellish mixture of spam and extreme content, and most sites would quickly go out of business. Basically the whole internet would be 8chan, unless companies left the US jurisdiction to get away from such a draconian legal requirement.

              • Commercial services would immediately turn into a hellish mixture of spam and extreme content [...] Basically the whole internet would be 8chan

                Or Usenet in its final days, post-1990s.

              • Funny... neither spam nor political censorship are mentioned in CDA 230. Only lewd content. I guess those Christian Conservatives really are clever! With one short law they managed to protect us from pictures of titties, unwanted commercial emails, AND democracy.

        • You're hoping they'll be vulnerable to lawsuits for things their users do. Congress saw that coming in the 90s and passed a law [aclu.org] to shield software companies (yes, it's broad enough to cover just about any software, not just websites) from that liability.

          Don't like it? Well there's good news and bad news. The good news, if you don't like it, is that court challenges might very well chip away at those protections. The law is pretty popular so you won't get it repealed, but after 40 years of stacking the c

      • So. It's their house, so it's their rules.

        But their house rests in the trailer court we communally own. So stop with the noisy parties and guests who puke on the lawn, Twitter.

    • So this is shadow banning mark II?
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • **Which rules?** (Score:5, Interesting)

    by UnknownSoldier ( 67820 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2019 @06:05PM (#59311908)

    Or this gonna be like some stupid Human Retard (HR) drones who won't tell you *before hand* what the "rules" for bad words / rules are AFTER someone gets butt hurt over another person's opinion?

  • A Trump by any other name (Score:5, Funny)

    by Citizen of Earth ( 569446 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2019 @06:19PM (#59311952)
    Does Twitter have any particular world leader in mind?

    • The obvious Don, who else?

      The can't ban him because of the inevitable backslash, so they want to do anything they can to contain him.

  • Or.. (Score:2, Redundant)

    by mr100percent ( 57156 )

    Or you could just make a solid set of rules and enforce them equally for everyone. Thereâ(TM)s no need to carve out exceptions and allow VIPs to get away with hate speech.

    • Or you could just make a solid set of rules and enforce them equally for everyone. Thereâ(TM)s no need to carve out exceptions and allow VIPs to get away with hate speech.

      The problem is with people, like Trump, who use their personal Twitter account for both personal and official statements. In the case of Trump, he often mixes things together, even within individual Tweets. Official comments need to be archived and shouldn't be deleted by the platform. It would be better if he used @realDonaldTrump for personal and @Potus for official remarks -- though, sadly, both of these accounts often seem to display similar vitriolic content under this administration.

      This new rul

      • It would be better if he used @realDonaldTrump for personal and @Potus for official remarks

        It would need to be @Potus45 or something similar. People would be embarassed if Twitter feeds of Obama and Trump and whoever comes after were intermixed. They'd realize the whole bunch are clowns.

        • twitter archives and changes the handle of previous POTUS accounts when the office changes. The one Trump uses is not the same account as Obama's

      • Thatâ(TM)s the whole point, he shouldnâ(TM)t get away with it even if he was a public official. Facebook and Twitter should remove hate speech even if its from a politician. That doesnâ(TM)t give you any special privileges. Twitter should draw a line, because Trump keeps pushing it and the company meekly falls back. Will they at least say they would ban Trump if he tweets a swastika or the n-word?

        • Welcome to the oligarchy, citizen. Citing Citizens United vs. FEC, money is speech and speech cannot be infringed upon, therefore political spending cannot be curtail---er, infringed upon. In summary, those with the gold make the rules.

  • Freedom of speech is not "new ground and unprecedented" in the USA.
    Why cant a political leader post "information" that is in the nations new media?
    Why cant anyone then link to and comment on that information?
    Freedom of speech and freedom after speech.
    Again thats not unprecedented in the USA...
    • they're not a government organization. They're a private corporation. They also have their own rights, to wit Freedom of Association. Certain laws concerning bigotry can trump (pun not intended) that, but you have to be a protected class for those to apply, and last I checked "Donald Trump" isn't a protected class.

      If you want an online platform where your freedom of speech is legally protected there's a way to get one: National Public Access. Have the Government build a version of Facebook/YouTube. But

      • They also have their own rights, to wit Freedom of Association.

        Bakers don't though. Nor do Country Clubs. Etc.

        • They also have their own rights, to wit Freedom of Association.

          Bakers don't though. Nor do Country Clubs. Etc.

          Ah, I feel the "gay wedding cake gambit" hanging in the air. The Supreme Court ruled already on bakers refusing to make gay-wedding cakes, in favor of the bakers. Alas, gay people are not a protected class under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Perhaps that will change someday.

          As for a baker refusing to serve, oh say, a black couple because of a "sincerely held belief" that black people shouldn't procreate, well ... I think you know how that would play out.

          Country clubs? You have to afford the fees, so I suppo

          • And you'd think since the Supreme Court ruled on it, the rabid Libtards would leave the bakery alone, instead of continuing to attack and destroy them. But of course, these are Libtards we're talking about here. Following the law is mandatory for politicians they don't like, but totally optional when it's a cake baker, illegal immigrant, or politician doing shady things in Russia (as long as they have a D next to their name).

          • Donny doubled his Mar-a-lago entrance fees upon his election. That's just good emoulu--er, good business sense.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AHuxley ( 892839 )
        re "to wit Freedom of Association."
        Then stop all political groups, all nations political leaders and political news?
        Stop all gov access and use?
        Once one gov/political party is allowed, then why not another party in the same nation?
        Can a gov suggest publication, ask for art to be created, ask for publication?
        Suggest changes to the teachings of a faith?
        Invite the world onto an open social media network, expect freedom of political speech to follow.
        Depends on the product, service, location and what a go

      • A shame this was modded down. rsilvergun is right.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jwhyche ( 6192 )

        Mod correction. The OP is not a Troll. The correct mod should be +1, Interesting.

        Is slashdot just handing out modpoints to idiots now? There is nothing in this post that deserves to be rated as a troll. Just because don't agree with something doesn't mean its a troll, overrated, or flamebate.

  • You account has been disabled due to your human rights violations.
  • Why cannot Twitter restrict users who break its rules?

  • Any user who tweets content promoting terrorism, making "clear and direct" threats of violence, and posting private information are all subject to ban

    So that means they're going to start banning politicians like Elizabeth Warren if/when she threatens the use of the US military against an adversary if elected? Because that's what that statement says they will do. We all know they will not do it, because double standards.

  • In a democratic system, all citizens of legal age are treated as equal under the eyes of the law. It doesn't matter whether you're a prime minister, president, CEO, street sweeper, or unemployed, the law should treat you all equally. Giving certain groups of people "special status" where they're allowed to break laws & flout rules for their own benefit is fundamentally undemocratic. It's indicative of the culture inside Silicon Valley corporations that their executives believe some people are more equal

  • Already in violoation of SCOTUS rulings (Score:5, Informative)

    by Crashmarik ( 635988 ) on Wednesday October 16, 2019 @12:39AM (#59312884)

    1965 Cox VS Louisiana
    https://chicagounbound.uchicag... [uchicago.edu]

    Seeing as the courts have ruled that government figures can't block people from interacting with them on twitter as well

    This will be fun too watch. The only real question is Twitter looking to have the government force this on them or are they just horribly arrogant.

  • So Twitter won't do anything about politicians blatantly violating their rules, but will punish people who retweet them for violating their rules? How are people to know that a tweet from, say, a senile wanna-be strongman, violates their rules if Twitter doesn't have the balls to take it down?
    • Other than being unable to retweet it, I guess. Which only serves to highlight how hypocritical they're being by allowing the un-retweetable posts to remain on their service. Feh.
  • So now nobody can like or retweet anything Donald J Trump puts out? The Trump lovers will be mad about this. And yes, this is a double standard and yes this is censorship and yes I know Twitter is a private company.

    • Bingo. It sounds like they'll likely judge nearly everything he tweets as breaking policy somehow to stifle that line of communication; there's a big election coming up after all.. interesting timing. They'll probably ban James Woods again too.
      Yet I've seen a lot of tweets untouched way worse than Trump's or Wood's, if we're talking about a company's policy.

  • If "Our goal is to enforce our rules judiciously and impartially," then shouldn't they enforce their terms of service consistently on all users, rather than giving "world leaders" a pass?

    "We reserve the right to remove Content that violates the User Agreement, including for example, copyright or trademark violations, impersonation, unlawful conduct, or harassment." More details at https://help.twitter.com/en/ru... [twitter.com] .

    So if a politician harasses people, or advocates illegal actions, their account should be bl

    • While we're at it, if they're going to allow this stuff, why would they let anyone rt anything from anyone who breaks their rules? I think Trump rting nazis is a bigger problem than nazis rting trump

  • The difference between RETWEET and QUOTE TWEET is trivial and meaningless. This is an opportunity to say "see we did something" while doing nothing.

    Those who want a level playing field get SCREWED.

    Those who want to be able to CONTINUE propagating VIOLENCE and RACISM, wingnut conspiracies, outright LIES, etc will not be constrained in any meaningful way.

    And before any of you ask, no I don't Twitter (twitter is for twits) nor do I book my face, both companies are a CANCER ON SOCIETY and any SANE government
  • Rotten root, lets start trimming leaves... makes sense.

Slashdot Top Deals

Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills. -- Ambrose Bierce

Close