Twitter is here to serve and help advance the global, public conversation.
Twitter is there to make money for its shareholders by showing ads to regular users in exchange for cash money.
Elected world leaders play a critical role in that conversation because of their outsized impact on our society.
World leaders are a cash cow for Twitter, who doesn't give a hoot about how they came to power. I doubt they'd deny an account to a Saudi prince, for example.
Blocking a world leader from Twitter or removing their controversial Tweets, would hide important information people should be able to see and debate. It would also not silence that leader, but it would certainly hamper necessary discussion around their words and actions.
These two statements are mutually exclusive; if leaders are dependent on Twitter to get information out (they're not) then it ought to be run as a public utility in a truly open fashion. Meanwhile, someone being on or off Twitter would seem to have little impact on other people's ability to discuss their doings on Twitter.
But if we're to accept Twitter's stance, then political leaders ought not to be able to delete their tweets, since the purported necessity of seeing and debating them is undermined if they can retroactively edit the record of their own public statements.
We review Tweets by leaders within the political context that defines them, and enforce our rules accordingly.
Twitter is absolutely not going to mess with anyone who could seize any of staff or assets by force, but would like to retain a shred of dignity.
No one person's account drives Twitter’s growth, or influences these decisions. We work hard to remain unbiased with the public interest in mind.
Please think of Twitter as a public utility even though it is actually a for-profit business with a PR problem.
We are working to make Twitter the best place to see and freely discuss everything that matters. We believe that’s the best way to help our society make progress.
NYSE: TWTR has been in a 2 year trough since falling to ~1/3 of its 2014 high and would really like to like to have and eat its cake simultaneously, pretty please.
Thanks for this, seems appropriately cutting. The whole situation has put Twitter in a weird place, and I can understand why they don't want to cut Donald off, but it's clear that this post is just "We don't want to", but with a few paragraphs of spin. I wish they would be more honest about it.
Personally, I don't think it should be Twitter's responsibility to censor Trump. He has a way of shoehorning himself into public consciousness, and I think the public (especially the mainstream media) needs to self-censor and stop paying him so much attention. I wouldn't care if Donald tweeted whatever he wants, except that it always seems to end up in the news.
I don't think they should be getting rid of him, particularly - like other posters, I think he does more damage to himself politically via tweet than any of his opponents could.
But I do think this issue highlights the long-standing tension between platforms-as-utilities (which involve public rights-of-way, so to speak) vs as commercial entities that can choose their customers, or not. The fact that a politician can delete their tweets or block people while ostensibly using Twitter in their official capacity is directly at odds with the happy talk.
It's good that Twitter as a commercial entity has brought instant global publication into reality from a technological point of view, but I wish it were a federated protocol instead, that's not subject to the desires of any authority. As long as it's a commercial platform, the need to extract economic rents from it inevitably take priority over ethical questions.
The fact the president of the United States made an inflammatory public statement is news whether you like it or not. Foreign governments make decisions and tailor their own rhetoric based off of the Twitter messages made by the president.
“Ignore him and he’ll go away” was fantastic advice I wish the media used in 2015 and 2016; a different candidate would have won the Republican primary were it not for the president’s overwhelming media coverage.
That advice no longer holds true. I agree that sensationalizing public statements is destructive to society.
Twitter is there to make money for its shareholders
Everyone already knows Twitter isn't a charity. This fact does not mean that the company can't have a worthwhile purpose like "advancing the global, public conversation".
They don't have to choose one, they can have both.
World leaders are a cash cow for Twitter
So what? World leaders can also help defense contractors and kindergarten teachers. How does that affect whether their statements should visible for public conversation?
In response to your first comment, TWTR has never made a profit. Ever. Stopped reading your post after that because, you know, you’re wrong. Just saying
Having a goal of making money for shareholders and actually achieving that goal (making a profit) are two different, separable things. I can have a goal of running a marathon and be unable to. Both can be true without contradiction. (And following up with two tired memes doesn't add anything to further conversation constructively.)
Trump using Twitter isn't the problem. In fact, it actually gives us a weirdly detailed bit of oversight into his actions and thoughts (such as they are). I actually think this is helpful when dealing with someone so erratic and uninformed. Everyone in their right mind sees his tweets for what they mostly are: Frustrated bloviations and childish temper-tantrums.
The problem is electing someone as President who would use Twitter the way Trump does. We should never have done that in the first place and, thankfully, that's an error We The People can correct.
Addendum:
I do, though, think that Twitter's response is inadequate. They have a community. Their community is being turned toxic by this man and his ilk. His use of Twitter as President isn't the problem, but Twitter needs to address the effect of people like him on their platform and the world in general.
And that way more complicated than just banning a warmonger President. Sadly, I'm not sure Twitter has shown themselves to be up to the challenge.
Twitter will never ban Trump's tweets because he alone saved the company from coming to an end. Twitter is giving leaders free reign to tweet as they deem fit while everyone else needs to adhere to their code of conduct. It's a bit two-faced but from the perspective of running a business I see why twitter did this.
The simple fact of the matter is that the President of the United States -- no matter who they are -- occupies a special place in our society. So, yes, Twitter is right to treat him differently than, say, Milo.
And, yes: I'm sure this is all very good for Twitter's business...
Without his tweets, we'd only know about how crazy and unbalanced he is via the "biased" and "corrupt" and "failing" media... with Twitter, we get to see it directly from his keyboard, thus leading to better debate about his fitness to serve.
That being said, it's a double standard, most ordinary people would have been banned before they tweeted half-way down the first column of what's in that ad...
> We should never have done that in the first place and, thankfully, that's an error We The People can correct.
Assuming enough people in enough places that 'matter' (not a majority of the voting population.. if you recall) wants that shitshow of a president to be replaced.
If they'll single out political leaders and give them special protection from being blocked, the leaders should lose their ability to block others. Twitter is admitting that they are a "town hall" here and they need to let everyone speak their mind to their politicians.
I could almost understand this if they had a policy of not blocking anyone else who posted similarly hate-filled speech, but they don't. If you're not in the white house you're going to have a bad time.
So the policy is, "We don't allow hate speech unless you are extremely famous and well-known and then hate speech is totally fine".
Also weird that they chose to use the phrase "world leader" instead of president or country leader or something like that. There aren't really that many world leaders around. So Twitter can still prevent the leader of some other country from having their say?
because the whole post is PR speak for "we are going to continue letting donald trump deny climate change and threaten to kill millions of civilians on twitter" under the facade of free-speech protection
I think it is hilarious when people argue with Trump on Twitter, because I realize he is 71 years old. He's literally someone's old grandpa on Twitter. How many 71 year olds do you know on Twitter? How many people do you know would argue and talk shit with a 71 year old grandpa on Twitter?
I understand he's not just _any_ 71 year old grandpa, but it's so funny to think about it that way.
"Blocking a world leader from Twitter or removing their controversial Tweets, would hide important information people should be able to see and debate."
I actually agree with this.
"We review Tweets by leaders within the political context that defines them, and enforce our rules accordingly."
Certain world leaders have sometimes posted tweets that would likely get anyone else banned. I would prefer Twitter to be more explicit about what they're doing -- namely not enforcing rules against hateful and abusive content when exposing such content is seen a net benefit.
If Random Q. Person posts something that's abusive enough to violate Twitter's rules, there's no particular benefit in allowing that content to remain. If Powerful Famous Person posts the same thing, there's arguably substantial benefit in letting it be exposed.
On the other hand, applying the same rules to both would also be a valid policy. I merely suggest being a bit clearer about what those rules are and how they're enforced.
A large number of twitter users frequently advocate for the removal of donald trump, twitter ignored it until now but basically just officially responded "no"
People have been suspended from Twitter and required to delete posts for pretty mild, joking stuff like "we should get rid of men", but Trump has not. @jack has stated a few times that Trump gets exempted from the rules because of the "newsworthiness" of his tweets - this just makes that official.
Popehat got suspended for doxxing. See the screenshot in your link. The person is abusing him, and should also be banned, but doxxing is bad.
Mosquito ban sounds like a natural language mistake - only a human would understand the subject he's threatening to kill is the mosquito pictured, and your link confirms Twitter said it was a mistake.
Obviously Twitter should enforce rules for sex and racial discrimination. Joking doesn't make those things OK.
Trump is a military leader - making threats, like any military and police person, is part of their job. Would you support banning Barack Obama for threatening Assad?
Readit News
Twitter is there to make money for its shareholders by showing ads to regular users in exchange for cash money.
Elected world leaders play a critical role in that conversation because of their outsized impact on our society.
World leaders are a cash cow for Twitter, who doesn't give a hoot about how they came to power. I doubt they'd deny an account to a Saudi prince, for example.
Blocking a world leader from Twitter or removing their controversial Tweets, would hide important information people should be able to see and debate. It would also not silence that leader, but it would certainly hamper necessary discussion around their words and actions.
These two statements are mutually exclusive; if leaders are dependent on Twitter to get information out (they're not) then it ought to be run as a public utility in a truly open fashion. Meanwhile, someone being on or off Twitter would seem to have little impact on other people's ability to discuss their doings on Twitter.
But if we're to accept Twitter's stance, then political leaders ought not to be able to delete their tweets, since the purported necessity of seeing and debating them is undermined if they can retroactively edit the record of their own public statements.
We review Tweets by leaders within the political context that defines them, and enforce our rules accordingly.
Twitter is absolutely not going to mess with anyone who could seize any of staff or assets by force, but would like to retain a shred of dignity.
No one person's account drives Twitter’s growth, or influences these decisions. We work hard to remain unbiased with the public interest in mind.
Please think of Twitter as a public utility even though it is actually a for-profit business with a PR problem.
We are working to make Twitter the best place to see and freely discuss everything that matters. We believe that’s the best way to help our society make progress.
NYSE: TWTR has been in a 2 year trough since falling to ~1/3 of its 2014 high and would really like to like to have and eat its cake simultaneously, pretty please.
Personally, I don't think it should be Twitter's responsibility to censor Trump. He has a way of shoehorning himself into public consciousness, and I think the public (especially the mainstream media) needs to self-censor and stop paying him so much attention. I wouldn't care if Donald tweeted whatever he wants, except that it always seems to end up in the news.
But I do think this issue highlights the long-standing tension between platforms-as-utilities (which involve public rights-of-way, so to speak) vs as commercial entities that can choose their customers, or not. The fact that a politician can delete their tweets or block people while ostensibly using Twitter in their official capacity is directly at odds with the happy talk.
It's good that Twitter as a commercial entity has brought instant global publication into reality from a technological point of view, but I wish it were a federated protocol instead, that's not subject to the desires of any authority. As long as it's a commercial platform, the need to extract economic rents from it inevitably take priority over ethical questions.
“Ignore him and he’ll go away” was fantastic advice I wish the media used in 2015 and 2016; a different candidate would have won the Republican primary were it not for the president’s overwhelming media coverage.
That advice no longer holds true. I agree that sensationalizing public statements is destructive to society.
Everyone already knows Twitter isn't a charity. This fact does not mean that the company can't have a worthwhile purpose like "advancing the global, public conversation".
They don't have to choose one, they can have both.
World leaders are a cash cow for Twitter
So what? World leaders can also help defense contractors and kindergarten teachers. How does that affect whether their statements should visible for public conversation?
who could seize any of staff or assets by force
Are you fucking kidding me?
Dead Comment
Eating first is by far the more common usage. The Wikipedia article has a surprisingly thorough exploration of the historical usage of both variants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_can%27t_have_your_cake_and...
The problem is electing someone as President who would use Twitter the way Trump does. We should never have done that in the first place and, thankfully, that's an error We The People can correct.
Addendum:
I do, though, think that Twitter's response is inadequate. They have a community. Their community is being turned toxic by this man and his ilk. His use of Twitter as President isn't the problem, but Twitter needs to address the effect of people like him on their platform and the world in general.
And that way more complicated than just banning a warmonger President. Sadly, I'm not sure Twitter has shown themselves to be up to the challenge.
And, yes: I'm sure this is all very good for Twitter's business...
P.S. Loved the Full page NY Times ad of his tweets - https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cviq5rBWYAQeh56.jpg
That being said, it's a double standard, most ordinary people would have been banned before they tweeted half-way down the first column of what's in that ad...
...video of (or live attendance at) his speeches, and via the actual concrete actions he undertakes in government.
Yeah but, that didn't stop him from getting elected in the first place, if anything it made him more endearing to his base.
Assuming enough people in enough places that 'matter' (not a majority of the voting population.. if you recall) wants that shitshow of a president to be replaced.
Dead Comment
So the policy is, "We don't allow hate speech unless you are extremely famous and well-known and then hate speech is totally fine".
Which is, IMHO, total bullshit.
I understand he's not just _any_ 71 year old grandpa, but it's so funny to think about it that way.
I actually agree with this.
"We review Tweets by leaders within the political context that defines them, and enforce our rules accordingly."
Certain world leaders have sometimes posted tweets that would likely get anyone else banned. I would prefer Twitter to be more explicit about what they're doing -- namely not enforcing rules against hateful and abusive content when exposing such content is seen a net benefit.
If Random Q. Person posts something that's abusive enough to violate Twitter's rules, there's no particular benefit in allowing that content to remain. If Powerful Famous Person posts the same thing, there's arguably substantial benefit in letting it be exposed.
On the other hand, applying the same rules to both would also be a valid policy. I merely suggest being a bit clearer about what those rules are and how they're enforced.
Example: @Popehat got suspended for posting screenshots of someone abusing him: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170803/16341437919/twitt...
Example: This guy got suspended for killing a mosquito: http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-41097947
Mosquito ban sounds like a natural language mistake - only a human would understand the subject he's threatening to kill is the mosquito pictured, and your link confirms Twitter said it was a mistake.
Obviously Twitter should enforce rules for sex and racial discrimination. Joking doesn't make those things OK.
Trump is a military leader - making threats, like any military and police person, is part of their job. Would you support banning Barack Obama for threatening Assad?