Specifically, there's a this policy does not apply to military or government entities loophole to these new rules, which many believe to be a workaround for these rules not applying to Trump.
It does not (as stated) apply to the “Content that glorifies violence or the perpetrators of a violent act.”
Nor does it apply to the preexisting hateful conduct policy, “You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or disease. ”
Of course, they have been inconsistent in enforcing the existing policy and given certain high-profile Twitter users a pass on it without an explicit exception, so one would expect that to continue with the new policies even where no explicit exception applies.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/10/twitter-bans-bl...
I believe that particular decision was probably somewhat about disagreeing with her politics, but moreso about stopping outright lies ("fake news") from propagating on their platform when they could stop it.
Scandalous? Yes. Libelous? The NY Times described the practice:
> Companies that obtain [fetal] tissue from clinics and sell it to laboratories exist in a gray zone, legally. Federal law says they cannot profit from the tissue itself, but the law does not specify how much they can charge for processing and shipping.
> ...
> Many [labs] buy the tissue from companies that act as middlemen. Those companies pay small fees, usually $100 or less a specimen, to abortion providers like Planned Parenthood, who say they charge only what they need to cover their expenses. The companies then process the tissue and sell it to researchers for higher prices that reflect the processing.
> The fees, which can run to thousands of dollars for a tiny vial of cells, do not break the law, according to Arthur Caplan, the director of the division of medical ethics at NYU Langone Medical Center.
> “It appears to be legal, no matter how much you charge,” Dr. Caplan said, adding that there appears to be little or no oversight of the processing fees. “It’s a very gray and musty area as to what you can charge.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/28/health/fetal-tissue-from-...
I thought that was Hip-Hop
Nobody has ever held Trump accountable for anything. Hilariously, Twitter holds a lot of power over Trump due to controlling his popular account. They could hold him accountable. They choose not to. Insane.
Trump is the elected president of USA, one of the most important country on Earth. The fact that you suggest a private company should police his speak is insane to me.
Still, a private company can do whatever it wants.
Fact is, regardless, Twitter will never censor Trump or it’ll be the end of Twitter.
But still, it’s a private company that’s not FCC regulated (yet).
If we have a constitutional right to free speech, and the majority of Americans use a certain website for speech, why shouldn't their constitutional rights extend onto that site?
Because their involvement with Twitter is at will, because Twitter is a private institution, and because privacy is scared to our freedom. But mostly perhaps because twitter has not yet been designated a common carrier by the government, which many people are suggesting. I don’t really see twitter as a good fit for that, but then again, I’m not a legal scholar or lawmaker.
What Twitter can do is decide they don't want Trump to be an active member of their community. That is not just within their legal rights; it's well within their moral rights too.
What about the account of Barack Obama, who supported extra-judicial drone killings of US citizens?
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/14/13577464/...
The President is a person, not a god. If they want to use a private platform to speak, then they have to accept that platform's rules, just like anyone else. If they don't like that platform's policy, then they can use any other platform in the world.
A private company cannot and should not police the President’s speech.
However, it can and should (insofar as it does for other users) police the President’s use of that company’s platform for speech.
The alternative is systematically favoring the government against opponents in a way which makes Twitter a de facto government propaganda arm.
The fact Twitter (and a lot of other companies running community/social media sites nowadays) don't seem to have the guts to do this shows how bad they are at enforcing their own 'guidelines'.
But yeah, if Trump joined a service I was in charge of and broke the rules, he'd get punished like any other user would for doing the same thing.
Fun aside, as being forced to house soldiers on your property is enumerated as forbidden, and that the president is the commander in chief, does that mean Twitter could kick him out based on that?
If you want to take it literally, USA is not Trump's property.
He is bringing them traffic and giving them more legitimacy than they have ever had before.
If they banned him he would just switch to another social network and spend the next year telling his supporters to boycott them and then find some creative ways to shaft them through the regulatory state.
Look at the situation with CNN and the ATT/Time Warner merger. Twitter is a very small fish compared to them.