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, Insightful) by requerdanos on Sunday January 07 2018, @04:37PM (1 child)
All of this nonsense is a sideshow issue not related to anything in reality.
Trump a bully? Not at issue.
Trump dumb as a bucket of used rocks? Not at issue.
Trump obsessed with his crowd/ratings/nuclear button/penis size being perceived as larger than others'? Not at issue.
Trump making threats in violation of TOS? Not. At. Issue.
How do we know?
Because if a statement is so meaningless (a Trump specialty) that you can't say outright that it's a threat, just be puzzled and say it's "possibly" a threat, then that doesn't count. Only actual threats count as TOS violations of any policy against threats.
If the TOS prevented incoherent ranting that could possibly interpreted as a threat, or not, or whatever, then there would be some issue here.
There is not.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 07 2018, @05:33PM
A threat would be something like, "I will launch nukes on 8PM UTC, unless you allow nuclear inspectors." Most statements short of that are just hot air.