Why Does Twitter Refuse To Shut Down Donald Trump? (vortex.com) 832
Lauren Weinstein writes: The conclusion appears inescapable. Twitter apparently has voluntarily chosen to 'look the other way' while Donald Trump spews forth a trolling stream of hate and other abuses that would cause any average Twitter user to be terminated in a heartbeat. There's always room to argue the proprietary or desirability of any given social media content terms of service — or the policy precepts through which they are applied. It is also utterly clear that if such rules are not applied to everyone with the same vigor, particularly when there's an appearance of profiting by making exceptions for particular individuals, the moral authority on which those rules are presumably based is decimated, pointless, and becomes a mere fiction.
Would you rather Twitter shut down no account ever, apply a sort of white-listing policy, or something in the middle?
Because that would be unimaginable CENSORSHIP? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because that would be unimaginable CENSORSHIP?
You stupid leftist idiot.
Re:Because that would be unimaginable CENSORSHIP? (Score:4, Funny)
No, dude, it's OK to censor republicans. ;)
Re:Because that would be unimaginable CENSORSHIP? (Score:5, Informative)
Not just republicans, but anyone right leaning as well... the de-verifying of Milo Yiannopoulos is one great example of this. [businessinsider.com]
Insane levels of Political correctness detected. (Score:5, Interesting)
How dit this idiocy reach the front page of slashdot. Is this the new management at work?
Re:Because that would be unimaginable CENSORSHIP? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Because that would be unimaginable CENSORSHIP? (Score:4, Insightful)
Legally? Sure. But that doesn't mean they are beyond criticism. After all, they have aspirations of being a communications platform and social network and that requires more than merely being legally above board.
Re:Because that would be unimaginable CENSORSHIP? (Score:4, Interesting)
Sure they are.
The real answer to the (stupid) OP question is economics. As much as liberals like to assume that they are the 'mainstream' the fact is that the country is much closer to 50/50.
Twitter, not stupid, recognizes this.
If they silence Trump (again, as you say, for whatever reason they want because they're private) a few things happen:
1) they lose half their customer base; I strongly suspect that this really wouldn't matter economically because a) they make no $ and b) I'm guessing that 99.9% of Trump voters don't 'tweet' as a lifestyle-communication thing; and
2) he gets a bully pulpit and even more press as it 'looks' like the establishment is trying to censor him; and
3) suddenly Twitter would be seen to be taking sides. For a purported neutral third party carrier of messages, they would be taking the stance that they ARE now responsible for the messages they carry - that would impose HUGE liability on them, not to mention opening a massive can of worms in terms of potential litigation regarding their common-carrier stance.
Re:Because that would be unimaginable CENSORSHIP? (Score:4, Informative)
Do these same people support the 1950s Hollywood (private company) blacklists of communists and fellow-travelers?
I may not approve of what you say, but you have the right to say it. The same goes for blacklisting. I don't approve of what movie studios did, but they did have a right to refuse to hire people based on political alignment.
Re:Because that would be unimaginable CENSORSHIP? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because that would be unimaginable CENSORSHIP?
You stupid leftist idiot.
Twitter started it, they introduced censorship. Now they have to be consistent about it. That it becomes really nasty is the point, hopefully they will realise they don't want to be doing censorship.
Even toxic words fall under freedom of speech (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's leftists for you. "Why is the other party in power when we have more supporters and membership than they do....."
I am on the left, and my view is simply that censorship should not be applied to political candidates. To do this raises too many questions.
I don't agree with Trump's positions, however he can say whatever he wants unless he is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.
To categorize censorship as a left or right thing is political idiocy at it's worst so SHAME ON YOU!
Re: Because that would be unimaginable CENSORSHIP? (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously? Have you seen what's happening in universities? Safe spaces, censoring debate, banning and no platforming people with wrong opinion. That is progressivism and feminism. Ideologies of the far left. All this nonsense about hate speech is merely an attempt to censor opinions and ideas. There probably are cases on the religious right too, but the left is far more guilty of this.
Re: Because that would be unimaginable CENSORSHIP? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Because that would be unimaginable CENSORSHIP? (Score:5, Insightful)
While I agree that those on the left, when in power, tend to unfairly deprive their opponents of the right to be heard, the exact same thing is true of those on the right. They just "censor" based on different grounds.
And I don't approve of either.
Re: Because that would be unimaginable CENSORSHIP? (Score:4, Interesting)
13 years later and the 1st graders when i was a senior are now fighting to enforce those same zones we fought so hard to tear down.
Re:Because that would be unimaginable CENSORSHIP? (Score:4, Interesting)
Then how about flagging the candidate's offending tweets with a moderator note, "this post crosses the line of hate and criminal advocacy. If the tweeter were not a candidate for public office, this tweet would be blocked and this profile terminated."
Re:Because that would be unimaginable CENSORSHIP? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because his posts don't cross the line for Twitter. On the rare occasions when they do ban people, it's for much worse stuff than anything he has ever done.
Generally the line is when there is a sustained campaign against an individual based on gender, race, orientation etc. and multiple complaints have been filed. While Trump has got personal on many occasions, he quickly moves on to someone else and his targets rarely complain to Twitter.
Comparing Trump to some of the trolls who have been banned is an insult to their victims. We are not talking about a few harsh, misogynist/racist words directed at them.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure that a twitter account is enshrined in the Constitution.
OTOH, perhaps it could be considered a "public accommodation" and thus fall under the same umbrella as lunch counters and buses.
Re:Because that would be unimaginable CENSORSHIP? (Score:5, Insightful)
Huh, wut?
Why does Trump get a privilege (in fact a right enshrined in the constitution) that I don't just because he's a candidate?
The thing is, this isn't even true:
Donald Trump spews forth a trolling stream of hate and other abuses that would cause any average Twitter user to be terminated in a heartbeat.
The kinds of things he comes out with are nowhere NEAR hate or abuse. Its all in the imaginations of the people who fear him. To describe it as hate speech is ludicrous and dilutes the whole concept of 'hate speech'. Which can't be a bad thing, IMO.
"We should stop Muslims coming into America until we can figure out what the hell is going on." is not hate speech.
Re:Because that would be unimaginable CENSORSHIP? (Score:4, Interesting)
I think it is true, actually: while, in general, Twitter sets the bar for bans fairly high, if you draw the ire of feminists or social justice advocates on Twitter, Twitter will ban people at the drop of a hat.
(In case you're wondering, no, I have never been banned on Twitter, but I also stopped using Twitter a few years ago because it seems to have been a quagmire of social justice advocacy, progressive politics, and self-promotion by third rate celebrities.)
Re: (Score:3)
while, in general, Twitter sets the bar for bans fairly high, if you draw the ire of feminists or social justice advocates on Twitter, Twitter will ban people at the drop of a hat.
Please provide any evidence this is actually true. The only examples I have ever seen where post made towards feminists resulted in a ban, those posts involved fairly blunt threats of rape, murder, or other explicit harassment.
If you could see the types of things that are spewed daily at women on Twitter, even you might be shocked. A friend of mine routinely gets comments like "you blue haired feminist bitch, you deserve to be raped and left for dead" (etc). I guess "drawing ire" is one way to describe t
Re:Because that would be unimaginable CENSORSHIP? (Score:5, Informative)
Thunderf00t was banned from Twitter for a while. No, he did not "explicitly harrass" Anita Sarkeesian; his account was eventually reinstated when her accusations were found to have been utterly groundless and when there was a wave of criticism.
I'm a gay man and a gamer. I've played and posted as a man, as a gay man, as a transsexual, and as a woman. You know what I have had "spewed" at me? A very occasional "fag". That's it. The idea that women or gay men are subject to massive abuse online simply for what they/we are is bullshit.
When people like Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu have nasty things sent to them, it is not because of their sex organs (whatever they may be), it is because they are Internet trolls trying to provoke other people into insulting them and stirring up controversy. And what makes their trolling even more offensive is that they attack one of the few safe spaces and most accepting environments for minorities and outcasts, namely gaming, and they are doing so for personal gain.
No, I'm sorry, that's not true. The political bias of Twitter has been studied, and it is far more "liberal" (in the US sense of "progressive") than the US population as a whole. That represents the politics of educated, privileged, upper middle class techies, both in terms of users and in terms of the censors. (And let's not forget that Nazism and racism were progressive ideologies, so they fit the pattern.)
Re:Because that would be unimaginable CENSORSHIP? (Score:4, Interesting)
So let him dig his own grave via Twitter. If you want the world to see how unviable a candidate he is, why censor him?
Because they are afraid that Trump actually represents a majority of Americans.
Re: (Score:3)
Huh, wut?
Why does Trump get a privilege (in fact a right enshrined in the constitution) that I don't just because he's a candidate?
One reason is that Twitter might fear him. He's been proven time and again to be petty, vengeful, and egomaniacal, and according to his rhetoric, not too concerned with what the law says. Not unlike the present occupant of the Oval. If he became President, why wouldn't somebody like that weaponize every 3-letter agency at his disposal and launch them at his enemies? IRS, FBI, SEC, FDA, FTC, etc. could make the lives of whoever crosses him a living hell. The IRS scandal shows that it's already happening, and
Re: (Score:3)
I disagree with twenty things Trump says for every one I agree with.
Despite that or because of that, the last thing I'd want is for him to be censored in any way.
Re:Because that would be unimaginable CENSORSHIP? (Score:4, Informative)
The articles gives no examples to back up its claim that regular users are treated differently from Trump.
Re:Because that would be unimaginable CENSORSHIP? (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed, because the Right has been just as guilty of trying to censor as the Left. Both groups show utter contempt for liberties so long as its some group that they view as an opponent who is getting the short end of the stick.
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed, but I'd add a point to consider: There are some companies that have such influence they might be considered on a par with governments. The decision of a communications giant can make or break not just a political candidate, but an entire social movement. Should there be a point at which a company becomes so powerful that they should be subject to the same restrictions on their actions as are placed upon government - including a requirement that they treat all speech over their services equally, with
Re: (Score:3)
CENSORSHIP has nothing to do with private companies, you uneducated fool. Twitter would be (and should be) enforcing their policies of no hate speech.
That's ridiculous. Nothing about the concept of censorship makes it exclusive to governments. Anyone can censor something.
You are thinking of the First Amendment, which (except for certain very notable exceptions) bans the government from censoring freedom of speech and the press. But that certainly doesn't mean "censorship has nothing to do with private companies". It just means it's not illegal for them to censor. As it shouldn't be - it's their company and the content on their site represents them,
Re:Because that would be unimaginable CENSORSHIP? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see how you can be "pro" rights for some and "anti" rights for others.
Of course we're dealing with extremes - Trump and ISIS.
So, you'd be ok with the Chinese government ordering twitter to shutdown accounts of democracy protestors? After all, they're not in our country. Or heck, Venezuela doing the same?
That's an extremely selfish position to take - that you have more rights just because you're here (which you played nearly no role in save for luck of the draw) while others shouldn't have rights because they happened to be born elsewhere.
Re: (Score:3)
it applies to State legislature as well, by extension to any public body.
In Talley v. California (1960), the Court struck down a Los Angeles city ordinance that made it a crime to distribute anonymous pamphlets. Justice Hugo Black wrote in the majority opinion: "There can be no doubt that such an identification requirement would tend to restrict freedom to distribute information and thereby freedom of expression... Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the
Does this question really need asked? (Score:3, Insightful)
Twitter could be destroyed, or at least heavily damaged, by the republican party if it took a side. Also, like it or not, Trump is the leading republican candidate.
Re: (Score:2)
But Twitter could get themselves in the news bigtime for shutting him down, even briefly, due to their war on hate speech. They do say that no press is bad press...
Re:Does this question really need asked? (Score:5, Insightful)
Can't say I speak for Jack Dorsey... (Score:5, Insightful)
...But if I was him, I'd give Trump all the rope he needs to hang himself with.
Re: (Score:3)
...But if I was him, I'd give Trump all the rope he needs to hang himself with.
Yeah, this sounds like a win-win to me to me - freedom of speech is given deference, and the populace gets more information regarding Trump.
I visit Twitter every day, but I can't say that I've ever seen a Trump tweet anywhere except for in a news story (outside of Twitter). He's currently not paying to promote these stupid spewings of his, so the only people who even notice are his Twitter followers (who made a specific choice to add him to their feeds) - which includes the news media.
He's been trying for months now (Score:5, Insightful)
What they want and need is the Nordic Model. But they haven't got a chance. Most of these guys spend 2 hours a day commuting to their shitty jobs listening to Rush. They spent their childhood being told that if you work hard and play by the rules and don't get ahead it's your fault. Heck, when the millennials started complaining about the 60 hour work weeks with no benefits or job security or even food security they scoffed at them. They don't want help. They were told they could make it on their own. The keep getting told this by billionaires and their media outlets. I've tried reasoning with them but it's no go. They've got an answer for every point I make spoon fed to them by those same billionaires.
But they still know something's wrong. Trumps the only man they got.
Re:He's been trying for months now (Score:5, Interesting)
Because it's not the billionaires I feel threatened by, it's people like Hillary who only see their political position and nothing more. She's the one that shuts out people like Lessig from participating in government. Between her, or any other politician, and Trump, Trump is the lesser evil. He's a bumbling buffoon versus someone who deals regularly in shady government practices.
Re: (Score:3)
We did, he chopped it up and glued it to his head.
Twitter shouldn't be shutting anyone down.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is the correct answer.
Until 2 days ago I had no idea he had a twitter account. It makes sense. But I am free to ignore it. I am sure Hillary has one too. I have not read 1 line from either of them.
Neither one represents what I want so I do not follow them.
This sort of censorship DOES tick me off though. It is little more than a poorly veiled attempt to bolster their favorite candidate and silence their opponent.
Also lets just say for 1 second twitter did this. Holy fucking shit you would basicall
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is Twitter wouldn't shut down your account unless you actively tweet harassment to another user, or something similar.
I don't want to read though Trump's twitter feed, but I would guess his tweets are hyperbolic at worst, and the author doesn't link to any tweets that deserve account deletion.
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter shuts down and "unverifies" (allowing others to pose as you) accounts all the time.
[citation needed]
Re:Twitter shouldn't be shutting anyone down.. (Score:4, Informative)
The idea that you can say whatever you want, and that no one can stop you; is not the idea behind free speech. Free Speech merely means the government cannot imprison or bring up criminal charges for speech they do not like.
Twitter is not a government organization, it is allowed to place whatever terms and conditions they want on the service. They own it; the users do not. It is perfectly acceptable from a constitutional standpoint for Twitter to say "we do not like your hate-speech and are removing you from the service", it would be legal for any company to say "I do not like what you wrote on Twitter/Facebook/Other Social Media; they disagree with our ethics and you are being terminated."
Another example is if you were shouting hate-speech in a public place. As long as you on public property, that is fine. However, the minute you step on to privately owned property; the owners are able to enforce any restrictions they want. Want to scream bigoted statements in front of my house? Make sure you're doing it on the sidewalk or street; if you're in my yard; I'll have you removed.
I find it ironic that people that scream the most about constitutional freedoms; are doing so in the most twisted way possible. If Trump is violating the usual TOS of Twitter; than he needs to be removed. He can't be charged with a crime for doing so; but Twitter would not be violating the constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you forget the actual idea behind free speech. The idea that you can say whatever you want, and that no one can stop you; is not the idea behind free speech. Free Speech merely means the government cannot imprison or bring up criminal charges for speech they do not like. Twitter is not a government organization, it is allowed to place whatever terms and conditions they want on the service. They own it; the users do not. It is perfectly acceptable from a constitutional standpoint for Twitter to say "we do not like your hate-speech and are removing you from the service", it would be legal for any company to say "I do not like what you wrote on Twitter/Facebook/Other Social Media; they disagree with our ethics and you are being terminated." Another example is if you were shouting hate-speech in a public place. As long as you on public property, that is fine. However, the minute you step on to privately owned property; the owners are able to enforce any restrictions they want. Want to scream bigoted statements in front of my house? Make sure you're doing it on the sidewalk or street; if you're in my yard; I'll have you removed. I find it ironic that people that scream the most about constitutional freedoms; are doing so in the most twisted way possible. If Trump is violating the usual TOS of Twitter; than he needs to be removed. He can't be charged with a crime for doing so; but Twitter would not be violating the constitution.
I agree with all you said above, but why then can't a bakery refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding?
Re:Twitter shouldn't be shutting anyone down.. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a classic appeal to authority. What if I said this:
Because there are laws against breaking DRM. By getting a business license and operating that business to do so, you are obliged to follow those laws.
.... I'd be modded down into oblivion. And rightfully so. Statute isn't correct just because it's in the statute.
Statute especially isn't right when it conflicts with other laws (i.e. the Constitution). If we actually applied rule of law in these situations, we would find these laws are null and void. You can't tell a person they can't hack their OWN PROPERTY, and likewise you can't force a person to produce, with their own property and time, a product that they don't want to make. And actually, the cake issue is even worse: How do you know that it was discrimination, unless we start prosecuting thought crimes? What, you're going to use their speech on the matter to press charges? Well that's illegal too!
Re:Twitter shouldn't be shutting anyone down.. (Score:4, Interesting)
I only mention this because people get these ideas confused and then the conversation stops being about Free Speech, and it starts being only about The First. It limits the conversation to LEGAL arguments, citing court decisions etc and drowns out any moral speech. Its boring to only look at life through the lens of the law.
Re:Twitter shouldn't be shutting anyone down.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope, you got it backwards. The concept of free speech has nothing to do with the government. The 1st amendment right to free speech is a constraint put on the government to uphold the principle in limited circumstances, it does not define or limit the principle itself.
One's support for free speech is generally a matter of degree. If your support ends at the 1st amendment, and you think that private "consequences" for free speech are fine and dandy, then you don't support it very much.
Re: (Score:3)
Look up "public accommodations", and try to decide whether it applies as much to twitter as to a lunch counter.
I don't like "hate speech", but I'm quite wary of all attempts to forcibly curtail it. They can so easily be turned around against other targets.
Re: (Score:2)
So you'd be ok with me coming to your front porch and distributing fascist and communist pamphlets? It's free speech, ain't it?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Twitter shouldn't be shutting anyone down.. (Score:5, Informative)
ISPs are common carriers, and are governed by a whole other set of rules precisely because they are essentially backbones.
Twitter is an endpoint.
Two different things.
Re:Twitter shouldn't be shutting anyone down.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I uploaded a short clip of the green mile to FB the other day to make a point to a friend , and as soon as it finished uploading, FB said it was blocked on copyright grounds, automatically. I was trying to show the scene in Green Mile where Percy is gloating over a dead prisoner, and Brutal viciously scolds him saying 'leave him alone, hes paid what he owed. Hes square with the house again'. Its a 20 seconds clip out of a 3 hour movie... that kind of heavy handedness is ridiculously over the top and stifled a conversation i was having with a friend.. Is that clip really a threat to anyone's revenue? Its time for new conversation about how far these platforms can stifle speech or if we need to legally limit their scope.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually that's not a bad idea. Their families might persuade them a little harder not to join some terrorist groep. Whe should extend that to drone operators too: they shoot a hellfire missle at some wedding, we rape their wives and kill their children. Perhaps next time they take a better look before pressing that fire button.
Re: (Score:3)
An experiment (Score:5, Interesting)
I propose a test: Create an alternate account and re-post the same things Donald Trump posts. Maybe change the names/groups mentioned in order to protect the innocent.
Then, if Twitter shuts you down, you would have a pretty open and shut case as to preferential and selective treatment.
Because he's a legitimate presidential candidate. (Score:3, Insightful)
Deal with it. Just because you aren't voting for a person in a election doesn't mean every opinion of theirs must be silenced at all costs. Give them enough rope to hang themselves if you think someone is such a monster...
Re: (Score:3)
Being a presidential candidate doesn't grant you the right to violate terms of service. Of course, it does mean people are more likely to let it slide. But it does make a mockery of their "no hate speech" nonsense.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sigh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because you don't agree (or are insulted) with the man or his policies doesn't mean he should be censored. When he begins calling for the gruesome death of all people who don't agree with him (e.g. ISIL), then we will have something to talk about. The only reason this article has ANYTHING to do with Slashdot is cuz Twitter. Can we get back to technology stuffy, please?
Freedom of speech as long as it's the right one (Score:5, Insightful)
People should be able to discern speech the agree with vs. speech they don't on their own after considering every opinion made.
Speech "carriers" have all the right to censor the speech in their media as they see fit (not being the government and all) but the very moment the prevent someone to speak their mind on their platform (no matter how radical they may sound) they forfeit their right to call themselves "a bastion of free speech" and become the same as every other news media: a place to broadcast the views of their owners and target audience, no more, no less.
In conclusion, every company have the right to pick and choose what they want to enable to be said on their property but as soon as they choose to censor they become yet another biased source just like every other else.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Twitter censorship (Score:5, Interesting)
There are already numerous allegations of Twitter censoring and unverifying the political right [dailycaller.com] or pro-gamergate [breitbart.com] folks such as Milo Yiannopoulos [breitbart.com]. Trump is actually a big attention grabber and he is capturing lots of media attention, so censoring him would hurt Twitter more.
A better question may be why they haven't come down harder on terrorist activities [thefederalistpapers.org] on Twitter
because: (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Because of the Golden Rule (Score:5, Funny)
He who has the gold, makes the rules. And boy, does Trump have the gold.
The short version...why should they silence Trump? (Score:2)
Short version: Why should they?
Long version: I find him reprehensible, and find his positions stupid and indefensible, because I'm, I guess, a liberal or leftie or maybe even progressive. According to a number of posts here, I, as a liberal, am supposed to want Trump to be silenced. I do not. Political candidates, no matter how much I don't like them, get, and should get, a podium. Freedom of the news and freedom of speech are more sacred than my desire not to be offended or annoyed.
Amplifying that, I
What is Trump saying on twitter that is so bad? (Score:5, Informative)
The headline presumes a lot of things.
Read the actually Twitter account and it's relatively bland, in pages of tweets I couldn't see anything that would cause an account from anyone to be suspended.
Its amazing how furious trump makes people, and sad how they themselves must lie to try and shut down someone they disagree with.
Political Speech (Score:2)
Twitter, being a private entity, can make whatever policies they want and kick anyone off for almost any reason. All these responses about BLAH CENSORSHIP and BLAH FIRST AMENDMENT and BLAH FREE SPEECH are nonsense. Twitter can set whatever content standards it wants.
That said, you have to be really careful when political speech is involved. Even if Trump really is violating their policies (I don't know he is, I just don't follow him because he's an idiot saying idiotic things), kicking him off might constit
What does this have to do with Slashdot? (Score:4, Informative)
If the new owners are listening, this is exactly the sort of story that doesn't belong on Slashdot. The technical angle (Twitter?) is minimal, the political content is strong, and most of the commenters have big ugly political axes to grind.
Hopefully this is an aberration. If you just want to post clickbait and stir up outrage, this isn't the site for me.
If, on the other hand, you wanted to talk about the algorithm Twitter uses, or the resources and methods required to enforce Twitter policies, you might have a nerdish angle.
But to ask readers whether or not they approve of Trump on Twitter is trolling, and makes me wonder about your "new" direction.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
New owners? It has absolutely nothing to do with the new owners. Timothy posted this.
And aberration? Again, Timothy posted this. As he posts stupid, irrelevant shit all the time.
If anything, you should be hoping the new owners clean house a bit and can find some real editors...
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Stop. (Score:4, Insightful)
Sort of like referring to people as "heroes" just because they died due to the actions of a bad person. If they weren't doing something arguably heroic at the time, their deaths are certainly tragic... but not heroic.
Try Introspection, Lauren (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
BizX (Score:2)
comment from Poland (Score:5, Insightful)
I live in Poland. I use Slashdot for a long time.
I remember first Obama campaign and pathetic political propaganda on Digg. Not just bad, it was really pathetic.
Looks like you will never learn, now there is a huge anti-Trump propaganda on Slashdot.
Twitter should shut down his account? What about facebook? Google?
Why this community is so brainwashed?
Re: (Score:3)
The community is squarely against this kind of censorship of thought. The editors on the other hand have a different agenda.
Because the headline is bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Twitter gets to decide how they like to enforce their policies, and shutting down honest discussion and posting of truth on a political or social issue by someone, candidate or not, would be shameful, and drive people away from Twitter.
Nobody has shown proof of a Twitter ToS violation by Trump on Twitter.
The guy's team posted some Tweets which became controversial; However, all the tweats claimed to be "Racist" appear to not be racist, unless you have a colored interpretation driven by a politically biased agenda against Trump.
Anti-trump bloggers describing Trump's postings as ToS violations are "Seeing what they want to see".
Politics, Not Tech (Score:3, Informative)
This is the kind of story that belongs elsewhere. Hey, new owners, let's keep /. tech focused.
I'm detecting high concentrations of naivete... (Score:3)
Twitter is certainly obligated to apply the rules that they do have in an evenhanded manner.
"Obligated?" Is this the very first case of self-interested hypocrisy you've ever encountered?
In grown-up land, individuals (and corporate individuals, naturally) don't have to enforce their rules. Governments can be sued to act, but individuals don't have such an affirmative obligation; suits are filed the other way; that is, if Trump felt he was being censored unfairly, he might have a course of action, but YOU do not have such a remedy when YOU want a term-of-service applied to someone else.
I see. (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Twitter can't do that... (Score:5, Insightful)
... and remain a viable place for people to voice their ideas.
If Twitter becomes a progressive hug box then that's all it will be... and its value as a company will be very low.
This is a mistake a lot of social media outlets are making recently. They think "oh we want to get rid of all the things that look icky to some people"... the problem is that "the internet sees censorship as damage and routes around it." which means if twitter censors people... they will appear to large portions of the user base as "damaged"... and they will be bypassed.
Twitter cannot ban something like trump because he's clearly very popular with a large number of people.
What is more, Twitter is letting ISIS say what they want... how crazy do you have to be to think Trump should be censored but ISIS shouldn't?
Nutty people.
The irony! It burns! (Score:3)
maybe because it's not (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Coincidence (Score:4, Informative)
This also from the great thinker whose personal blog also got linked to for "Why I'm a Defender of YouTube"
Re: (Score:2)
And it applies only to the government, and not to private entities such as Twitter.
That said, let the asshole talk.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: The wall will be built (Score:4, Insightful)
Fuck building a wall. Just put high powered lasers that will incinerate anything that crosses the line. As for illegals already in the country, we should send SWAT teams to raid to their homes.
Also, we should require valid legal resident documentation in order to rent a home.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because a guy who is going out of his way to show his complete contempt for everything from the Bill of Rights to basic human decency will just make things so keen.
What do you suppose would happen if someone like Trump were elected President? Do you think the Supreme Court and Congress would just take a holiday and let him play out his Fascist dictator fantasies? His time in the White House would be horrible for everyone involved. Congress would spend most of its time dispensing with his vetoes, defunding a
Re:The wall will be built (Score:5, Interesting)
Congress would spend most of its time dispensing with his vetoes, defunding any department he tried to turn to whatever idiotic or evil plan (if you can call what he does "planning") he had in mind.
why woudl you think this? repubs own both halves of congress, and while I don't think they'll go in for his most radical stuff, they're not going to outwardly challenge or overrule him.
Re:The wall will be built (Score:4, Insightful)
The "establishment" (who make up the majority of both Houses) Republicans are not exactly in his corner. I doubt they'll play along with anything that they think would be detrimental to their party, and especially their own jobs when mid-term elections come around.
Re:The wall will be built (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you think the Supreme Court and Congress would just take a holiday and let him play out his Fascist dictator fantasies?
I think we've Godwined this far enough. I think the US Supreme Court would do the same thing they did for Obama when he played out his Fascist dictator fantasies.
The Oval Office would resemble Nixon on steroids, as it would be the first time in over forty years that a POTUS had almost no friends on the Hill. About the only place there would be activity would be the Federal Courts and SCOTUS as Congress and everyone else that Trump screws takes his Administration to court, likely ending in impeachment for any of a dozen flagrant, even proud high crimes and misdemeanors.
This is a huge thing that is missed. If Trump gets elected, it'll probably be the best opportunity this century to curb the power of the US Presidency.
Re:The wall will be built (Score:5, Informative)
No, he was impeached by the House. He was then acquitted rather than convicted by the Senate.
The impeachment was completely successful, else the Senate would never have weighed in.
Re:The wall will be built (Score:4, Interesting)
Trump draws the dots and lets his supporters connect them.
Re: (Score:3)
As a Congressman, my job is to get re-elected.
and this is exactly the WRONG reason to be a congressman. I think if that is ones attitude (not that i disagree with you on how things actually are) they should be disqualified from office
Re:Seriously? (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not saying yes, I'm not saying no. Check her posting history and have a bloody good laugh.
Ummm, I mean check her posting history and make your own mind up. Yes, that.