6 ms·

After Carping About NBC’s Olympics Coverage, Journalist Suspended from Twitter

78 points by iProject 14y ago

nthitz 14y ago
Technically he was suspended from Twitter for tweeting the email address of NBC exec Gary Zenkel.
- vidar 14y ago
  But its fair to say that it would not have been a problem had the coverage been positive. This is the price of playing with the big boys, you have to stick up for your partners. There is no way you can go the media company route (vs. the api/infrastructure route) and not get this conflict.
  - killerswan 14y ago
    Seems like app.net is worth another look... https://join.app.net/ https://join.app.net/
    - tree_of_item 14y ago
      Why? It's not open source and is vulnerable to the same issues, i.e. a single point of failure should some large entity deem a message undesirable. It'd be better to take a look at things like status.net, or more low level solutions such as http://scripting.com/stories/2012/07/25/anOpenTwitterlikeEcosystem.html http://scripting.com/stories/2012/07/25/anOpenTwitterlikeEco....
      - seagreen 14y ago
        We need LINT! (LINT Is Not Twitter) Any other resource recommendations besides the Winer article?
- rickmb 14y ago
  Which is extremely disturbing because it is not a private email address. It's a corporate business address, which makes it as socially acceptable as "send all your complaints to NBC c/o Gary Zenkel", and not against Twitter's policy.
  - shock3naw 14y ago
    Why is that not a private email address? Just because I have a corporate email address, that doesn't mean I expect random fan mail or people I don't know emailing me complaints/whatever. Twitter received a complaint from NBC, and according to the Terms of Service, the account had to be suspended. Obviously this backfired, but that's not the point.
- uptown 14y ago
  ...which is now available in the text of the Reuters story which unquestionably has a larger audience than the original tweet. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/30/us-twitter-nbc-journalist-idUSBRE86T19720120730 http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/30/us-twitter-nbc-jou...
  - Zenst 14y ago
    Guess double standards are still alive. Wonder how google+ and facebook handle this.
- incision 14y ago
  It's worth pointing out that the address in question is a corporate address (Gary.zenkel@nbcuni.com). That address is surely about as "personal" to Zenkel as the 30 Rockefeller Plaza address is.
  - slantyyz 14y ago
    Are business e-mails considered personal/private information - legally speaking - in the USA? I was under the impression that non-business e-mails, phone numbers and addresses were considered private, but anything related to a business was fair game.
    - dkrich 14y ago
      Most definitely private. The only exception is if you haven't taken reasonable actions to keep it private (ie, if you had posted it publicly).
      - rhizome 14y ago
        Au contraire. I give you Intel vs. Hamidi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Corp._v._Hamidi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Corp._v._Hamidi
        dkrich 14y ago
        Did you read the OP's comment or that Wikipedia article? That has nothing to do with what he asked which was whether corporate emails were considered private. You're citing a case about trespassing by somebody who already had access to the email addresses.
        rhizome 14y ago
        This email address was publicly available, and I can see how that would be tantamount to already having the address, as in Hamidi.
- DigitalSea 14y ago
  Even though technically the email address is not a non-public one. As pointed out in the article the email address can be found via a simple Google search.
  - danielweber 14y ago
    "Findable via google" doesn't mean "okay by our ToS to post it." Even Reddit will stomp on you if you post someone's home address that you find via the google. I think it's arguable whether his work address is "personal information" or not. EDIT LoganCale points out that I am wrong. He's right.
    - LoganCale 14y ago
      It does in this case: "If information was previously posted or displayed elsewhere on the Internet prior to being put on Twitter, it is not a violation of this policy."
- fleitz 14y ago
  I'm pretty sure his employment contract deems the address as property of NBC Universal, therefore it's impossible that it could be Gary Zenkel's private email. It's an email owned by a public company, that's about as public as you get.
- LoganCale 14y ago
  Twitter's ToS* states "If information was previously posted or displayed elsewhere on the Internet prior to being put on Twitter, it is not a violation of this policy." and it appears in at least one location online from long before this incident: http://www.fidei.org/2011/06/boycott-nbc-removed-under-god-from.html http://www.fidei.org/2011/06/boycott-nbc-removed-under-god-f... * This is actually not directly from the ToS, but a Twitter support page which serves to clarify the part of the ToS which states this.
  - Zenst 14y ago
    Yes but NBC are social media bullies, what next there communications officer calling all people who complain names, oh wait no that already happened. This is the same NBC that cancelled Star Trek, they clearly have not learned how to handle social interactions and feedback still from there customers and potentual customers.
kaiju 14y ago
"How are the first social media games going?" Wait, what? Social media didn't exist in 2008?
- Aqwis 14y ago
  Winter Olympics in 2006 and 2010, too.
- k-mcgrady 14y ago
  In 2008 Twitter still wasn't widely used by the general public. It only had 6 million users.
  - Zenst 14y ago
    Very true and it is sad to see a TV company using bullying as its approach to social media.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
debacle 14y ago
This appears to be true. If it is, coupled with all of the other crazy Olympics Twitter snafus, Twitter is pretty much dead to me. I only use it to follow the ~20-30 obscure Internet celebrities that I care about, and for that it was useful, but it's not worth associating with such a scatterbrained company.
- incision 14y ago
  I don't get Twitter, never have. For every "social media is changing our world" moment that pops up every few months there are 12,460,000,000 worthless tweets clogging up the other 89 days. It seems to me that the primary use of the service is to provide an IV drip of useless information for update addicted. The "great" moments are purely incidental.
  - freehunter 14y ago
    Isn't that life, though? Truly great moments in life are few and far between, but we live through the dull moments in order to see the great moments. Yeah twitter is mostly useless, but the times when it's not useless outshine the times when it is useless.
    - slurgfest 14y ago
      What is really the use? I don't have an interest in killing time with it, so if there is a real use maybe I can take advantage of that in a more focused way without continuously sampling from an endless stream of drivel.
      - freehunter 14y ago
        I use twitter heavily in the info sec world, mainly to keep abreast of new developments. There are always new hacks and exploits coming out, and they get posted on twitter first. The trick is to follow your interests. If you don't care about world news, NASCAR, or celebrities, don't follow them.
    - cookiecaper 14y ago
josephcooney 14y ago
Toppling governments in north africa/persian gulf - OK. Lambasting major US corporation for their ineptitude - NOT OK.
- slurgfest 14y ago
  According to whom?
  - ihuman 14y ago
    According to twitter
    - Joakal 14y ago
      Actually, it's twitter is giving government the power to refuse tweets that topple government as of this year[0]. Google followed suit shortly. [0] Twitter to selectively 'censor' tweets by country. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16753729 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16753729
    - slurgfest 14y ago
      Thank you for answering, it was not clear to me and it is apparently politically incorrect to ask :)
stfu 14y ago
Sad to see Twitter becoming one of these companies who easily bow to corporate/government intimidation. Always thought Twitter was one of the good guys. Very disappointing but fortunately this is becoming a "story". Let's see what kind of damage control they are trying to pull off.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
olefoo 14y ago
It is sad to see twitter becoming yet another ad bloated cyclopean monstrosity desperately trying to fleece it's users before they flee for greener pastures. I've been quite fond of it over the years, but if it starts engaging in vindictive censorship; then it becomes a poisoned well and can no longer be trusted.
Zenst 14y ago
Nice to see google+ has a more fair policy and are less suseptable to bullying via shrinking TV companies. https://plus.google.com/u/0/?tab=wX#110741260330832413403/posts https://plus.google.com/u/0/?tab=wX#110741260330832413403/po... -- No email address's were hurt during this post.

78 points by iProject 14y ago

nthitz 14y ago

Technically he was suspended from Twitter for tweeting the email address of NBC exec Gary Zenkel.

vidar 14y ago
But its fair to say that it would not have been a problem had the coverage been positive. This is the price of playing with the big boys, you have to stick up for your partners. There is no way you can go the media company route (vs. the api/infrastructure route) and not get this conflict.
- killerswan 14y ago
  Seems like app.net is worth another look... https://join.app.net/ https://join.app.net/
  - tree_of_item 14y ago
    Why? It's not open source and is vulnerable to the same issues, i.e. a single point of failure should some large entity deem a message undesirable. It'd be better to take a look at things like status.net, or more low level solutions such as http://scripting.com/stories/2012/07/25/anOpenTwitterlikeEcosystem.html http://scripting.com/stories/2012/07/25/anOpenTwitterlikeEco....
    - seagreen 14y ago
      We need LINT! (LINT Is Not Twitter) Any other resource recommendations besides the Winer article?
rickmb 14y ago
Which is extremely disturbing because it is not a private email address. It's a corporate business address, which makes it as socially acceptable as "send all your complaints to NBC c/o Gary Zenkel", and not against Twitter's policy.
- shock3naw 14y ago
  Why is that not a private email address? Just because I have a corporate email address, that doesn't mean I expect random fan mail or people I don't know emailing me complaints/whatever. Twitter received a complaint from NBC, and according to the Terms of Service, the account had to be suspended. Obviously this backfired, but that's not the point.
uptown 14y ago
...which is now available in the text of the Reuters story which unquestionably has a larger audience than the original tweet. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/30/us-twitter-nbc-journalist-idUSBRE86T19720120730 http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/30/us-twitter-nbc-jou...
- Zenst 14y ago
  Guess double standards are still alive. Wonder how google+ and facebook handle this.
incision 14y ago
It's worth pointing out that the address in question is a corporate address (Gary.zenkel@nbcuni.com). That address is surely about as "personal" to Zenkel as the 30 Rockefeller Plaza address is.
- slantyyz 14y ago
  Are business e-mails considered personal/private information - legally speaking - in the USA? I was under the impression that non-business e-mails, phone numbers and addresses were considered private, but anything related to a business was fair game.
  - dkrich 14y ago
    Most definitely private. The only exception is if you haven't taken reasonable actions to keep it private (ie, if you had posted it publicly).
    - rhizome 14y ago
      Au contraire. I give you Intel vs. Hamidi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Corp._v._Hamidi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Corp._v._Hamidi
      - dkrich 14y ago
        Did you read the OP's comment or that Wikipedia article? That has nothing to do with what he asked which was whether corporate emails were considered private. You're citing a case about trespassing by somebody who already had access to the email addresses.
        rhizome 14y ago
        This email address was publicly available, and I can see how that would be tantamount to already having the address, as in Hamidi.
DigitalSea 14y ago
Even though technically the email address is not a non-public one. As pointed out in the article the email address can be found via a simple Google search.
- danielweber 14y ago
  "Findable via google" doesn't mean "okay by our ToS to post it." Even Reddit will stomp on you if you post someone's home address that you find via the google. I think it's arguable whether his work address is "personal information" or not. EDIT LoganCale points out that I am wrong. He's right.
  - LoganCale 14y ago
    It does in this case: "If information was previously posted or displayed elsewhere on the Internet prior to being put on Twitter, it is not a violation of this policy."
fleitz 14y ago
I'm pretty sure his employment contract deems the address as property of NBC Universal, therefore it's impossible that it could be Gary Zenkel's private email. It's an email owned by a public company, that's about as public as you get.
LoganCale 14y ago
Twitter's ToS* states "If information was previously posted or displayed elsewhere on the Internet prior to being put on Twitter, it is not a violation of this policy." and it appears in at least one location online from long before this incident: http://www.fidei.org/2011/06/boycott-nbc-removed-under-god-from.html http://www.fidei.org/2011/06/boycott-nbc-removed-under-god-f... * This is actually not directly from the ToS, but a Twitter support page which serves to clarify the part of the ToS which states this.
- Zenst 14y ago
  Yes but NBC are social media bullies, what next there communications officer calling all people who complain names, oh wait no that already happened. This is the same NBC that cancelled Star Trek, they clearly have not learned how to handle social interactions and feedback still from there customers and potentual customers.

kaiju 14y ago

"How are the first social media games going?" Wait, what? Social media didn't exist in 2008?

Aqwis 14y ago
Winter Olympics in 2006 and 2010, too.
k-mcgrady 14y ago
In 2008 Twitter still wasn't widely used by the general public. It only had 6 million users.
- Zenst 14y ago
  Very true and it is sad to see a TV company using bullying as its approach to social media.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

debacle 14y ago

This appears to be true. If it is, coupled with all of the other crazy Olympics Twitter snafus, Twitter is pretty much dead to me. I only use it to follow the ~20-30 obscure Internet celebrities that I care about, and for that it was useful, but it's not worth associating with such a scatterbrained company.

incision 14y ago
I don't get Twitter, never have. For every "social media is changing our world" moment that pops up every few months there are 12,460,000,000 worthless tweets clogging up the other 89 days. It seems to me that the primary use of the service is to provide an IV drip of useless information for update addicted. The "great" moments are purely incidental.
- freehunter 14y ago
  Isn't that life, though? Truly great moments in life are few and far between, but we live through the dull moments in order to see the great moments. Yeah twitter is mostly useless, but the times when it's not useless outshine the times when it is useless.
  - slurgfest 14y ago
    What is really the use? I don't have an interest in killing time with it, so if there is a real use maybe I can take advantage of that in a more focused way without continuously sampling from an endless stream of drivel.
    - freehunter 14y ago
      I use twitter heavily in the info sec world, mainly to keep abreast of new developments. There are always new hacks and exploits coming out, and they get posted on twitter first. The trick is to follow your interests. If you don't care about world news, NASCAR, or celebrities, don't follow them.
  - cookiecaper 14y ago

josephcooney 14y ago

Toppling governments in north africa/persian gulf - OK. Lambasting major US corporation for their ineptitude - NOT OK.

slurgfest 14y ago
According to whom?
- ihuman 14y ago
  According to twitter
  - Joakal 14y ago
    Actually, it's twitter is giving government the power to refuse tweets that topple government as of this year[0]. Google followed suit shortly. [0] Twitter to selectively 'censor' tweets by country. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16753729 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16753729
  - slurgfest 14y ago
    Thank you for answering, it was not clear to me and it is apparently politically incorrect to ask :)

stfu 14y ago

Sad to see Twitter becoming one of these companies who easily bow to corporate/government intimidation. Always thought Twitter was one of the good guys. Very disappointing but fortunately this is becoming a "story". Let's see what kind of damage control they are trying to pull off.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

olefoo 14y ago

It is sad to see twitter becoming yet another ad bloated cyclopean monstrosity desperately trying to fleece it's users before they flee for greener pastures. I've been quite fond of it over the years, but if it starts engaging in vindictive censorship; then it becomes a poisoned well and can no longer be trusted.

Zenst 14y ago

Nice to see google+ has a more fair policy and are less suseptable to bullying via shrinking TV companies. https://plus.google.com/u/0/?tab=wX#110741260330832413403/posts https://plus.google.com/u/0/?tab=wX#110741260330832413403/po... -- No email address's were hurt during this post.