Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday April 27 2016, @01:56AM   Printer-friendly
from the is-a-Trump-tweet-called-a-Treet? dept.

You were warned. Now it begins.

Since the implementation of Twitter's new algorithmic timeline back in February of this year, conservatives, libertarians and anti-establishment dissidents alike have been waiting for the social media platform to interfere in the current U.S. election cycle. Now it seems that there is clear evidence of Twitter censoring the current Republican front-runner, Donald Trump.

A tweet sent from Trump's account at 3:04 PM EDT yesterday is not visible from his timeline, even when showing "Tweets and replies." That message included a video wherein Trump declared that "the establishment and special interests are absolutely killing our country."At the time of this writing, the tweet is still publicly accessible via a direct link and thus has not been deleted either by Twitter or by someone operating on the Trump account.

This archive.is link has a copy of the timeline taken before this article was published which clearly shows the tweet not appearing where it should be — between a tweet sent at 12:10 PM EDT and one sent at 3:27 PM EDT; it is possible that the tweet may be reintroduced to the timeline in order to hide the manipulation.

Today it's one Trump tweet, tomorrow it will be you.


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This discussion has been archived.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: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:06AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:06AM (#337698)

    Like it or not, they can decide whether or not to show a tweet.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=5, Overrated=1, Total=6
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by takyon on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:12AM

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:12AM (#337701) Journal

    It can also face repercussions from users disappointed in such a decision, or undermine its own rhetoric about censorship.

    This could easily have been a technical glitch, however.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:43AM

      by nitehawk214 (1304) on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:43AM (#337720)

      Well Twitter is all for censorship via their Trust & Safety Council.

      --
      "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Wednesday April 27 2016, @03:04AM

        by GungnirSniper (1671) on Wednesday April 27 2016, @03:04AM (#337735) Journal

        A Trust and Safety Council sounds like what a dictatorship would setup after a putsch. Anything with professional agitator Anita Sarkeesian and the linguistic authoritarians from dangerousspeech.org is not going to promote free discussion.

        Inflammatory public speech rises steadily before outbreaks of mass violence, suggesting that it is a precursor of, or even a prerequisite for violence. In many cases, a few influential figures turn their own people against another group, using speech that has a special capacity to inspire violence: Dangerous Speech. Found in myriad languages, cultures, and religions, Dangerous Speech is uncannily similar across them. For example, it often refers to people as insects, vermin, aliens, threats, or pollution.

        Violence may be prevented by diminishing such speech, or by making it less compelling to its audiences - without harming freedom of expression. The Dangerous Speech Project works to find the best ways to do this.

        Newspeak does not allow for facts that would interfere with xenophiles' beliefs. "We're all the same" and "everyone is equal" but "we get to decide what is acceptable."

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by tangomargarine on Wednesday April 27 2016, @01:44PM

          by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday April 27 2016, @01:44PM (#337928)

          a·li·en
          ˈālēən/
          adjective
          adjective: alien

                  1.
                  belonging to a foreign country or nation.

          noun
          noun: alien; plural noun: aliens

                  1.
                  a foreigner, especially one who is not a naturalized citizen of the country where they are living.

          Those bastards with their dictionaries, using words correctly! String 'em all up, I say.

          --
          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday April 27 2016, @03:04AM

      by c0lo (156) on Wednesday April 27 2016, @03:04AM (#337736) Journal

      This could easily have been a technical glitch, however.

      I thought so in the beginning. I doubt it now [soylentnews.org]

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
      • (Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday April 27 2016, @03:12AM

        by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Wednesday April 27 2016, @03:12AM (#337744) Journal

        I already modded up your comment don't link it to me :(

        lololololololololololololololol

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Wednesday April 27 2016, @03:24AM

          by c0lo (156) on Wednesday April 27 2016, @03:24AM (#337749) Journal

          I already modded up your comment don't link it to me :(

          Why, what's the danger?

          (took me a while to get the post formatted so it landed quite low on the page. Oh, well, shameless plug then - you, Tork and another AC)

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
          • (Score: 2) by JNCF on Wednesday April 27 2016, @04:06AM

            by JNCF (4317) on Wednesday April 27 2016, @04:06AM (#337763) Journal

            I agree with this practice completely. Even from a reader's perspective links to different parts of the same comments page seem vastly preferable to lengthy repetitions of the same information, if the same points keep getting made and you feel like taking the time to refute them.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @05:00AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @05:00AM (#337784)

      Trump should repost his tweet and we can all see what happens.

  • (Score: 1) by an Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:31AM

    by an Anonymous Coward (2620) on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:31AM (#337716)

    Like it or not, others are free to talk about them doing it.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @03:30AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @03:30AM (#337750)

    One sure way to attract unwanted governmental interest is to start meddling in the lives of politicians. For other examples just look at any country that has politicians.

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @05:11AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @05:11AM (#337788)

    Like it or not, they can decide whether or not to show a tweet.

    Editorializing user submitted content strips twitter of its DMCA safe harbor provision. If I were them I'd have setup a "never shadowban" on presidential candidates... But you realize we're talking about a company that put Zoe Quinn on their Trust & Safety Council [themarysue.com]... to stop harassment... you know, Quinn? Self admitted "Hell dump addict" from SomethingAwful? [twimg.com] Hell dump is a sub-forum where people harass and dox others and laugh about it. Quinn turned professional troll and used the narrative of "help wizardchan is harassing me" (even though she was harassing them) in order to get her game greenlit via sympathy votes after her first attempt failed. [imgur.com] Zoe quickly learned that her harassment of others could be very lucrative given the media's penchant for siding with SJWs even when they're the aggressor. And that's the kind of person who's in charge of censorship at twitter.

    Like it or not, Twitter could find itself attached to an even bigger shitstorm than the #gamergate debacle if they keep this shit up.

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @10:00AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @10:00AM (#337860)

      Like it or not, Twitter could find itself attached to an even bigger shitstorm than the #gamergate

      looks like they might have shadowbanned and then unbanned it. that's the problem with shadowbanning. it's intentionally secretive like some Stasi style gaslighting / psychological attack.

      Facebook coulda got DMCA protections stripped too if Mark ((Zuckerberg)) went through with that "should we stop Trump?" crap. DMC is least of their worries. I hope the Twits do fuck around and get the FBI up their ass for election tampering.

      >implying those those amazing tripple dubs weren't checked.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @12:44PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @12:44PM (#337905)

      That's bullshit. Zoe Quinn was harassed. Her ex posted a tell-all about her sexcapades including a detailed account of how she gaslighted and emotionally terrorized him to try and discredit Zoe Quinn. [wordpress.com] He was trying to show that poor Zoe Quinn was a habitual liar, the kind of person who would cheated on her boyfriend 5 times while accusing him of misogyny for being suspicious. That those 5 guys Zoe Slept with included several game journalists and a judge who all rated her game very highly had NOTHING to do with Ethics in Journalism.

      Besides IT'S JUST GAMES, who gives a fuck about games. Everyone knows Game Journalism is fucked, big deal. It's not like every mainstream news outlet would pick up the story and only focus on Harassment and personal life intrusion of TheZoePost while completely ignoring that her ex was standing up for Wizardchan and trying to expose Zoe Quinn as a fraud... oh, wait, they did. Well, it's not like the media is 100% corrupt -- I mean, they wouldn't make a movie out of #gamergate to manipulate historical perception of media corruption via casting Quinn as a damsel in distress. Oh, wait, they are. [breitbart.com]

      Well, it's not like Quinn run an anti-harassment website [wired.com], and if she did she wouldn't be put in charge of policing harassment on ... Twitter? Oh, wait, she was. Well, it's not like Quinn's corruption would have any REAL effect, it's just illustrating corruption in mainstream news, social media, and games journalism. It's not like Quinn would affect POLITICS. For example, Zoe Quinn and her other victimfarming cohort Briana Wu would NEVER be invited to speak at the United Nations. [breitbart.com] Oh, wait, they were. But, there's no way this crap would ever find its way into the ears of, say, Hillary Clinton. I mean, no one important takes these "SJWs in gaming" seriously, though, right? [twitter.com] Oh wait...

      WELL! DESPITE ALL OF THAT! It's not like these SJWs would EVER be able to influence a presidential race via wielding their new censorship powers? Oh wait... TFA.

      NA NA I can't here you, "Literally Who?!" Don't say her name! If you ignore the SJW it will surely go away!
      ^- This kills the ethical media revolt.

  • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday April 27 2016, @05:42AM

    by hemocyanin (186) on Wednesday April 27 2016, @05:42AM (#337796) Journal

    Twitter is acting in the public sphere using public resources. It isn't the same thing some random Joe Blow sticking his fingers in his ears. This public sphere thing is why a restaurant, despite being a private enterprise, can't refuse to serve $randomMinorityGroup.

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday April 27 2016, @06:20AM

      by c0lo (156) on Wednesday April 27 2016, @06:20AM (#337817) Journal

      Twitter is acting in the public sphere using public resources.

      'scuse me, can you please name/list what public resources Twitter is using?

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
      • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday April 27 2016, @06:36AM

        by hemocyanin (186) on Wednesday April 27 2016, @06:36AM (#337821) Journal

        Telecommunications lines strung up through numerous publicly funded rights of way, electricity to power it all, much of which is public utility, public airwaves used for wireless communications -- those three off the top of my head are huge.

        Then of course it is a virtual quasi-public space and like real quasi-public spaces, it doesn't get to be a total dick just because it wants to.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Wednesday April 27 2016, @07:07AM

          by c0lo (156) on Wednesday April 27 2016, @07:07AM (#337827) Journal

          Telecommunications lines strung up through numerous publicly funded rights of way, electricity to power it all, much of which is public utility, public airwaves used for wireless communications -- those three off the top of my head are huge.

          Sorry, but no.
          The telecommunication lines and public airwaves are not used by Twitter, they are used by the Twitter's users to get to Twitter.

          Electricity lines are not in the ownership of Twitter, it is the owner of the power grid segment that is using the public space to deliver energy to however occupies that space (if Twitter moves out of the premisses and xhamster moves in, nothing changes with the power network: its as quiet and publicly safe and legal as before). Don't even try suggesting we should cut the power to any company that does shoddy things, you may be surprised how many small business operators you'd close down.

          Then of course it is a virtual quasi-public space and like real quasi-public spaces, it doesn't get to be a total dick just because it wants to.

          Oh, come on, are you serious? You equate the "virtual world" of the Internet with real public space?
          I mean... what?... you'll next tell me porn should be banned on the Internet on the grounds that pornography in public places is illegal?

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Wednesday April 27 2016, @01:00PM

        by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 27 2016, @01:00PM (#337913)

        The American government controlled DNS system. The American copyright and trademark system. Also the limited regulated resource of ipv4 addresses.

        Does that sound nickel and dime foolish? Yeah, thats what al capone said when they sent him to prison for income tax anomalies. Did he still get put in the slammer? Uh, yeah! So how trivial and foolish is it then, really?

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:52PM

          by c0lo (156) on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:52PM (#337964) Journal

          IPv4 - OK, maybe in the same way the airwaves are "public property" (even if the airwaves are based on a constraint imposed by physical laws while IPv4 is rather an "artificial scarcity" caused by "32-bits should be enough for everybody")

          DNS - mmmaybe. There aren't no limits to it (like in the case of physical public property) and the costs of maintaining the infrastructure are paid anyway by the domain name "owners". But let's say is "public property"

          But... isn't calling copyright and trademark "resources" a little bit of a stretch? Would you care to elaborate on this?

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:48PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:48PM (#337961)

        'scuse me, can you please name/list what public resources Twitter is using?

        Copyrighted works, posted by users, and granted governmental immunity to host said copyrighted works under the DMCA, but only so long as Twitter acts as a common carrier for the user generated content and does not introduce political or ideological bias, or otherwise editorialize the content. That's the very real contract that Twitter has with the public right now. If they want to renege on their end of the deal, then they can. However, without the DMCA safe harbor provisions Twitter can be held directly liable for copyright infringing content that their users post. I'm sure there are tons of litigious companies who would love to take a bite out of Twitter's overvalued ass, but the public has agreed to protect them from this as long as they are not biasing or ideologically censoring the comments, which they appear to be doing.

        Additionally, the Internet was build by US Government Subsidy, and the rollout of this network was tax payer funded via $200 billion dollars (whether any of that money actually improved the network is a different story), point being just like roads maintained by the state, the network has also been developed and maintained by tax payers. The C programming language is an ISO standard which costs tax payer monies to maintain and test and research and continue development of. Twitter also performed tax avoidance to keep from paying their fair share of taxes. I mean, even their employees benefit from being educated and having their kids educated by public schools, and are able to drive to their offices and live in a low crime neighborhood policed by cops all of which are funded by taxes, which Twitter tries its hardest not to pay.

        Can you name a single thing Twitter uses that ISN'T in some way benefiting from tax payer monies?

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday April 27 2016, @03:21PM

          by c0lo (156) on Wednesday April 27 2016, @03:21PM (#337975) Journal

          Copyrighted works, posted by users, and granted governmental immunity to host said copyrighted works under the DMCA, but only so long as Twitter acts as a common carrier for the user generated content and does not introduce political or ideological bias, or otherwise editorialize the content.

          Oh, come on. I admit that Twitter has a contract with the public guaranteed by the DCMA, but do tell me what tax money are spent today on the account of DCMA in its relation with Twitter?

          Additionally, the Internet was build by US Government Subsidy, and the rollout of this network was tax payer funded via $200 billion dollars (whether any of that money actually improved the network is a different story)

          But inside the same story is the fact the Internet is used by the public to reach Twitter resources and pull their tweets, and is not Twitter that is using it to push tweets to the public (the way natural gas or drinking water do).
          So, good job govt! You enabled your public to use Twitter services, watch movies on NetFlix (or download them P2P), use private email if so they want, buy drugs on SilkRoad or watch ISIS propaganda. Why would you use different sticks to measure the behaviour of a private company and the behaviour of a private owner of any Web site (which can censor what goes or not on their site all she like)?

          (other countries have done their side of Internet much cheaper or let the private initiative do it - but that's another story).

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @12:34PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @12:34PM (#337896)

    While true, once you are a monopoly the rules change.

    One can argue where that line is, and what the rules are, but its clear the game is different once you control x% of your primary market and interact with citizens in this sort of context. ( Tho not a monopoly its much like if you sell houses. sure, its a private enterprise, but you are limited in refusal of business. Housing is fundamental ( as is political discourse ), its not like buying fast food or a cake.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by VLM on Wednesday April 27 2016, @12:57PM

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 27 2016, @12:57PM (#337911)

    Like it or not, they can decide whether or not to show a tweet.

    As long as they're willing to pay the staggering legal consequences.

    Kids like to think they invented sex and drugs and electronically mediated communication and censorship, however this was all figured out about a century ago with telegrams and early telephones.

    If you perform no editorial control you're a common carrier and have no liability for anyones message. Think Ma Bell or the US postal service.

    The minute you perform editorial control, you're 100% legally liable for anything anyone ever says on your service. Every craigslist scammer who you should have edited, every crime, every conspiracy, every insider trade, every spam, every illegal pr0n image (like of kids or celebrities). Think of your local TV station or newspaper.

    Twitter is playing with fire, assuming its not just an accident. Go ahead twitter, play with those matches, what could possibly go wrong?

    This BTW is the "right" way to shut down censorship. All this esoteric talk about freedom and ethics means nothing to a corporation. Being named in zillions of lawsuits and criminal cases as a willing conspirator who's editors permitted illegal or at least legally actionable traffic, that'll get their attention.

    • (Score: 2) by danmars on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:58PM

      by danmars (3662) on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:58PM (#337968)

      Sorry, but CDA section 230 says you're completely wrong.

      https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160208/00235033544/20-years-ago-today-most-important-law-internet-was-signed-almost-accident.shtml [techdirt.com]

      "A key, and often overlooked, part of Section 230, is that it actually does encourage sites to take proactive measures to filter content, by noting that any kind of moderation or guidelines absolutely does not remove the protections of Section 230. As such, sites get to decide for themselves whether or not to moderate their content in any way, without facing the legal risk of suddenly being declared the publisher."

      • (Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday April 27 2016, @03:33PM

        by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 27 2016, @03:33PM (#337985)

        It'll get fixed soon enough. Like I wrote, this was all figured out a century ago and is nothing new. Its the same arguments just different tech.

    • (Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Wednesday April 27 2016, @10:55PM

      by linuxrocks123 (2557) on Wednesday April 27 2016, @10:55PM (#338179) Journal

      Dear God will this idiotic wingnut "common carrier" bullshit zombie myth please DIE DIE DIE!!!

      Twitter is NOT a common carrier, and common carrier status has zero to do with liability for users' actions -- and it never has. Internet message boards and the like are protected by the CDA as stated by sibling poster and by the DMCA's safe harbor provision. Neither of those laws say that you lose protection if you censor or filter. YouTube for instance does a lot of stuff not required by the DMCA to police copyright infringements. It doesn't lose safe harbor for doing that, not would it make any policy sense to pass a law saying it would.

      This asinine nonsense is the result of a bunch of Slashdotters repeating each other's misinformation ad infinitum. Look up the actual laws or at least use real sources of information before repeating other people's stupid, pleasekthx.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:02PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:02PM (#337936)
    That's the trouble with freedom of the press: it's only guaranteed to those who own one. Twitter is no more obligated to show a tweet by Trump than the New York Times is obligated to publish an op-ed piece from him. But there's a problem with that. Between Twitter and Facebook there is a de facto monopoly on social media. When you're only one of two places where everyone goes to get the word out some regulation ought to apply.