←back to thread

1061 points danso | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.5s | source
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 #
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 #
Simulacra[dead post] ◴[] No.23352397[source]
Because suspending Spike Lee would have required someone at Twitter to make that decision, and they're not going to do that. But will leap at the chance for Trump. It's been a clear double standard for years.
1. 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 #
2. beerandt ◴[] No.23353925[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.