SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 07 2018, @04:36PM (4 children)
The majority of the United States did NOT vote for the individual in office currently. Remember that.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Sunday January 07 2018, @07:48PM (3 children)
That's irrelevant. Every nation gets the government it deserves, regardless of the political process used to select the leaders.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Sunday January 07 2018, @10:13PM (2 children)
Stalin's victims killed by the government they deserved?
Tienanmen square victims killed by the government they deserved?
I am not sure I agree with your dogmatism here. Sure, the USA has a pretty poor record of late picking Federal leaders, but I don't think that means that "every nation gets the government it deserves."
(Score: 3, Informative) by Grishnakh on Sunday January 07 2018, @11:02PM (1 child)
You're looking at it wrong, because you're looking at individuals rather than a collective. Do the black people shot in the back by cops in the US deserve that? Of course not. But collectively, as a nation, we get the government we deserve: nations where the people do whatever it is that's necessary to create a better government in fact get a better government, which provides benefits for all, and nations where the people fail to do that, and instead allow corruption or despotism, get a government that makes them miserable overall, and gives them a much lower standard of living. What can any individual do to get a government they think they deserve? That's unknown, and surely is different for every situation, and there's an infinite possibility of actions anyway, but the gist of this is that nations that have better governments generally don't have them by accident or random chance; these governments and societies are a product of the collective actions of the people living there over the lifetime of the nation. Of course, there are some caveats and exceptions: people in a small peaceful country that gets invaded and occupied by some powerful imperialist nation can't really be blamed for that, and there are environmental and other external factors at play too, but overall if a nation's people really want to build a good, effective government that works best for them given their current circumstances (location, resources, etc.), the only thing keeping them from that is themselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 08 2018, @02:58PM
Small groups have been known to seize power, riding on the waves of ignorance. Saying people get the government they deserve is just a new catch phrase that allows the blue to be placed on the group rather than the bad actors whoade the choices. Scapegoatism,and we've had more than enough of that!!