6 ms·

This article seems to be a smoking gun... https://medium.com/@garycoby/twitter-restricts-trump-eb7e48ccf5ff https://medium.com/@garycoby/twitter-restricts-trump

This article seems to be a smoking gun... https://medium.com/@garycoby/twitter-restricts-trump-eb7e48ccf5ff https://medium.com/@garycoby/twitter-restricts-trump-eb7e48c... Note that there are plenty of other custom icons that Twitter allows.

geofft 8y ago
I don't think refusal to allow a custom emoji with a hashtag is censorship - they didn't ban the hashtag. Custom emoji are a business/marketing/advertising thing, and if we want to restrict the ability of private businesses to decline advertising deals with other private businesses for any reason at all (including "we just don't like you"), that's a whole different conversation, and one I suspect many conservatives will not be pleased with the outcome of. As the article says, this move cost Twitter millions in revenue. If you don't have the ability to just choose not to make money because you're not interested in the transaction, you don't actually control the company, the public does.
- dingo_bat 8y ago
  > I don't think refusal to allow a custom emoji with a hashtag is censorship It is if you allow the other side to do exactly the same, as noted in the linked article.
  - luddit3 8y ago
    Clinton campaign did not do the same thing. All they did was elephant and donkey for the conventions. Looks like it the rights victim complex again.
    - dingo_bat 8y ago
      They got a custom icon.
      - wybiral 8y ago
        But not a custom icon as part of an attack ad calling one of the candidates a criminal. There is a subtle difference.
        dingo_bat 8y ago
        So Twitter is censoring based on the CEO's views. That's exactly my point.
        ceejayoz 8y ago
        Is there any evidence a #CrookedTrump hashtag/emoji would've been approved?
        dingo_bat 8y ago
        No, but there is evidence that Twitter is censoring certain icons based on their CEO's political leanings.
        s73v3r_ 8y ago
        Why is that the case instead of, say, Twitter not wanting to turn custom emoji into attack ads?
        dingo_bat 8y ago
        > Twitter not wanting to turn custom emoji into attack ads? Maybe it is. It is still censorship. And it is based on the political opinion of the CEO.
        wybiral 8y ago
        How is it based on the political opinion rather than a choice to keep negative attack ads off of their platform. If they apply the same approach to different political campaigns it doesn't seem politically motivated to me.
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    The cited example in the linked article is the same side - it's a screenshot of the Republican National Convention hashtag. I suspect it was approved because #RNCinCLE isn't an attack/allegation on someone else. I also believe it was a Twitter-initiated hashtag, not one bought by the RNC. I similarly suspect the Hillary Campaign would've seen an application to add an emoji to #DumpTrump rejected. Hell, Pepsi probably can't sponsor a #CokeSucks one.
  - geofft 8y ago
    The linked article says exactly the opposite: > However, both DNC and RNC conventions had custom emojis this cycle and they did not use disclaimers. > But, the only other campaign large enough to have this type of deal would have been the Clinton campaign and my contacts inside TW informed me that they did not have one in place. So basically, “cancelling for all political campaigns” really meant cancelling ONLY for Donald J. Trump’s campaign. The DNC and RNC both got custom mascot emojis for their hashtags, and the Trump campaign did not get a #CrookedHillary emoji, nor did the Clinton campaign get (or ask for) a similar anti-Trump emoji. So the other side was quite clearly not allowed to do the exact same, nor did they even ask to do the exact same.
  - maxerickson 8y ago
    Not exactly the same. I don't think any Democratic organizations tried to associate some Donald Trump hashtag with a dumpster fire or anything like that.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    They gave the Clinton campaign a custom emoji insulting Trump?
wybiral 8y ago
Are there examples of Democrat-funded attack ads like this with hashtags that Twitter allowed icons for? EDIT: I ask because this is an example of an attack ad targeted to an individual candidate rather than a general promotion or political concept, which I can see why Twitter wouldn't necessarily want to promote.
- tomcatfish 8y ago
  There is one from Hillary's campaign showed as a picture in the article.
  - tomcatfish 8y ago
    I take that back, it's actually still a Republican tweet
- patrickg_zill 8y ago
  The issue is more it being approved at lower levels, but CEO Jack Dorsey directly killing it: an example of bias at the very top. Any ad that directly mentions the opposing candidate, no matter how polite, is an attack ad. And there is no guidance from ANY regulatory authority that I can see, that bans, discourages, or even regulates them.
  - wybiral 8y ago
    It still isn't an example of bias. It's just an example of Twitter not having clear internal policies and coordination for dealing with sensitive issues. Which, frankly, has been an issue that plagues them on both sides of the political divide.
luddit3 8y ago
Guy is director of advertising for RNC, so smoking gun no. What part of their message was censored.
criley2 8y ago
That article isn't a "smoking gun", it's quite literally biased propaganda by a paid member of a campaign! A blog post (not journalism!) by a paid member of a political campaign infamous for its loose relationship with fact and truth, quoting other paid members of the Campaign, to push a particular message that the campaign has been aggressively pushing... I mean, dude, what the fuck. How can you call what is literally campaign propaganda produced by two members of a partisan campaign PR department a "smoking gun"? I'm at a loss for words. What is happening to Hacker News?
- patrickg_zill 8y ago
  It's a recounting of conversations and negotiations between executive level Twitter people and the ad agency. Your response is overblown and strident.
  - snowwrestler 8y ago
    We have no idea if any of those conversations even happened.
  - cblades 8y ago
    It is most certainly not a smoking gun. That is a dishonest descriptor.
toiletfuneral 8y ago
Just to be clear; members of the party controlling all 3 branches of government and putting children in internment camps is mad about not getting an icon from a website. Got it.

geofft 8y ago

I don't think refusal to allow a custom emoji with a hashtag is censorship - they didn't ban the hashtag. Custom emoji are a business/marketing/advertising thing, and if we want to restrict the ability of private businesses to decline advertising deals with other private businesses for any reason at all (including "we just don't like you"), that's a whole different conversation, and one I suspect many conservatives will not be pleased with the outcome of. As the article says, this move cost Twitter millions in revenue. If you don't have the ability to just choose not to make money because you're not interested in the transaction, you don't actually control the company, the public does.

dingo_bat 8y ago
> I don't think refusal to allow a custom emoji with a hashtag is censorship It is if you allow the other side to do exactly the same, as noted in the linked article.
- luddit3 8y ago
  Clinton campaign did not do the same thing. All they did was elephant and donkey for the conventions. Looks like it the rights victim complex again.
  - dingo_bat 8y ago
    They got a custom icon.
    - wybiral 8y ago
      But not a custom icon as part of an attack ad calling one of the candidates a criminal. There is a subtle difference.
      - dingo_bat 8y ago
        So Twitter is censoring based on the CEO's views. That's exactly my point.
        ceejayoz 8y ago
        Is there any evidence a #CrookedTrump hashtag/emoji would've been approved?
        dingo_bat 8y ago
        No, but there is evidence that Twitter is censoring certain icons based on their CEO's political leanings.
        s73v3r_ 8y ago
        Why is that the case instead of, say, Twitter not wanting to turn custom emoji into attack ads?
        dingo_bat 8y ago
        > Twitter not wanting to turn custom emoji into attack ads? Maybe it is. It is still censorship. And it is based on the political opinion of the CEO.
        wybiral 8y ago
        How is it based on the political opinion rather than a choice to keep negative attack ads off of their platform. If they apply the same approach to different political campaigns it doesn't seem politically motivated to me.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  The cited example in the linked article is the same side - it's a screenshot of the Republican National Convention hashtag. I suspect it was approved because #RNCinCLE isn't an attack/allegation on someone else. I also believe it was a Twitter-initiated hashtag, not one bought by the RNC. I similarly suspect the Hillary Campaign would've seen an application to add an emoji to #DumpTrump rejected. Hell, Pepsi probably can't sponsor a #CokeSucks one.
- geofft 8y ago
  The linked article says exactly the opposite: > However, both DNC and RNC conventions had custom emojis this cycle and they did not use disclaimers. > But, the only other campaign large enough to have this type of deal would have been the Clinton campaign and my contacts inside TW informed me that they did not have one in place. So basically, “cancelling for all political campaigns” really meant cancelling ONLY for Donald J. Trump’s campaign. The DNC and RNC both got custom mascot emojis for their hashtags, and the Trump campaign did not get a #CrookedHillary emoji, nor did the Clinton campaign get (or ask for) a similar anti-Trump emoji. So the other side was quite clearly not allowed to do the exact same, nor did they even ask to do the exact same.
- maxerickson 8y ago
  Not exactly the same. I don't think any Democratic organizations tried to associate some Donald Trump hashtag with a dumpster fire or anything like that.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  They gave the Clinton campaign a custom emoji insulting Trump?

wybiral 8y ago

Are there examples of Democrat-funded attack ads like this with hashtags that Twitter allowed icons for? EDIT: I ask because this is an example of an attack ad targeted to an individual candidate rather than a general promotion or political concept, which I can see why Twitter wouldn't necessarily want to promote.

tomcatfish 8y ago
There is one from Hillary's campaign showed as a picture in the article.
- tomcatfish 8y ago
  I take that back, it's actually still a Republican tweet
patrickg_zill 8y ago
The issue is more it being approved at lower levels, but CEO Jack Dorsey directly killing it: an example of bias at the very top. Any ad that directly mentions the opposing candidate, no matter how polite, is an attack ad. And there is no guidance from ANY regulatory authority that I can see, that bans, discourages, or even regulates them.
- wybiral 8y ago
  It still isn't an example of bias. It's just an example of Twitter not having clear internal policies and coordination for dealing with sensitive issues. Which, frankly, has been an issue that plagues them on both sides of the political divide.

luddit3 8y ago

Guy is director of advertising for RNC, so smoking gun no. What part of their message was censored.

criley2 8y ago

That article isn't a "smoking gun", it's quite literally biased propaganda by a paid member of a campaign! A blog post (not journalism!) by a paid member of a political campaign infamous for its loose relationship with fact and truth, quoting other paid members of the Campaign, to push a particular message that the campaign has been aggressively pushing... I mean, dude, what the fuck. How can you call what is literally campaign propaganda produced by two members of a partisan campaign PR department a "smoking gun"? I'm at a loss for words. What is happening to Hacker News?

patrickg_zill 8y ago
It's a recounting of conversations and negotiations between executive level Twitter people and the ad agency. Your response is overblown and strident.
- snowwrestler 8y ago
  We have no idea if any of those conversations even happened.
- cblades 8y ago
  It is most certainly not a smoking gun. That is a dishonest descriptor.

toiletfuneral 8y ago

Just to be clear; members of the party controlling all 3 branches of government and putting children in internment camps is mad about not getting an icon from a website. Got it.