Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Wednesday November 08 2017, @08:14AM   Printer-friendly
from the sad! dept.

The President of the United States of America lost the crucial ability to Tweet for an 11 minute timespan on Thursday (Nov. 2), following the temporary deactivation of his Twitter account by a Twitter employee who was being let go by the company. The incident has raised questions about the safeguards in place for high-profile Twitter users:

This is the way the world ends: not with a bang but a deleted Twitter account. At least, so it appeared for 11 minutes Thursday evening, when visitors to President Trump's personal account, @realDonaldTrump, were informed that there was no such thing.

[...] Amid a presidency that has seemed, at times, to be conducted primarily in 140-character pieces, this was a seismic event — and what was left of Twitter erupted. It was a raucous, modern-day town-square gathering of the sort not seen since ... well, since five months ago, when Mr. Trump coined a new word in the middle of the night.

[...] The answer, revealed three hours later, was something straight out of "Office Space." After saying in an initial statement that the account had been "inadvertently deactivated due to human error by a Twitter employee," Twitter announced that a rogue customer support worker had done it on his or her last day at the company.

Previously: Twitter Shadowbans Republican Frontrunner
Twitter Co-founder: I'm Sorry if We Made Trump's Presidency Possible


Similar submissions also came from martyb and Phoenix666.

Original Submission #1Original Submission #2Original Submission #3

 
This discussion has been archived.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 Bot on Wednesday November 08 2017, @08:52AM (53 children)

    by Bot (3902) on Wednesday November 08 2017, @08:52AM (#593994) Journal

    > Anti-presidential Medal of Freedom?

    Censorship is not freedom, Winston.

    --
    Account abandoned.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Redundant=1, Insightful=2, Touché=1, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08 2017, @09:25AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08 2017, @09:25AM (#593997)

    I well remember how annoyed Churchill was as the result of one of these conferences. It was held by one of our foremost Generals to give editors an appreciation of the North African campaign in 1940-41. The sequel was another proof of the Prime Minister’s complete grasp of the military situation in every theatre of war. The speaker had referred to the likelihood of our attacking Benghazi, adding that the coastal road would not be used. This information was included among the list of “stops” read out by the military adviser to the censorship at the end of the conference. Unfortunately the editor of a national newspaper who had an important engagement could not stay until the end and was thus unaware of the “stop.” He submitted his article that evening before publication, and it was of course referred to the censorship military adviser on duty.

    Benghazi, Benghazi!!!

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by MostCynical on Wednesday November 08 2017, @09:31AM (39 children)

    by MostCynical (2589) on Wednesday November 08 2017, @09:31AM (#593999) Journal

    censorship?
    1. @POTUS wasn't shut down
    2. the man has his own press gallery.
    3. the man has his own entire staff who do nothing but communications.
    4. the man has email, fax, phone, (on top of broadcast media, as above)
    5. this, really, is not even the equivalent of an accidental (or malicious) cutting of the phone lines to the White House.
    6. Twitter isn't even a communications 'channel' in its own right, just the single option onto which this president has latched.
    7. Twitter is privately owned. They could turn anyone, or even everyone, off, and no laws (and very few hearts) would be broken.
    7. just 'huh?'

    --
    "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by MadTinfoilHatter on Wednesday November 08 2017, @09:39AM (26 children)

      by MadTinfoilHatter (4635) on Wednesday November 08 2017, @09:39AM (#594000)

      censorship?

      Yes. Censorship is censoship, even if the affected party has other ways of being heard than the one being censored.

      Twitter is privately owned.

      Privately owned censorship is still censorship.

      and no laws (and very few hearts) would be broken.

      Censorship is censorship even when legal.

      • (Score: 5, Interesting) by DannyB on Wednesday November 08 2017, @02:36PM (14 children)

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 08 2017, @02:36PM (#594052) Journal

        I could argue that Twitter cutting off an individual's account is AN OPINION rather than Censorship. An enforcement of their TOS that everyone is to abide by -- even if Twitter is unable to enforce it uniformly.

        But of course, the orange jackass brings lots of traffic to Twitter. So that is the most important thing. It must not be shut down.

        --
        Calmly vote. Fill out your ballet and drop it in the ballet box. Don't dance around bothering the pole watchers.
        • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by khallow on Wednesday November 08 2017, @04:06PM (13 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 08 2017, @04:06PM (#594101) Journal

          I could argue that Twitter cutting off an individual's account is AN OPINION rather than Censorship.

          And I could argue that you're a Moon Nazi coming to enslave us all for your Moon cheese mines. What you can argue is far greater than what we're going to take seriously.

          • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday November 08 2017, @04:18PM (7 children)

            by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 08 2017, @04:18PM (#594104) Journal

            There may be a difference in how serious we are in our arguments, and how seriously they will be taken by others.

            --
            Calmly vote. Fill out your ballet and drop it in the ballet box. Don't dance around bothering the pole watchers.
            • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by khallow on Wednesday November 08 2017, @04:22PM (6 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 08 2017, @04:22PM (#594109) Journal
              Arguing that censorship isn't really censorship because it is an "OPINION" is Moon cheese arguability.
              • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday November 08 2017, @04:31PM (5 children)

                by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 08 2017, @04:31PM (#594115) Journal

                Okay. I'll just outright call it censorship, even if it is done by a private company.

                I have already stated what I think the thinking is. I have already pointed out people engage in censorship because it satisfies a short term urge. I even feel it myself, as seen by some things I said. But I also pointed out that it is ultimately futile and self defeating despite the short term satisfaction.

                --
                Calmly vote. Fill out your ballet and drop it in the ballet box. Don't dance around bothering the pole watchers.
                • (Score: 1, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday November 08 2017, @05:01PM (4 children)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 08 2017, @05:01PM (#594132) Journal
                  And I agree almost fully with that. But censorship can work in the long term if there is no work around to it such as in totalitarian societies. It's not going to happen in a relatively open society like the US, but it can happen for a very long time in a far less open society like the USSR.
                  • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday November 08 2017, @05:08PM (3 children)

                    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 08 2017, @05:08PM (#594136) Journal

                    I agree that censorship can 'work' for certain values of work. Word always seems to get out eventually. Even in the most repressive regimes. I remember the Newsweek stories after Romania fell. People remember and eventually have an opportunity to tell their stories.

                    --
                    Calmly vote. Fill out your ballet and drop it in the ballet box. Don't dance around bothering the pole watchers.
                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 08 2017, @05:27PM (2 children)

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 08 2017, @05:27PM (#594155) Journal

                      I remember the Newsweek stories after Romania fell.

                      Note the use of the key word, "after".

                      • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday November 08 2017, @06:44PM (1 child)

                        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 08 2017, @06:44PM (#594187) Journal

                        That word 'after' fits perfectly with each and every sentence I wrote after the first sentence.

                        --
                        Calmly vote. Fill out your ballet and drop it in the ballet box. Don't dance around bothering the pole watchers.
                        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by khallow on Wednesday November 08 2017, @07:21PM

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 08 2017, @07:21PM (#594205) Journal
                          I didn't quote those other sentences. All those stories only came out after the repressive government of Romania fell. If it took another 50 years for Romania to fall, then most of those stories would have died untold. That's the true power of censorship when it is effective.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08 2017, @05:20PM (4 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08 2017, @05:20PM (#594149)

            If this was some rabid sjw type you libtards would be all over "private companies can do what they want!". Hypocrites.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 08 2017, @05:29PM (3 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 08 2017, @05:29PM (#594157) Journal

              If this was some rabid sjw type you libtards would be all over "private companies can do what they want!".

              And you'd be eating babies. Ad hominems are a waste of your time.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08 2017, @07:40PM (2 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08 2017, @07:40PM (#594213)

                I used two ad hominems, one for "them" and one for "you". It is not a waste of time, it is meant to show the value of your judgments. Just because you can't fess up to being a hypocrite doesn't make my statement any less meaningful.

                Oh I'm sorry, I must have hurt your feelings. Here, let me get you a nice warm blanket by the heater, that should melt away all of your frostiness.

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 08 2017, @07:44PM (1 child)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 08 2017, @07:44PM (#594216) Journal

                  it is meant to show the value of your judgments

                  Exactly. Waste of time as a result.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08 2017, @09:25PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08 2017, @09:25PM (#594243)

                    Well stop wasting your precious time before the leftists give your job to some minority! Just admit to your own hypocrisy and we can move on.

      • (Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08 2017, @02:37PM (10 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08 2017, @02:37PM (#594053)

        Yes. Censorship is censoship, even if the affected party has other ways of being heard than the one being censored.

        So if I hear Trump on radio and decide to switch that radio off, it's censorship, because I deny Trump the ability to speak through that specific radio? Sure, there are millions of other radios which could be tuned to the same station, but you just claimed that the existence of other ways to be heard does not matter.

        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by MindEscapes on Wednesday November 08 2017, @03:05PM (5 children)

          by MindEscapes (6751) on Wednesday November 08 2017, @03:05PM (#594073) Homepage

          If you are turning the radio off to keep others from hearing him, then yes, censorship.

          If you are turning it off because you don't want to listen, no, that's your choice.

          --
          Need a break? mindescapes.net may be for you!
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08 2017, @04:23PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08 2017, @04:23PM (#594110)

            Shhhh! Someone might hear you saying that and think this is an all white alt-right nazi site!! This is not censorship, it is "perception management."

          • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday November 08 2017, @04:34PM (1 child)

            by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 08 2017, @04:34PM (#594118) Journal

            If it were MY radio, even if I switched it off to keep others from hearing, they are still free to use their own radio to listen to him. I have not effectively blocked him from getting his message out.

            But of course, I think Trump's own words are the best weapons to refute his policies. So it might be best to just let people listen. Get a good listen. Real good.

            --
            Calmly vote. Fill out your ballet and drop it in the ballet box. Don't dance around bothering the pole watchers.
            • (Score: 2, Insightful) by MindEscapes on Wednesday November 08 2017, @05:53PM

              by MindEscapes (6751) on Wednesday November 08 2017, @05:53PM (#594171) Homepage

              What I am saying is that censorship is an intent. When you switch it off with the intent to keep others from hearing, you are attempting to censor. Whether or not you succeed as they may have other sources is irrelevant. You tried to apply censorship.

              But yes, in this case, letting people hear President Trump may be more beneficial to your cause.

              --
              Need a break? mindescapes.net may be for you!
          • (Score: 3, Touché) by krishnoid on Wednesday November 08 2017, @07:13PM

            by krishnoid (1156) on Wednesday November 08 2017, @07:13PM (#594203)

            If you are turning the radio off to keep others from hearing him, then yes, censorship.

            Now git away from my storefront if ya ain't buyin' a radio, ya dang freeloaders!

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @05:00AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @05:00AM (#594446)

            No, you idiot MindEscape! If I turn off my radio to keep the fucking idiot from being heard by other idiots, that is patriotism. I will keep turning off my comments to keep you from being heard, because, god-damn it!! They are my comments and you have no right to respond to them, you person who should not be allowed to express opinions in public! Now, back, back into the cave!!! Do not make me call security!! This will go better if it is of your own accord that you shut the fuck up. Seriously.

        • (Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday November 08 2017, @03:09PM (3 children)

          by Bot (3902) on Wednesday November 08 2017, @03:09PM (#594075) Journal

          Censorship, as a concept, is not about hearing a message, is about actively preventing others to do it. This is a light case of censorship akin to a demonstration, because the actor is not powerful and the result basically irrelevant. So what? a demonstration can choke traffic on a road. Any reference to freedom in the context of not being able to move is in most cases doublespeak.

          --
          Account abandoned.
          • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday November 08 2017, @05:09PM (2 children)

            by Grishnakh (2831) on Wednesday November 08 2017, @05:09PM (#594137)

            Censorship, as a concept, is not about hearing a message, is about actively preventing others to do it.

            If I turn my car stereo way up and roll my windows down, anything I play on my radio will be audible to everyone I drive by.

            So if I refuse to play Trump on my car stereo and blast it so all pedestrians near me can hear it, am I engaging in censorship?

            Similarly, if I refuse to play The Beatles on my car stereo loud enough for pedestrians to hear it, am I engaging in censoring The Beatles?

            This whole "censorship" thing is just idiotic. The police aren't going to be amused when they get called for a noise complaint and you try to cry "censorship!!".

            • (Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday November 08 2017, @11:39PM (1 child)

              by Bot (3902) on Wednesday November 08 2017, @11:39PM (#594309) Journal

              > play Trump on my car stereo
              my?
              That freedom fighter guy did not own the twitter account, nor any twitter infrastructure.

              --
              Account abandoned.
              • (Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday November 08 2017, @11:42PM

                by Bot (3902) on Wednesday November 08 2017, @11:42PM (#594311) Journal

                To further explain. Trump was on the car stereo, and some pedestrians would have been listening, and a parking valet uses the car keys to get into the car and shut the stereo down.
                This is censorship.

                --
                Account abandoned.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08 2017, @09:42AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08 2017, @09:42AM (#594001)

      Unfortunately, however, the military adviser did not exercise his usual care—possibly because he knew one of his colleagues had attended the conference the same morning— and allowed this important item of news to pass. Churchill, who somehow found time to read the first editions of the newspapers which appeared soon after midnight, was aghast. What happened to the military adviser is irrelevant to this story, but the Prime Minister was not content with the censorship inquest. He saw the General next day and asked him how he could possibly have given information of that kind at a press conference. “These gentlemen of the press,” said Churchill, “were listening carefully to every word you said—all eagerly anxious for a tiny morsel of cheese which they could publish. And you go and give them a whole ruddy Stilton.”

      https://www.winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour/finest-hour-152/the-prime-minister-and-the-censorship/ [winstonchurchill.org]

      Evidently, the problem is with Trump not being able to give the press the "full ruddy Stilton". Winston.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08 2017, @04:24PM (10 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08 2017, @04:24PM (#594111)

      Just a couple days ago:

      Trump is feeding koi fish with the prime minister of Japan. It's some sort of ceremony. They both had boxes of fish food pellets, with spoons to serve the fish.

      What you saw on CNN was that the prime minister fed fish with a spoon, and then Trump turned his box upside down to dump the food. This was really rude and inappropriate, causing some sort of international incident.

      What actually happened, as you can see from video of the full event, is that Trump followed the prime minister's example. They both spooned out food, then both dumped the remaining food. The prime minister dumped first.

      Being a fan of Trump breaking traditions, I actually like the fake news version better, but let's be clear on this: it is fake news, and fake news is a serious problem. CNN distorts most stories, even non-political ones. Stories involving Trump are always distorted to make him look bad. If you think he is bad, it could be because all you see is fake news.

      Better news can be had on OAN, a.k.a. OANN. Some people can get it on cable. There is a cheap app that just plays the video (not spyware like CNN has) and I guess there is always the web site at http://www.oann.com/ [oann.com]

      But anyway, the twitter account is extremely important due to the absurdly dishonest media. A company willing to lie about fish feeding just to make the president look bad is not a company you can trust. Ask yourself, what other lies have you been fed? It's probably a whole box full!

      • (Score: 5, Informative) by DannyB on Wednesday November 08 2017, @04:41PM (3 children)

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 08 2017, @04:41PM (#594123) Journal

        the twitter account is extremely important due to the absurdly dishonest media.

        I disagree.

        Trump has FoxNews at his beck and call. They will publish anything he wants to say.

        Trump has an official press mouthpiece. And the press line up to be in the room to report what is said. It gets play on cable channels and YouTube. You can see and hear what is the official position of the Trump administration.

        Trump already has a louder megaphone that almost anyone on the entire planet. Twitter is not that important. Twitter is merely a symptom of his mental instability and inability to show any kind of restraint in what he says. He uses Twitter to throw his own people under the bus. Undermine his own administration's policies. He seems unable to recognize that his use of Twitter hurts his own cause.

        --
        Calmly vote. Fill out your ballet and drop it in the ballet box. Don't dance around bothering the pole watchers.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08 2017, @07:10PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08 2017, @07:10PM (#594202)

          Fox seriously opposed Trump in the primary. Since then, Fox has grudgingly accepted that Trump is in fact the president.

          Seeing as Trump is president, every news organization really ought to publish what he has to say. They did it for Obama.

          Fox is much less to the right than it used to be. The leadership has changed. Strong and determined leadership is required to keep a news source from being far-left when it has to depend on employees who are journalists hired in New York. The new leadership isn't fighting that fight.

          Proper comparisons, like the academic one done at Harvard a few years back, put Fox just a tad right of center and put all the other major companies pretty far to the left. When you compare news sources with the views of actual Americas (including rural ones) you find that there really isn't much conservative news. The only big-name one, sort of, is Breitbart. That's it. With Fox slipping left, it may well be exactly center by now.

          • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday November 08 2017, @09:59PM (1 child)

            by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 08 2017, @09:59PM (#594259) Journal

            With Fox slipping left, it may well be exactly center by now.

            While I have been surprised at some honesty coming out of Fox News in recent months, I still have to say: Nope. Not even close yet. But certainly closer to center.

            Apparently President Hillary Clinton should be locked up . . . . because . . . if you haven't heard . . . . her emails!

            Groan / Sigh

            --
            Calmly vote. Fill out your ballet and drop it in the ballet box. Don't dance around bothering the pole watchers.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @04:15PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @04:15PM (#594670)

              If it looks far-right, then I have to wonder about your standard.

              Comparing against the other media isn't the correct standard. The appropriate standard is the views of the American people.

              If you happen to live in the wrong place, your opinion of the views of the American people will be skewed.

              Skewing could be: You live on the west coast or in Hawaii. You live in a New England state, in DC, or somewhere between. You live or work in a city of over 250,000 people. You are at a college. All your friends are non-white. All your friends are female. All your friends are LGBT. All your friends are immigrants. All your friends are non-English speakers. (etc.)

              By such a skewed standard, Fox may be on the right. Such a skewed standard is about as useful as the standard of people found at an NRA convention.

      • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday November 08 2017, @05:10PM (5 children)

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Wednesday November 08 2017, @05:10PM (#594139)

        But anyway, the twitter account is extremely important due to the absurdly dishonest media. A company willing to lie about fish feeding just to make the president look bad is not a company you can trust. Ask yourself, what other lies have you been fed?

        But you're willing to trust Twitter?

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by bob_super on Wednesday November 08 2017, @05:20PM (2 children)

          by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday November 08 2017, @05:20PM (#594150)

          and OAN, as "better news" [wikipedia.org]?
          Methinks the AC isn't a neutral observer of objectivity.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08 2017, @05:36PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08 2017, @05:36PM (#594162)

            You're assuming Wikipedia is unbiased. It never has been. Who has time to dedicate to it? This population is different from the general population.

            Let me put it this way: any source that incorrectly reported the koi fish feeding is fake news. OAN is not fake news.

            It's time you broke out of your bubble.

            • (Score: 4, Interesting) by bob_super on Wednesday November 08 2017, @05:44PM

              by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday November 08 2017, @05:44PM (#594168)

              I watched OAN many times. Its conservative pro-R pro-Trump slant is obvious and undeniable.
              I give them credit for wider reporting than many "obsessive" channels. That doesn't change their bias.

              You can attack Wikipedia all you want when you don't like what it says, but remember that the right wing, especially the owner of the channel, has full-time people paid to present their side of the story. Saying that OAN is conservative and pro-Trump, on one of the most visible platforms on the net, would get smacked down quickly if it was against their wishes.

              Let's talk about your bubble.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08 2017, @05:31PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08 2017, @05:31PM (#594159)

          So far, we have yet to catch Twitter editing posts or posting on behalf of users. (we did catch reddit doing that)

          Twitter does selectively censor right/conservative/republican opinions and the people who spread those ideas.

          A major method is to hide posts for a few weeks. Conservative user X, with a small audience, posts something. Unimportant users can see it immediately. Conservative user Y, with a huge audience, won't see the post for several weeks. It won't be offered, and if they specifically seek it out they will get an unhelpful generic message like "This tweet is unavailable.". Twitter's intent is obviously to tamp down the fire of opinion, preventing the spread of opinions that offend Twitter's San Francisco employees.

          People also lose accounts, get forced to delete tweets, etc.

          Particularly troubling aspects of the censorship is that it is mostly hidden, yet right/conservative/republican users are aware of it. This causes self-censorship and makes all complaints sound like paranoid unjustified conspiracy theories.

          • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08 2017, @07:46PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08 2017, @07:46PM (#594220)

            Lol, this guy thinks Twitter employees are running the show!

            How about we simply move on to decentralized systems, this idea of letting some corporation control what information you get is terrible! All the social networks are tracking and controlling what their users see. The only way out is to decentralize.

  • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday November 08 2017, @02:29PM (11 children)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 08 2017, @02:29PM (#594048) Journal

    > Censorship is not freedom, Winston.

    Yes, Winston should not censor the Ministry Of Truth, for whom he works, disseminating their lies to the public.

    It would be wrong to change the Party's official message and tell people that the chocolate ration DID NOT actually increase to 20g this weak. Or that we keep switching enemies between Eastasia and Eurasia. Deleting the Party Twitter feed would be unthinkable. If not humorously amusing, for the 11 minutes it lasts. An 11 minutes that shows the impotent ineptitude of The Party.

    --
    Calmly vote. Fill out your ballet and drop it in the ballet box. Don't dance around bothering the pole watchers.
    • (Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday November 08 2017, @03:02PM (10 children)

      by Bot (3902) on Wednesday November 08 2017, @03:02PM (#594072) Journal

      I don't disagree much on your scenario, but Doublespeak against big brother is still doublespeak. Maybe you OUGHT to do it (war's first casualty...) but then you have to stop feeling you have the moral high ground.

      --
      Account abandoned.
      • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday November 08 2017, @03:35PM (9 children)

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 08 2017, @03:35PM (#594092) Journal

        The phrase "the ends justify the means" was no doubt coined because someone did something really bad and wanted to rationalize it.

        But the ends do justify some means. That is why we have wars. Even wars with rules. As horrible as they are, those are rationalized (eg, "justify the means") because of some reason. It's just a question of what means.

        While I think Censorship is bad. It ultimately is futile if not self defeating. People do it because it seems a short term win. But the censored will always find a way around it. And censorship does drive the censored to be treated more like a martyr. That said, I don't quite consider it censorship if Trump were to hypothetically ban Trump. Not that it would ever happen. No matter how over the top he goes, how far down, how outrageous, how offensive, or how violent and inciteful. Twitter won't ban him because he brings too much traffic.

        Elsewhere I point out the irony that thanks to the anti net neutrality folks, ISPs, search engines, and even domain name registrars could argue that they could censor Trump.

        --
        Calmly vote. Fill out your ballet and drop it in the ballet box. Don't dance around bothering the pole watchers.
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 08 2017, @04:13PM (8 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 08 2017, @04:13PM (#594102) Journal

          That said, I don't quite consider it censorship if Trump were to hypothetically ban Trump. Not that it would ever happen. No matter how over the top he goes, how far down, how outrageous, how offensive, or how violent and inciteful. Twitter won't ban him because he brings too much traffic.

          Let us note that Trump hasn't actually done anything that warrants a ban by Twitter's terms of service. You have absolutely no basis for claiming it is true. That makes it ridiculous.

          • (Score: 4, Informative) by DannyB on Wednesday November 08 2017, @04:27PM (7 children)

            by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 08 2017, @04:27PM (#594114) Journal

            I disagree. I believe others have been banned for far less than Trump.

            I do not make a point of looking at his Tweets, and I don't even have a Twitter account, but Trump frequently says things that are hateful, untrue, discriminatory, unconstitutional, and occasionally to incite violence. While I don't have an example, it is difficult for me to believe that Trump hasn't violated Twitter's TOS on multiple occasions. It doesn't even pass the laugh test.

            Didn't Trump tweet things that implied starting a nuclear war against NK? Surely that is violence. Tweets that diplomacy can't work and that Tillerson is wasting his time even trying, etc.

            But to repeat: I don't think Twitter would ever ban Trump. He brings too much traffic.
            Whether they should is a different debate, but an irrelevant one, I think.
            Before it would ever come to banning Trump from Twitter, I think the best thing that could happen is for Trump to create an official US Ministry Of Truth. It could be a counterpoint to what Trump calls "fake news".

            --
            Calmly vote. Fill out your ballet and drop it in the ballet box. Don't dance around bothering the pole watchers.
            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 08 2017, @04:49PM (6 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 08 2017, @04:49PM (#594127) Journal

              I believe others have been banned for far less than Trump.

              I didn't say "banned", I said "ban by Twitter's terms of service".

              Didn't Trump tweet things that implied starting a nuclear war against NK? Surely that is violence. Tweets that diplomacy can't work and that Tillerson is wasting his time even trying, etc.

              No, that is not violence.

              • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday November 08 2017, @05:04PM (5 children)

                by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 08 2017, @05:04PM (#594135) Journal

                Perhaps you misunderstood or maybe I was unclear. I was trying to suggest that nuclear war is violence. Not that the tweet is violence. But that the tweet hinting at nuclear war, wink wink, is effectively hinting at violence. Nonetheless, we've wandered far into the weeds of irrelevancies.

                --
                Calmly vote. Fill out your ballet and drop it in the ballet box. Don't dance around bothering the pole watchers.
                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 08 2017, @05:26PM (4 children)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 08 2017, @05:26PM (#594154) Journal

                  I was trying to suggest that nuclear war is violence.

                  Twitter posts about nuclear war aren't nuclear war.

                  But that the tweet hinting at nuclear war, wink wink, is effectively hinting at violence.

                  So what? We should be thinking here violations of terms of service, not what is "arguable" [soylentnews.org].

                  And from a practical point of view, banning people for "hinting at violence" would remove a significant portion of Twitter users unfairly for using normal rhetorical devices. You're "fighting for the rights of workers"? You "shot yourself in the foot"? Your employer "gave you the shaft"? Or making gallows humor jokes (like "hinting at nuclear war")?

                  It isn't nor should be Twitter's responsibility to police its users for such things.

                  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08 2017, @07:50PM (3 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08 2017, @07:50PM (#594222)

                    Jesus christ, turns out the real SJW types are the ones that throw that acronym around. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, projection is the #1 flaw of Republicans and Libertarians, as a generalization.

                    I absolutely love when a real libertarian hops into some "libertarian" discussion and calls out the morons on their bullshit. "No, that isn't very libertarian at all, more like anarcho-capitalist." -- being the most frequent response to idiots who believe they're libertarians.

                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 08 2017, @08:16PM (2 children)

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 08 2017, @08:16PM (#594231) Journal
                      Ok, I see you're throwing around "SJW" (one of two AC posts doing that in the entire thread). What should I conclude from that?

                      I grant that there are would-be libertarians unclear on what the concept means or who project their own flaws on others.

                      But the basic premise of your second paragraph is flawed. Anarcho-capitalism is not mutually exclusive with libertarianism. There are people who are both.
                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08 2017, @11:19PM (1 child)

                        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08 2017, @11:19PM (#594301)

                        Don't let the real point hit you in the ass on your way out.

                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 08 2017, @11:37PM

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 08 2017, @11:37PM (#594308) Journal
                          There's no danger of that. But I think you need to learn how to make a point. I couldn't tell from the initial post what in the world you were trying to say and your snooty reply shed no light on that matter. I get you're whiny about something having to do with libertarians and well, I don't care.

                          But if you're willing to try to make that point in a way that I would interested in responding to, then I'm willing to try to listen.