Most active commenters
  • mthoms(3)

←back to thread

1061 points danso | 18 comments | | HN request time: 0.465s | source | bottom
Show context
Animats ◴[] No.23347437[source]
Twitter policy:

"We start from a position of assuming that people do not intend to violate our Rules. Unless a violation is so egregious that we must immediately suspend an account, we first try to educate people about our Rules and give them a chance to correct their behavior. We show the violator the offending Tweet(s), explain which Rule was broken, and require them to remove the content before they can Tweet again. If someone repeatedly violates our Rules then our enforcement actions become stronger. This includes requiring violators to remove the Tweet(s) and taking additional actions like verifying account ownership and/or temporarily limiting their ability to Tweet for a set period of time. If someone continues to violate Rules beyond that point then their account may be permanently suspended."

Somewhere a counter was just incremented. It's going to be amusing if Twitter management simply lets the automated system do its thing. At some point, after warnings, the standard 48-hour suspension will trigger. Twitter management can simply simply say "it is our policy not to comment on enforcement actions".

They've suspended the accounts of prominent people many times before.[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_suspensions

replies(7): >>23350687 #>>23352351 #>>23353399 #>>23353556 #>>23354990 #>>23357399 #>>23369630 #
1. fortran77 ◴[] No.23352351[source]
It depends on who and what. And it's the inconsistency that will fuel the critics.

They didn't suspend Spike Lee who caused direct harm to a private individual who happened to share a name with an infamous individual: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/spike-lee-settles-twi...

replies(2): >>23352397 #>>23354043 #
2. pknopf ◴[] No.23352421[source]
Plenty of left-leaning people get banned as well.
replies(1): >>23352460 #
3. Simulacra ◴[] No.23352460{3}[source]
But not for tweets of violence, and they're not getting fact-checked like Trump.
replies(2): >>23352632 #>>23352636 #
4. vkou ◴[] No.23352632{4}[source]
Only accounts with a large reach get fact checked. Unfortunately, leftist lunatics don't have the same reach as him, so they aren't ever going to get fact checked. (Just banned for violating the TOS.)

Edit: Don't understand the sentiment. Are there any radical left accounts with as much reach as the POTUS, that engage in similar behaviour that I am not aware of? If they exist, they should be trivial to link to. Looking at the top Twitter accounts, they consist of Barack Obama, YouTube, Modi, Bill Gates and a bunch of celebrities. Are any of those folks radical left? Will Lady Gaga or Katy Perry be opening the 2021 Superbowl halftime with "Internationale?"

replies(1): >>23353390 #
5. mthoms ◴[] No.23352636{4}[source]
Speaking of fact checking. Please cite your source on this. Thanks.
replies(1): >>23352775 #
6. dmode ◴[] No.23352671[source]
Yes, double standard to protect Trump. Who has for years twitted violent stuff, racist stuff, and Twitter had let it slide. I don't get this weird victim mentality of Trump folks. Trump has been treated with kid gloves by Twitter. Meanwhile, the largest broadcast network is literally Trump's state media.
replies(1): >>23352997 #
7. Simulacra ◴[] No.23352775{5}[source]
You mean like Spike Lee?

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/trayvon-martin-spike-...

replies(3): >>23353039 #>>23353638 #>>23354306 #
8. druddha ◴[] No.23352837[source]
If they were going to "leap at the chance" to suspend Trump, then why haven't they already? He's been treading in the grey area of their ToS for years.
replies(1): >>23353925 #
9. ◴[] No.23352997{3}[source]
10. tomnipotent ◴[] No.23353039{6}[source]
Your single example is from eight years ago and long before the current fact checking policy?
11. mthoms ◴[] No.23353390{5}[source]
I think you're being downvoting because your first sentence appears to be calling all leftists lunatics when (correct me if I'm wrong) you're actually saying "there are no leftists who are quite as loony and prominent as Trump so there is no easy comparison".
replies(1): >>23353613 #
12. ardy42 ◴[] No.23353613{6}[source]
> I think you're being downvoting because your first sentence appears to be calling all leftists lunatics when (correct me if I'm wrong) you're actually saying "there are no leftists who are quite as loony and prominent as Trump so there is no easy comparison".

I think so. The GP's use of the term "leftist lunatics" reads as a right-wing shibboleth to me.

replies(1): >>23354816 #
13. pknopf ◴[] No.23353638{6}[source]
I can show you cases where right-leaning folks are left on the platform as well.

You are missing the forest for the trees.

14. beerandt ◴[] No.23353925{3}[source]
Conflicting interests between how much they disagree with him politically and how much money they directly make off of his traffic (and less directly via traffic from everyone complaining about the controversy).

Twitter's business model is totally reliant on controversy. They want to treat/control, but not cure/extinguish.

Which is a separate reason that twitter's ethically conflicted in making almost any judgment calls on what's "allowable" speech.

Additionally, the nature of mud-slinging politics requires that ones opponents "follow" his online presence in able to attack. So if Trump leaves Twitter, not only do his followers go to whatever new platform he does, but so must his adversaries.

Twitter doesn't want that.

15. arcticfox ◴[] No.23354043[source]
The article you linked to was over 8 years ago at this point - it was years closer to the founding of Twitter than it is to the present day. I don't think that can be considered relevant to their current enforcement regime.
16. mthoms ◴[] No.23354306{6}[source]
So, your source is a singular example? From nearly a decade ago? Right.
17. dmurray ◴[] No.23354816{7}[source]
Outside the US, I hear "looney left" and related terms used all the time by political moderates to describe any leftist groups outside the political mainstream, with a similar connotation to "alt-right", though it's a meaner phrase. It's derogatory towards them, but not towards the left in general.
replies(1): >>23355292 #
18. mcguire ◴[] No.23355292{8}[source]
Inside the US, "looney left", "communists", and "traitors" are all used by the political center-right and right-wards to describe any leftist group. Any reference to the left is intended to be derogatory.