9 ms·
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 thin
by 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 agoClinton 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 agoThey got a custom icon.
- wybiral 8y agoBut 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 agoSo Twitter is censoring based on the CEO's views. That's exactly my point.
- ceejayoz 8y agoIs there any evidence a #CrookedTrump hashtag/emoji would've been approved?
- dingo_bat 8y agoNo, but there is evidence that Twitter is censoring certain icons based on their CEO's political leanings.
- s73v3r_ 8y agoWhy 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 agoHow 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.
- s73v3r_ 8y agoYou're going to have to explain far, far better than just saying, "censorship" over and over again. Especially when the RNC was able to get several custom emoji, and they didn't give out any negative or attack emoji.
- ceejayoz 8y agoSo did the Republican National Convention. Take a look at the screenshot in the article.
- ceejayoz 8y agoThe 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 agoThe 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 agoNot 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 agoThey gave the Clinton campaign a custom emoji insulting Trump?