6 ms·

Maybe that is also the reason why Trump's account was not banned for violating the terms of service yet? https://twitter.com/kalpenn/status/896013769410740224?

Maybe that is also the reason why Trump's account was not banned for violating the terms of service yet? https://twitter.com/kalpenn/status/896013769410740224?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw https://twitter.com/kalpenn/status/896013769410740224?ref_sr...

nailer 9y ago
This is probably indicative of need for a way of better wording a ToS, which probably don't mean to stop the judicial system, police or military from doing their jobs, or for that matter boxers or MMArtists.
MadSax 9y ago
What has trump done that violated their ToS?
- tuxt 9y ago
  Threatening other people?
  - MadSax 9y ago
    That's absurd and petty. First, it was a warning not a threat, nor is Trump merely a private citizen with no responsibility to our national defense.
  - tertius 9y ago
    I believe that it's not illegal for the president to do that. (Whether you or I like it or not.) It is however illegal for me to do it. And that's likely where the TOS rule comes from. We're struggling with a spirit of the law, letter of the law issue here.
    - xutopia 9y ago
      Illegal no... against the ToS yes.
      - abtinf 9y ago
        It is illegal to attempt to make foreign policy as a private citizen. --- Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. --- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act
      - tertius 9y ago
        I don't think the President should be hindered by a private company to do his job. Whether we agree with how exactly he's doing it or not. The TOS is clearly based on law, it's legal for him to do it, so in essence the TOS regarding to his legal rights, shouldn't (in spirit) apply to him. Now if he was doing something that he doesn't have the right to do, i.e. inciting violence against a private person, he'll break the TOS. If all you want to say is that what he has done is strictly against the text of the TOS then sure I'll agree. But I don't think it matters.
        Retra 9y ago
        The president hardly seems to be "doing his job" on Twitter.
        tertius 9y ago
        I honestly don't think my or your opinion matters with regards to that. If he tells a foreign official anything at any point in time whether it be email, phone call, twitter etc. it's official. He can't claim that he was taking a break. He can delete a tweet, but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen.
    - hellbanner 9y ago
      Right, because the State is the entity with a Monopoly on Violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
      - dredmorbius 9y ago
        The correct, proper, and original formulation by Max Weber is the monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. The alternatives are either granting all parties equal right to any chosen violence they choose to enact, granting the right to some particular entity, or attempting ... and by what means specifically without a state and sanction of legitimate violence ... to bar all use of violence. Note too: legitimacy does not mean unlimited or capricious. It does, however, mean that the sanction of violence originates from, and is enacted either directly by, or through licence (e.g., self-defence) from, the state. Misuse of this term is rampant, particularly among so-called Libertarians.
        hellbanner 9y ago
        "The monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force, also known as the monopoly on violence" I think the "legitimate" is implied - a State is a thing that creates Legitimacy and enforces it through Violence. To supplement this it monopolizes Violence by inflicting Violence on those who commit it without Legitimacy.
        dredmorbius 9y ago
        The overwhelming majority of usage online, including in this thread, strongly suggests otherwise. The fact was an insight to me when I happened to stumble across it (researching other aspects of Weber, as it happens).
        hellbanner 9y ago
        Sorry but I'm not seeing what I'm missing.
      - 9y ago
    - tuxt 9y ago
      It's not about legality. Twitter is not the court or the police. It's a private company.
      - tertius 9y ago
        If the TOS is based on the law, i.e. inciting violence etc. (which it likely is) then read the rest of my comment. The President can threaten violence (and should not be hindered by private companies to do so) because he was elected to be able to do so. Whether you agree with his ability to kill in defense (etc.) or not.
aaron-lebo 9y ago
They can't arbitrarily enforce those standards on his account without kicking a lot of other people off: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/346996-missouri-state-senator-posts-deletes-comment-hoping-for-trumps http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/346996-miss... http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/kathy-griffin-sparks-outrage-decapitated-trump-head-photo-article-1.3207184 http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/kathy-griffin-spark... edit: The first one is actually Facebook, but it's typical of a lot of online discourse, found it in a bunch of tweets threatening Trump.
- monksy 9y ago
  But yet they do. I've seen people threaten others, organize tracking/stalking/suggesting violence of an individual (antifa tracking conservative reporters in Paris), people who try to stir up race violence. Still on the platform.
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  Feature.
koolba 9y ago
That's a pretty stupid example. If I say I'll beat the crap out of anyone that hurts my family is that considered a threat[1] too? [1]: Cause in my mind it's not a threat. It's a guarantee.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
5trokerac3 9y ago
That is one hell of a stretch.
013a 9y ago
Or maybe its just because he is the President of the United States. I find it incredible that some people feel so strongly that these rules and terms have to apply perfectly equally to everyone. That's not reality. If Twitter existed in 1939, would Kal Penn be mad at Roosevelt for threatening Hitler with an invasion if he didn't stop his shit? Sounds weird, but all externalities considered I doubt it. Also weird that Kal didn't speak out when a state senator called for Trump's assassination on Facebook [1]. Sure is against Facebook's ToS. Point being: Kal, and the general anti-Trump population, doesn't actually care about breaking Twitter's ToS. They don't care about any individual action he takes. They use those actions to reinforce this immutable evil picture of Trump in their head, and then look for any excuse to get that zinger in on him because it will play well with the liberal bubble they live in. [1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/08/18/maria-chappelle-nadal-eric-greitens-call-resignation-after-trump-assassination-comment/582468001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017...
- maxerickson 9y ago
  Are you singling out someone prominent for criticism about how they singled out someone prominent in an ironic way or was it by accident?
  - 013a 9y ago
    Is Kal Pen famous or something? I just copied the name from the Twitter profile.
    - maxerickson 9y ago
      He's at least a B list celebrity, "Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle".
      - lightbyte 9y ago
        He was also a member of the Obama administration.
- 9y ago
CM30 9y ago
Or perhaps because it's Kim Jong Un he's threatening. Let's face it, not only is it a mere warning but it's also aimed at perhaps the one person in the world more disliked than Trump. If Trump was threatening a random American citizen who was not an evil dictator and doing so in a direct manner... well that may have been a different story.

nailer 9y ago

This is probably indicative of need for a way of better wording a ToS, which probably don't mean to stop the judicial system, police or military from doing their jobs, or for that matter boxers or MMArtists.

MadSax 9y ago

What has trump done that violated their ToS?

tuxt 9y ago
Threatening other people?
- MadSax 9y ago
  That's absurd and petty. First, it was a warning not a threat, nor is Trump merely a private citizen with no responsibility to our national defense.
- tertius 9y ago
  I believe that it's not illegal for the president to do that. (Whether you or I like it or not.) It is however illegal for me to do it. And that's likely where the TOS rule comes from. We're struggling with a spirit of the law, letter of the law issue here.
  - xutopia 9y ago
    Illegal no... against the ToS yes.
    - abtinf 9y ago
      It is illegal to attempt to make foreign policy as a private citizen. --- Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. --- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act
    - tertius 9y ago
      I don't think the President should be hindered by a private company to do his job. Whether we agree with how exactly he's doing it or not. The TOS is clearly based on law, it's legal for him to do it, so in essence the TOS regarding to his legal rights, shouldn't (in spirit) apply to him. Now if he was doing something that he doesn't have the right to do, i.e. inciting violence against a private person, he'll break the TOS. If all you want to say is that what he has done is strictly against the text of the TOS then sure I'll agree. But I don't think it matters.
      - Retra 9y ago
        The president hardly seems to be "doing his job" on Twitter.
        tertius 9y ago
        I honestly don't think my or your opinion matters with regards to that. If he tells a foreign official anything at any point in time whether it be email, phone call, twitter etc. it's official. He can't claim that he was taking a break. He can delete a tweet, but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen.
  - hellbanner 9y ago
    Right, because the State is the entity with a Monopoly on Violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
    - dredmorbius 9y ago
      The correct, proper, and original formulation by Max Weber is the monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. The alternatives are either granting all parties equal right to any chosen violence they choose to enact, granting the right to some particular entity, or attempting ... and by what means specifically without a state and sanction of legitimate violence ... to bar all use of violence. Note too: legitimacy does not mean unlimited or capricious. It does, however, mean that the sanction of violence originates from, and is enacted either directly by, or through licence (e.g., self-defence) from, the state. Misuse of this term is rampant, particularly among so-called Libertarians.
      - hellbanner 9y ago
        "The monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force, also known as the monopoly on violence" I think the "legitimate" is implied - a State is a thing that creates Legitimacy and enforces it through Violence. To supplement this it monopolizes Violence by inflicting Violence on those who commit it without Legitimacy.
        dredmorbius 9y ago
        The overwhelming majority of usage online, including in this thread, strongly suggests otherwise. The fact was an insight to me when I happened to stumble across it (researching other aspects of Weber, as it happens).
        hellbanner 9y ago
        Sorry but I'm not seeing what I'm missing.
    - 9y ago
  - tuxt 9y ago
    It's not about legality. Twitter is not the court or the police. It's a private company.
    - tertius 9y ago
      If the TOS is based on the law, i.e. inciting violence etc. (which it likely is) then read the rest of my comment. The President can threaten violence (and should not be hindered by private companies to do so) because he was elected to be able to do so. Whether you agree with his ability to kill in defense (etc.) or not.

aaron-lebo 9y ago

They can't arbitrarily enforce those standards on his account without kicking a lot of other people off: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/346996-missouri-state-senator-posts-deletes-comment-hoping-for-trumps http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/346996-miss... http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/kathy-griffin-sparks-outrage-decapitated-trump-head-photo-article-1.3207184 http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/kathy-griffin-spark... edit: The first one is actually Facebook, but it's typical of a lot of online discourse, found it in a bunch of tweets threatening Trump.

monksy 9y ago
But yet they do. I've seen people threaten others, organize tracking/stalking/suggesting violence of an individual (antifa tracking conservative reporters in Paris), people who try to stir up race violence. Still on the platform.
dredmorbius 9y ago
Feature.

koolba 9y ago

That's a pretty stupid example. If I say I'll beat the crap out of anyone that hurts my family is that considered a threat[1] too? [1]: Cause in my mind it's not a threat. It's a guarantee.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

5trokerac3 9y ago

That is one hell of a stretch.

013a 9y ago

Or maybe its just because he is the President of the United States. I find it incredible that some people feel so strongly that these rules and terms have to apply perfectly equally to everyone. That's not reality. If Twitter existed in 1939, would Kal Penn be mad at Roosevelt for threatening Hitler with an invasion if he didn't stop his shit? Sounds weird, but all externalities considered I doubt it. Also weird that Kal didn't speak out when a state senator called for Trump's assassination on Facebook [1]. Sure is against Facebook's ToS. Point being: Kal, and the general anti-Trump population, doesn't actually care about breaking Twitter's ToS. They don't care about any individual action he takes. They use those actions to reinforce this immutable evil picture of Trump in their head, and then look for any excuse to get that zinger in on him because it will play well with the liberal bubble they live in. [1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/08/18/maria-chappelle-nadal-eric-greitens-call-resignation-after-trump-assassination-comment/582468001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017...

maxerickson 9y ago
Are you singling out someone prominent for criticism about how they singled out someone prominent in an ironic way or was it by accident?
- 013a 9y ago
  Is Kal Pen famous or something? I just copied the name from the Twitter profile.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    He's at least a B list celebrity, "Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle".
    - lightbyte 9y ago
      He was also a member of the Obama administration.
9y ago

CM30 9y ago

Or perhaps because it's Kim Jong Un he's threatening. Let's face it, not only is it a mere warning but it's also aimed at perhaps the one person in the world more disliked than Trump. If Trump was threatening a random American citizen who was not an evil dictator and doing so in a direct manner... well that may have been a different story.