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This discussion has been archived.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, Interesting) by Bot on Sunday January 07 2018, @04:41PM

    by Bot (3902) on Sunday January 07 2018, @04:41PM (#619197) Journal

    I used fascism in the literal Roman fascio sense, which indeed makes commies fascists. All features commies think are differentiating them from fascism, hate of rich guys, populism, revolution, end of revealed religion, had been integral in early mussolinian fascism. Two barking dogs are better than one to steer the sheep wherever you want, and let the dogs fight each other sometimes so they keep in shape.

    It's old school "society made for the individual" vs "individual made for society" fascism. Many variation of the latter, no surviving political expression of the former, unless possibly some city states and iceland.

    --
    Account abandoned.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Interesting=2, Underrated=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5