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This discussion has been archived.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: 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.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (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.