3 ms·

Wouldn't that fall under: > This policy is not applicable to media featuring public figures or individuals when media and accompanying Tweet text are shared in

• eyelidlessness 5y ago
  1. It’s not clear, at least to me, that this applies to police. They’re employed by the public, but I don’t know if I’d associate them with the common colloquial usage of public figures. That could just be me misunderstanding that usage. 2. The parent comment was about other, private individuals in the same photo. Given Twitter’s very spotty track record of inconsistent moderation (regardless of any real or perceived bias), any grey area here will certainly be a target—whether or not a successful one—for abuse of this new rule. I can, for instance, easily imagine it being used in an attempt to suppress images/video of police responses to confrontations between BLM protestors and pick-your-counterprotestors. 3. Moreover, I can imagine fabricated claims of such moderation action being taken, sewing all sorts of disinformation about events—real or likewise fabricated—and information about them that never existed, or existed in a significantly different form. 4. While I’m generally more in favor [than probably the average HN reader] of privately owned websites being able to moderate their sites as they deem appropriate… this particular example is the first I thought of where this rule as written may have significant, harmful consequences.
  • IanCal 5y ago
    For 1 and 2 it doesn't say they have to be public figures, just that it's in the public interest.