2 ms·
It seems even more restrictive than that -- the person (or some authority) has to notify Twitter and request its removal. It's focused on preventing doxxing and
by dsizzle 5y ago
It seems even more restrictive than that -- the person (or some authority) has to notify Twitter and request its removal. It's focused on preventing doxxing and abuse.
>When we are notified by individuals depicted, or by an authorized representative, that they did not consent to having their private image or video shared, we will remove it. This policy is not applicable to media featuring public figures or individuals when media and accompanying Tweet text are shared in the public interest or add value to public discourse.
https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2021/private-information-policy-update https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2021/private-i...
- chrismcb 5y agoThat isn't what it says. It says you have to show proof of the consent first. This makes it super like you can take a photo of anything in public that has random people in the shot
- dsizzle 5y agoWhere do you see that? The only portions relevant to this that I see in that blog post are consistent with free-to-post, remove-on-complaint: >When private information or media has been shared on Twitter, we need a first-person report or a report from an authorized representative in order to make the determination that the image or video has been shared without their permission. This paragraph wouldn't even make sense if you had to provide proof on upload. Unless this is to say the uploaded proof was counterfeit or something? >When we are notified by individuals depicted, or by an authorized representative, that they did not consent to having their private image or video shared, we will remove it.