4 ms·

So let me understand this, Twitter, which banned it's own United States President, is now removing itself from responsibility of banning other nation's presiden

So let me understand this, Twitter, which banned it's own United States President, is now removing itself from responsibility of banning other nation's presidents many of whom call for genocide and violence and are stated enemies of Twitters parent country?

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
I think you're misreading the history. For years, Twitter refused to ban basically any world leader, including the US president, despite many calls for them to do so and many tweets that would've gotten you or I banned. But events 2 months ago rendered that stance untenable. So now they've gotta come up with a new one, since they don't want the rule to be "special privileges, but only for leaders who Twitter, Inc. happens to like". It's very likely that whatever new policy comes out of this will involve restrictions on other nation's presidents.
- chmod775 6y ago
  > But events 2 months ago rendered that stance untenable. Now that's just not true. What trump did was a relatively minor infraction compared to what is happening in some countries around the world. Like it just doesn't come close on any scale. The realization here is that people at twitter have an opinion on US politics, and are generally oblivious to the rest of the world. The waters they're in would've been way less hot if they just did nothing and claimed neutrality. In that light shedding their neutrality was a very conscious decision by Twitter.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    It was relatively minor, but it was a lot more relevant to Twitter because it happened in the country where most of their employees and servers are located. What they realized, I think, is that their prior stance of "we'll never ban a world leader" was naive; they hadn't fully thought through the potential negative effects, because the full spectrum of consequences that a government leader's speech can have was outside the personal experience of the policy setters.
    - TrispusAttucks 6y ago
      No. What's naive is to think that the United States President being banned wasn't political. This is an admission of that and an attempt to save face.
      - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        Who thinks it's not political? That's why they had a hands-off policy for so long - they knew that any real sanction of a world leader is inherently political, no matter how good your reasons are.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

I think you're misreading the history. For years, Twitter refused to ban basically any world leader, including the US president, despite many calls for them to do so and many tweets that would've gotten you or I banned. But events 2 months ago rendered that stance untenable. So now they've gotta come up with a new one, since they don't want the rule to be "special privileges, but only for leaders who Twitter, Inc. happens to like". It's very likely that whatever new policy comes out of this will involve restrictions on other nation's presidents.

chmod775 6y ago
> But events 2 months ago rendered that stance untenable. Now that's just not true. What trump did was a relatively minor infraction compared to what is happening in some countries around the world. Like it just doesn't come close on any scale. The realization here is that people at twitter have an opinion on US politics, and are generally oblivious to the rest of the world. The waters they're in would've been way less hot if they just did nothing and claimed neutrality. In that light shedding their neutrality was a very conscious decision by Twitter.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  It was relatively minor, but it was a lot more relevant to Twitter because it happened in the country where most of their employees and servers are located. What they realized, I think, is that their prior stance of "we'll never ban a world leader" was naive; they hadn't fully thought through the potential negative effects, because the full spectrum of consequences that a government leader's speech can have was outside the personal experience of the policy setters.
  - TrispusAttucks 6y ago
    No. What's naive is to think that the United States President being banned wasn't political. This is an admission of that and an attempt to save face.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      Who thinks it's not political? That's why they had a hands-off policy for so long - they knew that any real sanction of a world leader is inherently political, no matter how good your reasons are.