Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday January 07 2018, @11:27AM   Printer-friendly
from the It's-not-bannable-if-it's-the-president's-tweet dept.

Many Twitter users have reported threats of genocide and the use of weapons of mass destruction by one Twitterati in particular, but Twitter does not think these violate the terms of usage at Twitter. Tweet, at Mashable.

The President of the United States possibly made another threat of nuclear war on Twitter, but the company doesn't seem to think the post breaks any of its rules. Donald Trump boasted on Twitter about how his nuclear button was bigger than North Korean leader Kim Jong Un's, and people are calling (again) for the president to be banned from the platform.

Folks on Twitter are asking the platform whether this violates its policy against violent threats. So far the response from Twitter has been in the form of an automated response in which Twitter says Trump's message represents "no violation of the Twitter Rules against abusive behavior."

Mashable checked, just in case:

Twitter confirmed to Mashable that "this Tweet did not violate our terms of service," referencing the Twitter Rules against violent threats and glorification of violence.

"You may not make specific threats of violence or wish for the serious physical harm, death, or disease of an individual or group of people," the rules state.

So it seems that if you are going to threaten serious "physical harm, death or disease" on Twitter, be sure to include everyone by using nukes, instead of just one individual or group.


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This discussion has been archived.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: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 07 2018, @01:41PM (7 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 07 2018, @01:41PM (#619129) Journal

    Various SJW's, liberals, political opponents, and assorted nut cases band together, in an attempt to silence or censor the HMFIC*. And, they are surprised that it doesn't work?

    * Head Mother Fucker In Charge - aka Commander in Chief.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Troll=2, Insightful=4, Underrated=1, Total=7
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 07 2018, @04:22PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 07 2018, @04:22PM (#619189)

    a.k.a. The Lyin' King

    • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday January 08 2018, @04:02PM (2 children)

      by Freeman (732) on Monday January 08 2018, @04:02PM (#619544) Journal

      And the ones before him, kept all of their promises?

      --
      Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
      • (Score: 2) by J053 on Tuesday January 09 2018, @01:12AM (1 child)

        by J053 (3532) <dakineNO@SPAMshangri-la.cx> on Tuesday January 09 2018, @01:12AM (#619796) Homepage
        You know, if all you have is a tu quoque argument, you might be better off remaining silent.
        • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday January 09 2018, @04:39PM

          by Freeman (732) on Tuesday January 09 2018, @04:39PM (#620074) Journal

          Ok, how about, look at the facts. Looks like the Jury's still out on just how many campaign promises he won't fulfill. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/ [politifact.com] Comparatively, Obama compromised a little over 1/4 of the time, broke his campaign promise 1/4 of the time, and kept his campaign promise just under 1/2 the time.

          --
          Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
  • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Monday January 08 2018, @03:48PM

    by meustrus (4961) on Monday January 08 2018, @03:48PM (#619537)

    Politicians have opponents, and this one's opponents are roughly 55% of the population [fivethirtyeight.com]. We live in a litigious society, as the HMFIC's business career attests to, so it's hardly surprising that his political opponents would try to use contract law to limit his power.

    --
    If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
  • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday January 08 2018, @04:55PM (1 child)

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday January 08 2018, @04:55PM (#619575) Journal

    Various SJW's, liberals, political opponents, and assorted nut cases band together, in an attempt to silence or censor the HMFIC*. And, they are surprised that it doesn't work?

    Correct, random nutjobs complaining about Twitter on the internet is not newsworthy or a violation of the first amendment.

    A sitting US president trying to ban a book [washingtonpost.com] and silence critics [go.com] on the other hand....

    • (Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday January 09 2018, @02:09PM

      by Bot (3902) on Tuesday January 09 2018, @02:09PM (#620004) Journal

      Indeed. But the infrastructure for enabling a big gun to censor the little guy has been built before little hands went to power. Even if you blamed only the nazi rep party for that, the nazi dem party had 2 terms to at least begin to dismantle it. Instead they kept increasing control on the net. Because the agenda is one, and they take turns to implement different parts of it.
       

      --
      Account abandoned.