Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Saturday October 14 2017, @07:52AM   Printer-friendly
from the jumping-to-conclusions dept.

The actress, who has emerged as a Hollywood voice in the Harvey Weinstein sexual-assault scandal, revealed that Twitter had locked her account on Wednesday night.

Rose McGowan had a hold placed on her Twitter account Wednesday night, an act that quickly sparked outrage among the many users who have been following her posts ever since news first broke of the allegations against Harvey Weinstein.

The actress, who has emerged as a Hollywood voice after finding herself thrust into the center of the developing story of sexual misconduct, harassment and assault allegations against the movie mogul, took to her Instagram and Facebook accounts to relay the news of her temporary suspension, writing cryptically that "TWITTER HAS SUSPENDED ME. THERE ARE POWERFUL FORCES AT WORK. BE MY VOICE. #ROSEARMY."

She added a screenshot (below) from a message from Twitter telling her that she had violated their terms of service and that she would be locked out for 12 hours once she deleted certain tweets. She posted the message late Wednesday night.

As of 7:20 a.m. PT on Thursday, Twitter had unlocked McGowan's account, telling THR the temporary lock was due to the actress tweeting out a private number, which falls under the private information violation under Twitter Rules. McGowan deleted the post to regain access.

Are social media platforms common carriers, or not?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 14 2017, @01:42PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 14 2017, @01:42PM (#582263)

    Are social media platforms common carriers, or not?

    When it suits them. Which is usually when whoever is on there is promoting the narrative that they favor.

    They have three options here: "common carrier when they think it makes them look good," "highly censored or falsified when it suits their interests," and "big and rich enough that anyone cares." They want all three, but they can only realistically choose two, and they're trying to game the system to get around it.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by linuxrocks123 on Saturday October 14 2017, @04:48PM

    by linuxrocks123 (2557) on Saturday October 14 2017, @04:48PM (#582326) Journal

    Neither social media platforms, nor any other websites, are common fucking carriers. Asserting they are is abject legal nonsense. Websites aren't responsible for illegal stuff their users do because of Section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act and because of the safe harbor provision of the DMCA. Neither has anything to do with websites being common carriers, and neither says they can't pick and choose who gets to say what on their sites and still get the safe harbor.