The ongoing Elon Twitter saga: "insert demographic" melts down

Status
Not open for further replies.
Colonel_Klinck said:
I agree on Trump. He should be allowed back on, so everyone can see every day just what a **** he is. He won't be able to resist egging on the far right and white nationalists but better he do it in the public domain than on Truth Social where only his fans will see it and they are happy for him to do it. People need to be reminded just how destructive he is and that in his quest for power he will destroy all norms, break any law and drag society into his gutter.
Click to expand...
The problem Twitter has/had is that its hypocritical. They banned Trump but allow representation of governments and regimes who are actively killing people.

I've always been against permanent bans of people, especially for expressing an opinion. That isn't to say they wouldn't get a suspension, and if the violation is repeated then the length of suspension would increase. Hopefully Musk at some point will present a list of the duration of bans. If someone kept violating the rules then they would effectively have a permanent ban, though the difference is they would have known the consequences and it would be their actions that would have caused it.

I think it also helps with transparency. One difference I've noticed between Facebook and Twitter is Facebook are more upfront with their rules and even though people get temporary banned they accept it because they can see they broke the rule themselves. Whereas on Twitter just expressing a wrong-think opinion suddenly can get their entire account banned, sometimes without an explanation for the ban.
 
BowdonUK said:
The problem Twitter has/had is that its hypocritical. They banned Trump but allow representation of governments and regimes who are actively killing people.
Click to expand...

Did the accounts of "representation of governments and regimes who are actively killing people" infringe Twitter's own T&C's?

Although i do agree, to a certain extent, with Musk's view on permanent banning of accounts but it still boils down to Twitter being a private platform, the T&C's and users agreeing to them on sign-up - break the terms, then there are consequences.

MikeTheNative said:
Does Trump come back though?
Click to expand...

He needs an outlet either way so i suspect he will initially use Twitter to pump his own platform but if/when that doesn't gain traction, then he'll probably move back to Twitter.
 
Energize said:
Even if they actually were, it falls firmly into the Tyranny of the majority category, it's not acceptable to just do anything the majority want, there has to be limits.
Click to expand...

Thats the opposite.

The US Constitution was specifically drawn up to allow the individual States to avoid "the Tyranny of Majority" i.e the Government passing a Federal law which applied to everyone but favoured big cities (as they had the majority of folks) and yet would negatively outcome particular States. So the US Constitution allowed individual States to create their own laws based on the desires of the Majority of the people within that State and allowed for people who didn't approve of that law to move to a different State, as opposed to Federal Law which applies irrespective of State.
 
visibleman said:
Did the accounts of "representation of governments and regimes who are actively killing people" infringe Twitter's own T&C's?

Although i do agree, to a certain extent, with Musk's view on permanent banning of accounts but it still boils down to Twitter being a private platform, the T&C's and users agreeing to them on sign-up - break the terms, then there are consequences.

He needs an outlet either way so i suspect he will initially use Twitter to pump his own platform but if/when that doesn't gain traction, then he'll probably move back to Twitter.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how to split the quotes on this new forum so I'll have to reply to your whole message.

As far as I know Trump didn't infringe Twitter's own T&C's. Unless I'm mistake he was banned for something not on the platforum?

In my view the way forward is for users to have legal accountability and responsibility, while for Twitter it should be about transparency in their rules and moderation protocols. Then everyone knows where they stand.
 
BowdonUK said:
I'm not sure how to split the quotes on this new forum so I'll have to reply to your whole message.

As far as I know Trump didn't infringe Twitter's own T&C's. Unless I'm mistake he was banned for something not on the platforum?

In my view the way forward is for users to have legal accountability and responsibility, while for Twitter it should be about transparency in their rules and moderation protocols. Then everyone knows where they stand.
Click to expand...
Twitters rules are very clear, they are detailed in T&Cs.
 
visibleman said:
Did the accounts of "representation of governments and regimes who are actively killing people" infringe Twitter's own T&C's?

Although i do agree, to a certain extent, with Musk's view on permanent banning of accounts but it still boils down to Twitter being a private platform, the T&C's and users agreeing to them on sign-up - break the terms, then there are consequences.
Click to expand...
ISIS was on Twitter for a long time including the extremely graphical content I heard way back from the past decade that people spoke of that wasn't removed, promptly.
 
The fact was they were throthing at the mouth to punish Trump and "interpret" in the context of "interpretations" of events, inciting hatred armed revolution....lol btw.

Trump has and probably will be again the biggest mistake in presidential history but that's democracy.
 
Just seeing that Texas has apparently passed a law that will make Musk's purchase of Twitter interesting.

Basically you can't moderate social media in such a way that it can be claimed you are "basing it on someone's personal views" as stated on the social media OR off it, and if you just try to block Texas residents from accessing your site (as the only sane way to deal with such a stupid law) you can be sued for that.

As some of the US lawyers are putting it, it makes it impossible to moderate anything that isn't specifically illegal in Texas and utterly removes a sites ability to enforce terms and conditions, so potentially you can't even safely remove porn from a site that is designed for children because porn isn't illegal and if you remove it you're going to at least potentially be wasting time and money fighting a nonsense claim in court and apparently it's worded in such a way that you can't even claim precident from another case with the same basics.
Basically it's a social media killer as it's utterly impossible to reconcile it with practical moderation, or trying to run a service that for example relies on advertising.

On the fun side, I expect the likes of Gab and "truth antisocial" culd get hit harder than twitter, as at the very least Twitter has deeper pockets to fight friviloous suits.
[edit]There is some mention that it only applies to "social media" services with over 50 million users, some might say that was very specifically done so that it doesn't apply to Gab or Trump social (which only seems to have in the low hundreds of users:p)
 
Last edited:
D.P. said:
detailed here :

blog.twitter.com

Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

Suspension of @realDonaldTrump
blog.twitter.com blog.twitter.com


The fact is, Trump's account would have been banned a long time previously for continuously breaking Twitter's ruless. It was only the fact he wss Potus did they let him stay so long.
Click to expand...

Thank you for pointing out the statement and justification of Trumps ban.

Reading the statement, and the tweets they reference, and Twitters glorification of violence policy, in my opinion it fails to meet its criteria i.e. they have put their view of events first.

If people are saying they are a glorification of violence, then wouldn't that rule also apply to a group leader who is living in an oppressive society i.e. they could express through a tweet that they have been robbed of an election voice, and now based on Twitters stance that account should be banned.

In my view it wouldn't even get a suspension. I doubt that Musk would have suspended it either.

That was the point Musk was making in the video. If it's not happening on Twitter then it's none of Twitter business.
 
Could come out with similar justifications to ban a whole bunch of public figures, politicians etc.. for comments, encouragement of BLM protestors/rioters tbh.

The more egregious ban though IMO was the NY Post ban + preventing others even sharing a link to the article.
 
Werewolf said:
Just seeing that Texas has apparently passed a law that will make Musk's purchase of Twitter interesting.

Basically you can't moderate social media in such a way that it can be claimed you are "basing it on someone's personal views" as stated on the social media OR off it, and if you just try to block Texas residents from accessing your site (as the only sane way to deal with such a stupid law) you can be sued for that.

As some of the US lawyers are putting it, it makes it impossible to moderate anything that isn't specifically illegal in Texas and utterly removes a sites ability to enforce terms and conditions, so potentially you can't even safely remove porn from a site that is designed for children because porn isn't illegal and if you remove it you're going to at least potentially be wasting time and money fighting a nonsense claim in court and apparently it's worded in such a way that you can't even claim precident from another case with the same basics.
Basically it's a social media killer as it's utterly impossible to reconcile it with practical moderation, or trying to run a service that for example relies on advertising.

On the fun side, I expect the likes of Gab and "truth antisocial" culd get hit harder than twitter, as at the very least Twitter has deeper pockets to fight friviloous suits.
[edit]There is some mention that it only applies to "social media" services with over 50 million users, some might say that was very specifically done so that it doesn't apply to Gab or Trump social (which only seems to have in the low hundreds of users:p)
Click to expand...
Good!

That's why Twitter has Section 230. It shouldn't be moderating anything. It's T&C should be about removing illegal material and keeping the flow of information moving.

There is porn on Twitter, and at the moment they don't need to remove it.

There is a darker side of Twitter (and other social media companies) that show links to CP. Under the current situation law enforcement relies on Twitter to remove those posts through good will. Because Twitter itself has legal protection as a carrier. So if some random posts something illegal and Twitter doesn't remove it, or respond to any requests to remove it, nothing will happen.

There as been some good youtube documentaries about this situation. Also there is a good interview on the Valuetainment channel, were Patrick Bet-David interviews a former high ranking Facebook moderator.

I think US law should apply to Twitter as its a US company. It should be made to comply with removing illegal material in a timely manner once it's reported to them. They should also be forced to keep the data records of the person that made the post for X amount of years in case any law enforcement people want to go after the poster.

No private company as the right to ride over the laws of the land and harbour criminality.
 
Spicy shenanigans in MuskWorld, as the SEC investigates his late share purchase disclosure.

The Securities and Exchange Commission is probing Musk’s tardy submission of a public form that investors must file when they buy more than 5% of a company’s shares, the people said. The disclosure functions as an early sign to shareholders and companies that a significant investor could seek to control or influence a company.
Click to expand...

This allowed Musk to save $143 million. It also enabled him to acquire more stock without alerting other shareholders.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom