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: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday January 08 2018, @04:55PM (1 child)
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
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.