On one hand, I really worry about asshole causing real damage when he tweets. OTOH every tweet is more evidence that he insane.
Itâs not Twitterâs job to make the president of the United States not be a fucking imbecile.
Thatâs our job, and we dropped the ball.
Sorry. I voted for Hillary. I will not take blame. Unless you have a mouse in your pocket. In that case carry on.
Not twitterâs job, but if they have a Terms of Service maybe they should make everyone comply with it. So POTUS getâs a pass, who else does and who doesnât? Does the CEO of Apple get one but not say Sears. Is it just based on success? Theyâve banned celebrities so I guess that means⌠theyâre not important enough to get a pass.
The rules are quite clear, governmnent figures are exempt. So unless we start electing the CEO of Sears in public voter elections, the answer is no. I tend to agree with @timex here
Please link the rules that says all government officials from every country are exempt from Twitterâs TOS.
How about deposed dictators? Can they still post?
There ya go.
Thatâs not the policy, thatâs just an article about the policy, but at least it lead me to it.
https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/violent-groups
And itâs not exactly clear. Itâs clear why Trump isnât included but this part leaves for subjectivity.
Exceptions will be considered for groups that have reformed or are currently engaging in a peaceful resolution process, as well as groups with representatives elected to public office through democratic elections.
The only clear part of that paragraph is this:
This policy does not apply to military or government entities.
Which means any government entity should be covered, not just democratic countries.
Yep, like I said
What about people who are obviously psychologically imbalanced and tweeting things that are harmful to themselves and others? Doesnât that⌠trump⌠the other rules?
Me asking you for a link does not automatically mean I think youâre wrong. Itâs me asking you for a link. That policy has been in place for less than a month. Itâs not as if they were using it this whole time.
You also realize who the government entities were in the 30s and 40s right? Maybe Twitter and the other social media giants need to spend more time considering their policies openly rather than behind closed doors with a room full of guys worried about clicks and ad revenue.
To me it has always been obvious that government was exempt, the only way to shut government figures up is to vote them out⌠same as always.
(It does suck pretty bad for people in dictatorships, though, thatâs true!)
Discounting⌠war? Weâve removed a few that way.
Suck is not the right word for that.
Solid insight from an early personal advisor to Zuck and investor
Interesting article, thanks.
Sidenote: As a former Yahoo employee, I canât help but wonder what might have happened had Zuck said âyesâ to the purchase offerâŚ
Yes. Thank you. This is an interesting read, if a bit long.
One thing Twitter could do without silencing Trump is put in their TOS that the platform cannot be used to announce or distribute new policy.
Why on earth would they want to do that? If legislatures have a problem with government officials announcing policies in unofficial fora (as many do) they should legislate against it themselves. Itâs not up to the fora to police that political norm, and itâs certainly not in Twitterâs self-interest.
We cannot depend upon corporate terms of service to limit our government from acting like imbeciles. Thatâs not how it is supposed to work.
We need to learn from this, and not elect imbeciles. Thatâs the only way to improve it. No one else can âfixâ it for us.