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This discussion has been archived.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: 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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Flamebait=1, Redundant=1, Insightful=5, Informative=1, Total=8
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (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.