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This discussion has been archived.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: 2, Disagree) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:38AM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:38AM (#337718) Homepage Journal

    I've heard many times that $site is a private site, and they can run things however they want. Or, "It's not censorship unless the government is doing it!"

    Bottom line, the internet is public space in many ways. If the cops can watch what you are doing on the internet, then it's public space. NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO CENSOR YOU ON THE INTERNET!! It's as simple as that.

    Further, publicly owned companies can't really claim to be "private". If Old Lame Joe starts his own site, pays for it out of his own pocket, then THAT is "private". He can invite whoever he likes, he can ban whoever he likes, and he can dictate whatever terms he likes for membership. Publicly owned and traded companies? Not so much.

    --
    There is a supply side shortage of pronouns. You will take whatever you are offered.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   0  
       Disagree=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Disagree' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:54AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:54AM (#337729)

    > Further, publicly owned companies can't really claim to be "private".

    In runaway land "publicly owned" does not mean state owned and "neoliberal" is the liberal mirror of neoconservative. [soylentnews.org]
    It's like you have your own bimbo version of the dictionary.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:54AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:54AM (#337730)

    You are simply wrong. Life doesn't work that way simply because some joe schmoe on internet decrees.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by MostCynical on Wednesday April 27 2016, @03:07AM

    by MostCynical (2589) on Wednesday April 27 2016, @03:07AM (#337740) Journal

    "Publically owned" is a bit of a misnomer - it doesn't actually make the company *public property*.
    "Censorship" happens all the time. Comments on media sites, twitter feeds, and anywhere a "terms of service" exists a pesron can have their words deleted.

    "Free speech" cannot be applied the was most people in the USA mean the term, as it doesn't really apply to companies, and it doesn't apply in many countries. Americans don't (yet? completely?) control the interwebs.

    There are even (shock, horror!) limits on what you can do in your own house and on your own land (yes, it varies by country)

    --
    "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @05:57AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @05:57AM (#337807)

      Free speech as a concept is not limited to its legal implementation.

      • (Score: 2) by MostCynical on Wednesday April 27 2016, @09:49AM

        by MostCynical (2589) on Wednesday April 27 2016, @09:49AM (#337857) Journal

        But the application requires either legal, or extra-legal enforcement..

        --
        "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 28 2016, @06:30AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 28 2016, @06:30AM (#338302)

          No, not really. You could say that SoylentNews respects freedom of speech to a great extent, while sites like Twitter do not. It's just being able to speak freely without being censored or punished for your speech. Different websites allow users to speak freely to varying extents.

    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday April 27 2016, @01:55PM

      by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday April 27 2016, @01:55PM (#337932)

      "Free speech" cannot be applied the was most people in the USA mean the term, as it doesn't really apply to companies

      But companies are people, right?

      --
      "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 bob_super on Wednesday April 27 2016, @06:06PM

    by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday April 27 2016, @06:06PM (#338058)

    > Publicly owned and traded companies

    You keep using that group of words. I don't thing that this group of words means what you think it means.