4 ms·

Twitter has said on a number of occasions [1] that Trump has violated their ToS, but allowed him to stay because it was important for the public to see. That's

Twitter has said on a number of occasions [1] that Trump has violated their ToS, but allowed him to stay because it was important for the public to see. That's not a grey area. In the case of Sci-Hub what part of the ToS do they violate? The message cites counterfeiting, which doesn't seem to apply (unless that's a translation issue?). And if Piracy is a violation of their terms then why are there plenty of piracy torrent websites with Twitter presences still [2]? At least apply it evenly. [1] https://twitter.com/TwitterComms/status/1266267447838949378 https://twitter.com/TwitterComms/status/1266267447838949378 https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/1323868590047744000 https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/1323868590047744000 [2] Not linking directly, just search for the pirate bay, eztv, or any other torrent site. There are at least one or more handles claiming to be them.

illustriousbear 6y ago
Those are certainly fair points but I think getting bogged down in the ToS and details is side stepping the real issue here. At the end of the day Twitter moderates its own service, which is just their managers and random team members. Twitter sets the rules and can find any justification to ban whoever they want. Do you really think Twitter constrains themselves by their rules? I don't, they will change those rules if they want. As a major source of information, is that what you want? Is getting bogged down in ToS details really the important issue here? If we yell at Twitter and demand them to ban certain content, they are also going to exercise that power when it serves their interests too. You can't have it both ways.
- Bedon292 6y ago
  I don't feel like its getting bogged down in the ToS, but I think I get your point. My main concern is about even application of their policies across the board. If they say something is against their ToS and want to ban it, fine, that's on them. But apply that same thing to everyone. I don't like banning one piracy site but not another. Or banning random folks but not the President. I understand why it happens, just feels more wrong to me than any singular policy decision. In my opinion: Should they ban misinformation? Yes. Should they ban piracy? I want to say no, but if I am really thinking about it they probably should when actually compared with the other things I say yes to. Makes me wonder what kind of ethics theory there is around these kinds of situations. Probably some good reading out there. Anyone know of any good things to read on the subject?

illustriousbear 6y ago

Those are certainly fair points but I think getting bogged down in the ToS and details is side stepping the real issue here. At the end of the day Twitter moderates its own service, which is just their managers and random team members. Twitter sets the rules and can find any justification to ban whoever they want. Do you really think Twitter constrains themselves by their rules? I don't, they will change those rules if they want. As a major source of information, is that what you want? Is getting bogged down in ToS details really the important issue here? If we yell at Twitter and demand them to ban certain content, they are also going to exercise that power when it serves their interests too. You can't have it both ways.

Bedon292 6y ago
I don't feel like its getting bogged down in the ToS, but I think I get your point. My main concern is about even application of their policies across the board. If they say something is against their ToS and want to ban it, fine, that's on them. But apply that same thing to everyone. I don't like banning one piracy site but not another. Or banning random folks but not the President. I understand why it happens, just feels more wrong to me than any singular policy decision. In my opinion: Should they ban misinformation? Yes. Should they ban piracy? I want to say no, but if I am really thinking about it they probably should when actually compared with the other things I say yes to. Makes me wonder what kind of ethics theory there is around these kinds of situations. Probably some good reading out there. Anyone know of any good things to read on the subject?