4 ms·
What if the party’s account violated Twitter’s ToS?
by jmeister 5y ago
What if the party’s account violated Twitter’s ToS?
- satellite2 5y agoWhy not simply remove the faulty tweet?
- thaumasiotes 5y agoTwitter doesn't do that. They don't delete your tweets. They may prevent anyone else, including your followers, from viewing your tweets. They may prevent you from logging in until you delete your evil tweets yourself. But they won't delete your tweets. That would be Going Too Far.
- mattigames 5y agoBecause that doesn't leave any lasting warning, as the author can just post the same tweet dozens of times again.
- mikece 5y agoIs it reasonable for a public company to have terms of service which allow for the abridgement of political speech absent the commission of a crime? Twitter is affecting the internal politics of a nation by deciding who can and cannot use their platform for political purposes. And no: I would *not* defend the use of Twitter by the Nazi party if this were the 1930s. In this scenario I would expect Twitter to make an explanation that goes beyond the "violates our terms of service" or some amorphous "community guidelines" nonsense. Twitter is affecting political activity in a foreign nation; I would support India in either banning Twitter from their country or taking civil or criminal actions for silencing political discourse (whatever the local laws permit).
- anoonmoose 5y agoYes, I think it is reasonable. You do too, it's just that you think it's ok in some circumstances and not others.
- mikece 5y agoIt is unreasonable if Twitter doesn't make a statement as to why. If an intelligence agency of a foreign government had done this it would be an act of war. I don't see why Twitter should be seen as any less nefarious merely because it's a company with a ToS when they don't actually explain WHY certain decisions are made and cowardly point to a ToS as though that is an omnibus explanation for all of their actions.
- anoonmoose 5y agoIf an intelligence agency or foreign government did it...they'd be hacking Twitter to do it, and we'd be having a different conversation. Twitter should be free to operate their business, within the bounds of the law, as they see fit. If you think they are being unreasonable, sell your stock, delete your account, petition your congress critter.
- ceejayoz 5y ago> It is unreasonable if Twitter doesn't make a statement as to why. The article cites such statements.
- MikeUt 5y agoAnd if their ToS are themselves political?
- capableweb 5y agoAnd since humans are inherently political, we should just delete the entirety of humanity.
- yt9yfyugg 5y agoThen Twitter's ToS was designed in a manner that promotes one political party above the other. It's not complicated.
- capableweb 5y agoHm, maybe. But maybe, some parties are worse than others. I can think of 10s of political parties that should not have been allowed to participate in the democratic process as they (before elections) shown to condone political violence.
- yt9yfyugg 5y agoSo? Condoning violence is irrelevant to if a party represents the electorate.
- refactor_master 5y agoThey’d have to make it legal to condone violence first then.
- ceejayoz 5y agoThat's silly. If I start the "Election Fraud Party", I don't get to complain that enforcing free and fair elections is an attack on me.
- mountainb 5y agoInternational law supersedes Twitter's ToS and Twitter's actions are entangling the United States into international political conflicts that we don't need to be dumped into. The core question as far as international law is concerned is whether or not Twitter's actions in these instances are those of a state or if it is a private actor. Twitter would say it's a private actor, but considering the close historical coordination between Twitter, the State Department, and the intelligence octopus, one would have to be somewhere between clueless, brain damaged, and a stooge to argue that Twitter is wholly a private actor and completely uncontaminated from American state pressure. I'm not an Indian, not ethnically Indian, don't care about India, but India should accordingly treat Twitter as if it is an American state actor and seek restitution and remediation under the exact same reasoning that the United States uses to blame the Russian state for election interference among other miscellaneous "cyber" things. We do use this exact reasoning against the Russians with even less evidence. Our economic policy of attempting to digitally dominate and interfere with foreign powers is also screwing up our diplomacy (not that American diplomacy can really get any more twisted, but still, I'm speaking in terms of the principle here). India's at an inflection point now in its own foreign policy, and it is not helpful to the American interest to have quasi-private frothing algorithmic dogs causing needless diplomatic incidents continuously for no discernable benefit to anyone but Twitter's feckless shareholders.
- anoonmoose 5y agoI am neither clueless, brain damaged, or a stooge, and I think Twitter is a wholly private actor. My opinion on this topic is backed by a raft of laws and legal precedent; yours is not.
- mountainb 5y agoRight, just like the British East India Company was a "private actor." It's just a glove for the hand of the state.
- shadowgovt 5y agoThe Indian government was the entity that first asked Twitter to take action on this issue.