30 ms·
Twitter says it will restrict retweeting world leaders who break rules
- codezero 7y agoI'm not sure that anyone concerned with Twitter's policies/content has focused on the retweet-ability of rule violating world leaders. This is a super shallow effort. Edit: Though the article mentions that violating tweets are totally un-interactive, except that they can be quote retweeted. Still pretty shallow but slightly less than my original comment. With that said - it's un clear to me what constitutes a rule violating tweet for a world leader. They should come out with some examples of what is and is not a violation, they should also better specify what a world leader is.
- Waterluvian 7y agoRegardless of the conversation about this being insufficient, I think it will still have a significant impact if actually employed. Not only does it actually reduce the proliferation of these tweets, it signals that a line was crossed by a particular tweet.
- codezero 7y agoThe big problem I see, is this still does nothing to inhibit distribution to followers. In an echo chamber, everyone still sees it. It just protects people who already were going out of their way to not interact with it.
- thosakwe 7y agoTwitter is not an “echo chamber.” A site that big simply has way too many conflicting opinions for that to be true.
- baud147258 7y agoIt's not one echo chamber, but depending on who you follow, you could find yourself in one
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y agoAt what point does Twitter restricting world leader tweets become election interference and foreign policy interference. Will Twitter have to register as a foreign agent in Europe?
- metalliqaz 7y agoLet's be real here. This is aimed squarely at Trump.
- whateveracct 7y agoHe is the highest-profile rule breaker, both on Twitter and in the US govt :)
- polynomial 7y agoRule-breaker-in-chief
- djsumdog 7y agoSo does that mean he's "Disruptive?" He's the Uber of politics? The Ubermensch?
- busterarm 7y agoBecause no punishment designed for one person or group has ever been used more broadly to suppress others... Okay.
- trentnix 7y ago...and it will fall on lots of others. For the children!
- ceejayoz 7y agoIt's aimed squarely at narrowing the exemption in the rules they carved out specifically for Trump in the first place.
- dgzl 7y ago
- m0zg 7y agoGood luck trying that during the election cycle. That'll be basically political self-immolation not just for Twitter but for the rest of censorship-happy Big Tech.
- ReptileMan 7y agoAnd since we all know who is the world leader this is aimed at - seems like Twitter is begging for regulation as retaliation strike.
- merpnderp 7y agoCan regulation come soon enough? And what better time than when Congress is split and we have the best hope of something resembling what rational people would create?
- ReptileMan 7y agoI don't know. But if twitter sends the perception that they take a side in the election and in the middle of November 2020 the Republicans have won the house and presidency, they will be in a bad place.
- Mountain_Skies 7y agoMaybe they want regulation. Currently they get attacked no matter what they do. Regulation allows them to wash their hands of their messiest issue and when anyone gets angry, they can point to the regulations and blame the government.
- ReptileMan 7y agoHonestly the best solution is social networks to be declared as public fora or something definition based on common carrier - they are forced to not discriminate about speech, but they are immune. California has a something about the fora in the state constitution that was relevant about right to protest in malls.
- tzs 7y agoSo if I run a forum for discussion of chess, and someone keeps posting long rants about how all the <vulgar word for black people> are low IQ thieves who should be deported to Africa, Jews are keeping white people down and its too bad Hitler was stopped before he finished what he started with them, and also posts his Death Eaters gang rape Hermione fanfiction, and none of this has the slightest thing to do with chess...I should have to leave these posts up and not ban that account, unless I want to take responsibility for everything anyone says on my forum?
- fortran77 7y agoThere are several world leaders that I'd be happier with if they weren't leaders. (And some local leaders too! There are city councilmen I would send to Mars if I could.) But I absolutely want and need to know what they're saying. A platform that provides a direct way for them to speak shouldn't be interfering with that.
- badrequest 7y agoAre they interfering with that, or are they simply limiting your ability to interact with the content beyond viewing it?
- inimino 7y agoA part of using the platform is the ways in which other users respond to your content, so this seems like a distinction without a difference.
- metalliqaz 7y agoThat sounds awfully naive to me. World leaders have all kinds of options for communicating with the public. Official press releases, for example. Press releases are preferable because when they tell falsehoods, they can be fact checked in the press. We have no obligation to allow them to use social networks for propaganda purposes.
- s_y_n_t_a_x 7y agoPersonally, I'd rather hear directly from the person, rather than get someone's spin on it. Believe it or not, some people are smart enough to make decisions for themselves, and don't need the corporate media to make decisions for them. I've seen their fact checking, it's hilariously biased.
- metalliqaz 7y agoperhaps some people are we know for a fact that most people are susceptible to misinformation and propaganda. the modern advertising industry should be more than enough proof of that
- Brendinooo 7y agoNot sure who will end up being satisfied with this. People who want the "world leaders" deplatformed will be mad they they're still online, and people who like said leaders will cry persecution every time this is invoked, whether it's intentional or some automated system being tripped. A sizable chunk will not hear about any of this and will wonder why they can't like a tweet (unless this problem is solved with the right UX). Does the Streisand Effect apply to this too? Does this end up with more quote tweeting?
- vonmoltke 7y agoThe TC article linked to the blog post announcing this, but didn't link to the page describing how the public interest feature works: https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/public-interest https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/public-intere... In short, it's not just silently making the Tweet non-interactive (as the article implies). It's similar to the existing "sensitive content" UX.
- Brendinooo 7y agoNice. Thanks for this.
- bertil 7y agoThank you for the link. I understand the general rule against violence, but I feel like, when dealing with elected officials, you have to specify a difference between legitimate military action and calls to civilian violence. I don’t think anyone would object that Twitter hosts an announcement from the Staatsminister of Netherlands that she has decided to join the coalition of the willing and to send troops to Afghanistan, but that’s a clear call to violence and people will die because of that decision.
- JasonFruit 7y agoWhat's a "world leader"? That sounds like something you might claim to be but that should under no circumstances be allowed.
- detaro 7y ago> What's a "world leader"? A head of state of a country, especially but not exclusively of an influential nation.
- JasonFruit 7y agoI'm pointing out that the term implies more than the truth, and that it's good there aren't real world leaders. Apparently people don't appreciate my approach to communicating that.
- nl 7y ago"World leader" is an extremely common term for a leader of a country. They are called "world leader" because they are involved in world affairs. You seem to believe it means a leader of some kind of whole earth government. That isn't implied at all.
- JasonFruit 7y agoI know how people use it. I think it's an idiotic term.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- nl 7y agoSo your question was rehtorical and all your protests about how it was "chilling" were just to create drama or something? Great.
- SI_Rob 7y agoWhat organization or individual ever in history could claim to have this kind of power over world affairs? There's never been anyone quite as potently leveraged as Jack Dorsey. As much as I am in favor of the (superficial, at least) spirit of this decision, I'm torn about the huge corner we're turning as a civilization here. edit: Downvoters, if you are interpreting this as a veiled swipe at Twitter or indirect support of Trump (& friends), that's neither the intent nor representative of my opinions about these actors in the least. This may be a touchstone event that bottlenecks perception of the international system in a way that makes the particular provocateurs about as relevant to the long term outcome as Gavrilo Princip was to the formation of NATO or the UN.
- brlewis 7y ago> What organization or individual ever in history could claim to have this kind of power over world affairs? If I could find my copy of the book, "The Media Monopoly" I could give you numerous answers.
- SI_Rob 7y agoI understand that "the media" has held this kind of sway for a long time. But here we are with a single, publicly identifiable organization (and ultimately a private individual) casually invoking their power to mute every world leader at will, with the flip of a switch. This is a new normal.
- bjt2n3904 7y agoSo much for the free speech wing of the free speech party. :(
- metalliqaz 7y agoDaily reminder that free speech entitles you to protection from the government. It doesn't grant you rights to verbally puke all over any social network you please.
- inimino 7y agoDaily rejoinder that this argument is getting really old when most political speech has moved to online fora controlled by a small number of corporate players which have more power than any traditional publisher ever did due to network effects.
- bduerst 7y agoDisagree. Media has always centralized on key players who distribute the information, from newspapers to radio towers to broadcast TV to cable networks, all who maintained a modicum of quality. The internet is a turn in the opposite direction which is why there has been such an explosion of misinformation and feeding of confirmation bias.
- inimino 7y agoCentralized because running a press or a radio tower is expensive. For the same reason, there were a smaller number of channels, and a more unified discourse (everyone reads the same newspaper). Now, neither of these is true. Twitter, Facebook, etc can customize the feed to every user to maximize engagement. At the same time, whatever doesn't fly politically at corporate HQ can be restricted, with as much or as little visibility as they choose.
- 50656E6973 7y ago>all who maintained a modicum of quality. Not exactly... "Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day." -Thomas Jefferson, 1807
- iron0013 7y agoI honestly don't understand why "world leaders" aren't banned as soon as they break the rules, just like anyone else would be. If I said even a tiny fraction of the things "world leaders" have said, I'd be banned from Twitter in a second, and rightfully so.
- ReptileMan 7y agoIt is not wise to piss off world leaders if you have to travel the world. So the high ranking executives tread carefully
- chrisseaton 7y agoBecause nations and their leaders are different to people. When Britain declared war on Germany in WW2 were they ‘threatening violence’ and would that get them banned from Twitter?
- throwaway_bad 7y agoInstead of a hypothetical you can just use the example from the article: > Twitter said it would not ban President Trump despite incendiary tweets, including allegations that he threatened to declare war on North Korea.
- chrisseaton 7y agoRight, but using the example of Britain and Germany back in WW2 removes it from current politics and allows us to think of an example of a clear and direct incitation of violence that almost everyone thinks was legal and morally just and would have been appropriate to Tweet.
- cabaalis 7y agoThreatening to declare war is a diplomatic tactic. Just because Donald Trump did it doesn't change tactics used by world leaders. I don't recall any nukes dropping, or armies being deployed--but if you listened to the media around that time, it was 10 seconds to midnight. What we actually did see is people holding hands and crossing borders. Yet still, even today, we hear about the threat of war.
- alfiedotwtf 7y agoIt would also be nice if Twitter restricted world leaders who called out for genocide: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1130207891049332737
- not_a_cop75 7y agoAnd who will guard against them breaking their own rules? Who will watch the watchmen?
- ProAm 7y agoHow about hide the tweet if the tweet breaks the rules. Like a reverse mute.
- dev_dull 7y ago...like shadow banning?
- mlb_hn 7y agoHave there been any studies on how many people actually see those tweets, and of those, how many remember the content and then agree/disagree? I'm a bit unsure how data based any of these actions are.
- jcadam 7y agoWhat? Who uses twitter anymore? I mean, besides politicians and celebrities.
- aezakmi 7y agoCan't believe one of the most important pieces of the Cathedral is manned by such wimps. Oh wait, I do.
- michannne 7y agoTwitter can make it's own decisions, not my position to tell them what they can and can't do, but >The company said the move will help its users stay informed about global affairs, but while balancing the need to keep the site’s rules in check. Is a baseless lie. And I can't believe they're brazen enough to propose limiting the outreach of world leaders on the site while saying >help its users stay informed about global affairs Twitter has been around for over a decade, yet only now are they deciding to take this approach, meaning, regardless of what triggered this new policy, is not rooted in any sort of desire to "keep the site's rules in check".
- perf1 7y agoAs soon as they delete and curate content they are also endorsing the content that stays online. If this endorsed content is slander they should be liable.
- vineyardmike 7y agoIn their defense, they’ve been around for a decade, and the whole time criticized for not doing enough to stop people from breaking rules.
- dev_dull 7y agoThe only thing worse than vague rules is their inevitable selective application.
- patagonia 7y agoRetweeting is not free speech. The original tweet is free. Everything after that is leveraged speech. Leveraged by the platform. And the platform is co-responsible for leveraging speech. If Trump’s (or whoever’s) followers want to subscribe to what he has to say, awesome. But if Twitter (or whatever platform) functions as a megaphone for hate speech, or incitement to violence speech, or dangerous and obvious misinformation speech, it should be held accountable. And if it is being held accountable it should have discretion such that they can behave as a responsible megaphone. I’m all about free speech. But building multi billion dollar echo chambers that can be co-opted with impunity in the name of free speech makes zero legal sense and zero common sense.
- stale2002 7y agoWhat about my individual freedom of expression to repeat what someone else said? If someone else says something first, am I not allowed to repeat it? Like, let's say I heard something in the park. It would be ridiculous for someone to try and stop me from physically saying the same thing that someone else said.
- polynomial 7y agoTo be fair, Jack Dorsey doesn't own your park.
- icebraining 7y agoHow is retweeting any different from quoting someone and linking to the tweet, though? Or is that "leveraged" speech as well?
- jakeogh 7y agoSo... make up a new term, define it as somehow not speech, and attempt to attack free speech with it.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- acjohnson55 7y agoGood. "World leaders" should be subject to some facsimile of the rules that apply to regular people. This strikes a good balance of neutral reporting and responsible platform stewardship, in my opinion. Note that the media has always exercised this type of judgment, and as imperfect as that judgment is, I think it's better than neutrally amplifying whatever people tell them.
- pupppet 7y agoThe US govt. shouldn't be using some third party tool to communicate with its citizens. Post a blog on usa.gov and say whatever you want, problem solved.
- kemitche 7y agoDoes that solve anything though? Surely any such blog posts would get shared on Twitter, by some combination of official, unofficial, and civilian accounts.
- nabergh 7y agoIt does. Government announcements would still be available online if they were originally posted on a government website and their reposted content was removed from Twitter afterwards. It would be harder to make the case that Twitter is preventing citizens from viewing their governments' announcements if those announcements are also available on government websites, which I believe is the primary concern.
- busterarm 7y agoPoliticians are only on Twitter because that's where the media is. Journalists overwhelmingly use twitter to conduct business these days. Politicians interacting with journalists is nothing new.
- jonas21 7y agoThe White House [1], and just about every US government department and agency (e.g. [2], [3], [4]) already has a blog. The fact that most people are unaware they exist is precisely why they also post to third-party platforms. [1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/news/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/news/ [2] https://www.energy.gov/news-blog https://www.energy.gov/news-blog [3] https://www.usda.gov/media/blog https://www.usda.gov/media/blog [4] https://blogs.nasa.gov/ https://blogs.nasa.gov/
- ninkendo 7y agoPerhaps if they didn’t post to third party platforms, we would be more likely to know the blogs exist?
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago>Any user who tweets content promoting terrorism, making “clear and direct” threats of violence, and posting private information are all subject to ban. I wonder whether threats of military intervention (technically) counts. Interesting food for thought.
- notadoc 7y agoWhere has social media been a good thing for society?
- simonswords82 7y agoWe'll look back on Twitter in years to come as one of the worst things to happen to public discourse since the Internet came to exist. I just wish it would go away.
- ComodoHacker 7y agoThe whole thing looks like a clever PR move pursuing several goals: a) advertise to leaders who hasn't joined jet; b) appeal to authoritarian leaders who like to ban/firewall platforms in their countries, and thus gain competitive advantage; c) please Trump. And the whole thing feels disgusting.
- diminoten 7y agoHow is this going to please Trump?
- CobrastanJorji 7y ago> "We want to make it clear today that the accounts of world leaders are not above our policies entirely..." Thakn you, Twitter. Your bold stance will make it clear where you draw the line, and also where you draw the new line after the President tramples over your line.
- diminoten 7y agoCan't people just retweet with comment? Not very familiar with Twitter, so genuine question.
- bertil 7y agoYes: > let users quote-tweet to allow ordinary users to express their opinions.
- diminoten 7y agoSo this changes absolutely nothing?
- bertil 7y agoThe tweet appears hidden, replaced by a text explaining that it’s unacceptable and a link to reveal the original message. It seems little but it does send the message that the content is not welcome. I don’t know of any large scale attempt at using that approach to reduce unwanted content. Other approaches, for instance, flagging links as proven false by fact-checkers, has significantly back-fired so I’m curious.
- diminoten 7y agoOkay, good to know. It wasn't clear to me what the actual consequence was of forcing a, "retweet with comment" would be, if the comment could just be "." or something.
- xmly 7y agoWho decides whether the leaders break rules or not?
- amirhirsch 7y agoTwitter should do the right thing and shut down. Then Jack Dorsey should win the Nobel Peace Prize.
- polynomial 7y agounderrated comment.
- amirhirsch 7y agoit's being downvoted just as much as it's being upvoted. talk about karma volatility
- gsaga 7y agoWell you can serialize tweets into text and then tweet that: Leader tweeted:...
- Solvitieg 7y ago> We decide whether a Tweet that would otherwise violate the Twitter Rules is in the public interest using the following criteria and process: Feeling blessed knowing that Twitter Safety is deciding what information is best for the American public.
- bertil 7y agoIf you think someone else should, I’m sure that Twitter would be happy to delegate that role to anyone more legitimate… Anyone, really. They probably would also love to pay that person. Facebook is trying to set that up, for instance — with very generous conditions: dotation covering a full-time staff, etc. Dealing with that is a nightmare for specialists and no software developer would want to be embroiled in that.
- dvtrn 7y agoI don’t believe them.
- throwaway798327 7y agoThis is great news. A lot of people here are asking if Twitter would have banned Great Britain when it declared war on Germany. I don't know how to answer that but if Twitter, radios, televisions, and newspapers had banned Hitler from broadcasting his hate filled speeches then I am sure there would have been no need for World War II in the first place.
- lr 7y agoI think Twitter should add a “save” feature so that those who want to actually save a reference to a tweet don’t actually have to “like” it. I wonder how much this would change the “heart” counts for world leaders...
- thosakwe 7y agoThey’ve had this for months; it’s called “Add to Bookmarks” in the popup options on a given Tweet.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- tagrun 7y agoRight. We're all equal but some people are more equal than others. So it's OK they're above the rules for commoners. Twitter is rationalizing their unequal treatment of people for the sake of their network traffic and $$$, but what's amazing is people are actually buying this. I wonder how those same people would rationalize their opposition to other outrageous situations like universities saying "professors can say racist things in the university press and classroom because there is public interest in their words", "CEOs of big international corporations can do hate speech because there is world wide public interest", "it's OK for evil governments to stream threats and false narratives because there is public interest" etc.
- Aperocky 7y agoIt's not twitter, it's how the society ran for past 5 millenias. When the rules gets too inconvenient, we bend them or add a small attache that removes a portion of that rule. Like the Congress, except that our legislature are elected and not influenced by monetary gains. wait ..
- throwawayxrr2 7y agoAnyone with a verified account gets away with incitement and harassment on a scale that lesser accounts would be sanctioned for. In the one case I saw where a verified account was sanctioned, their friends (actually I suspect its a paid Tweet ring) rallied their hundreds of thousands of supporters. Given that journalists rely heavily on Twitter (its true source of power), they can amplify this outrage. Twitter is held hostage by its power users.
- jfnixon 7y agoYou misspelled “bank account.”
- harlanji 7y agoI got mobbed and threatened with violence from none other than the leaders of the Bay Area Clojure meetup, published author(s), and found my Twitter account instantly suspended on Muni home—guessing somebody in the group knew somebody inside the big T to make the suspension happen, or they just got a big mass of reports in. I was physically at the Meetup when these calls for violence were happening, unbeknownst to me since I don’t use my mobile while at meetups, but it explains some if the eratic behavior. I don’t know where to begin seeking recourse, this was earlier this year. It’s terrifying, indeed.
- ggm 7y agoHow much "harm" would be done to society at large if twitter didn't exist? How much "harm" would be done to society at large if all social media didn't exist? (including things like USENET) How much "harm" would be done to society if the Internet didn't exist? (excluding things like email) How much "harm" would be done to society if email didn't exist? I never lived in a time without a telephone, but I did span the "international calls have to be pre-booked" time, and some of the 'no international subscriber trunk dialling' time. I remember a time before all this stuff, distinctly/discretely. They don't get identical answers.
- heroHACK17 7y agoAaaaaand que Joe Rogan Experience: Jack Dorsey vol. III
- artur_makly 7y agoLuckily, there will still be http://TrumpTweets.io http://TrumpTweets.io to fill that gaping void.
- OrgNet 7y agojust what we need... more censure in the US... /s Now if they fail to block something illegal or something else of that nature, can they be held liable?
- impatientduck 7y agoI mean. Donald Trump has committed treason and multiple felonies on their platform for years and they've done jack shit, so as far as I can tell they're an accessory at this point. Why should I give a shit about this?
- xg15 7y agoOT, but Verizon's GDPR prompt/privacy policy is exceptionally scary and even more infuriating than the usual policies. Could we maybe post a link from another source?
- mplewis 7y agoYawn. They've said this how many times over the last couple years?
- detaro 7y agoAs far as I remember, never?
- xg15 7y agoInteresting side effect: > We haven’t used this notice yet, but when we do, you will not be able to like, reply, share, or Retweet the Tweet in question. You will still be able to express your opinion with Retweet with Comment. I think, not able to like/retweet is less of a big deal than unable to reply - not the only way to comment on the tweet is using a quote-tweet, which can only be seen by your own followers. This seems to make it impossible to get a full overviews about the replies to a tweet unless you already know the people that you expect to reply. I may be wrong, but this seems like a step to increase the filter-bubble effect and potentially strengthen the effect of such tweets instead of restricting them.
- k_sze 7y ago“The social media giant said it will not allow users to like, reply, share or retweet the offending tweets, but instead will let users quote-tweet to allow ordinary users to express their opinions.” (Emphasis mine) And that, my friends, is exactly the problem with Twitter. The format of the platform encourages opinions, not substantiated arguments. I’m not saying you can’t have substantiated arguments, I’m saying the format doesn’t encourage them. The whole point of Twitter is for influencers to post short quips to evoke emotion and get followers. As McLuhan said, “The medium is the message”. It’s a losing battle.
- jakeogh 7y agoThey cant afford to let users gauge opinion. That's _their_ job.
- buboard 7y agoWould be good if all retweets needed a comment.
- hinkley 7y agoSure would be great if certain world leaders felt bound by the Rule of Law. But in the meantime maybe we can at least get them to follow Twitters TOS...
- thumbsdownnow 7y agoTwitter... I was thinking it's is dead long time ago.. Who seriously want to be on those sandbox platforms ? #cia #mi5
- panny 7y agoThe US company that is broadcasting Chinese propaganda about Hong Kong [1] is going to start suppressing what the US President has to say. Despicable. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2019/08/19/twitter-under-fire-for-running-chinese-ads-attacking-hong-kong-protesters/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2019/08/19/twitter-u...
- tasogare 7y agoWould be fun if affected world leaders backslash by restricting Twitter in their country.
- beezischillin 7y agoAll I read between the lines is "election season is coming up and this is the path of least resistance we came up with". Twitter + Politics is probably a net negative on the world.
- bashwizard 7y agoHow about restricting world leaders who break the rule instead?
- marmada 7y agoA lot of people are making claims about a "loss" of free speech due to this change. I don't see how this is an issue. Twitter's rules are impartial. I don't see how impartial rules can be exclusionary. Well I can to some degree, in the sense that impartial rules such as "no politics in esports" prevents people from protesting injustices, such as Hong Kong, but Twitter's rules are more about not actively promoting violence. It is entirely possible that these impartial rules may disproportionately affect certain groups/political parties (white nationalists, Trump, etc.) -- this just means those parties need to get in step with baseline moral standards that simply claim actively promoting violence and exclusion is bad. Also Twitter is a private company. They can choose who is able to use their platform or not. (At least I think that's how it works, maybe not).
- username90 7y agoThe problem is bias. Just like how making hiring based on race illegal people still do it. So if the admins are biased in favor of one party then they will be very lenient against it and very strict against the other. They might have reasons for every ban "You can't incite hatred" while also have reasons for not banning your own "The hatred is justified in this case as the other side is worse", but the end result still becomes very biased. So in essence the more liberties you give your admins to ban or silence people the more biased your platform becomes.
- nobrains 7y agoHow will they remove bias, as already mentioned in the article: "Last year, Twitter said it would not ban President Trump despite incendiary tweets, including allegations that he threatened to declare war on North Korea. However, in the case of Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei, he had one of his tweets deleted from the site."
- teekert 7y agoDon't say what you want, slave! Or, Uhm World Leader...
- jstewartmobile 7y agoWe'll just take screenshots and post those. People have already been doing this for quite some time, since the media has been rather brazen about "disappearing" articles that expose either their own corruption or the foibles of their paymasters.
- breadandcrumbel 7y agoTech companies are getting into politics too much
- Beltiras 7y agoTwitter leadership has shown they are not a good arbiter of truth. This is a sticky problem. While deplatforming does work for obvious instances of hate&exclusion, I'm not sure handing authoritarians the weapon of "they are silencing me" will help the situation.
- NightlyDev 7y agoRestrict retweeting? Ban the damn account instead. Normal users gets banned, and one would expect world leaders to usually behave better than the average user and actually read the terms of service. If Twitters simple terms of service is to complicated for world leaders then they should probably stay away...
- alex_duf 7y agoUsers will retweet and like screen-grabs instead. I don't think it will solve the issue. It's a step in the right direction though.
- self_awareness 7y agoPower of a corporation over the government: The world of Cyberpunk is closer and closer.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- Bantros 7y agoPossibly the worst platform to ever grace the internet, and that takes some doing when you have Facebook as your competition. The sooner it kills itself from within the better
- nelcevest 7y agoI think it's excellent that they're restricting the Iranian leader's tweet where he says that Rushdie's death sentence still stands. I think it is equally wrong not to restrict Trump's tweets where he threatens to destroy countries like Iran or North Korea, which is obviously the threat of a terrorist act, involving the murder of millions of innocent civilians. That being the case, it seems clear to me that Twitter is not impartial.
- thumbsdownnow 7y agoC'mon we all know who is Twitter's law breaking world leader .. huh how boring this leftist mayo society really can be :)
- fuktwitter 7y agoMore soya boys!!
- fuktwitter 7y agoWhere is Twitter's via agent ??
- fuktwitter 7y agoTwitter.. hahhhaa shitty from start