World Leaders on Twitter
blog.twitter.com
blog.twitter.com
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.
“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.
Foreign governments are going to do what they do either way -- we are past the point of pretending that our POTUS isn't a flaming dickhead. By giving him additional attention, we're validating him as an important part of the American dialogue. He should not be that, whether he is the POTUS or not.
It's true that because of his position, he is now afforded certain powers that make him difficult to ignore. But I think his nighttime Twitter rants are just "acting out" for attention. If he was 5 years old, we would know to pay attention when he's being serious and ignore him when he's not. But we don't.
Honestly, I think at this point we just have to wait it out and try to minimize the damage he does to our society. I can only hope that the experience will be sobering enough to incite actual social change.
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.
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?
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...
Twitter isn't trying to maintain free speech on their platform with this ruling on world leaders, as they have removed and censored plenty of users before at the request of governments or because of rule/TOS violations, etc.
They're probably just keeping trump because it puts them in the spotlight and gets them a ton of money, thinking its for "free speech" is extremely idealistic imo
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.
* Mocking the parents of a man killed in action serving his country in the military.
* The "grab em by the pussy" tape.
* Racist comments about Mexicans.
* Mocking a disabled reporter
* 'Both sides' about actual nazis.
* Having no knowledge of policy
* Constant lying
We don't need twitter to tell us that he's unfit, unhinged and incapable of doing the job.
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.
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?
Pretending it shouldn't count in this case for some unspecified reason is weird.
"Examples of what we do not tolerate includes, but is not limited to behavior that harasses individuals or groups of people with:
violent threats; wishes for the physical harm, death, or disease of individuals or groups;"
Honestly I'm still baffled by the situation as a whole (i.e how such despicable people came to be in power and stay in the office), which I feel is kind of unprecedented.
Has it ever occurred to anyone parroting this that you can discuss the actual concept of freedom of speech outside of the sphere of influence the government has on it?
It would be nice if instead there was a discussion about the intrinsic value of free speech in society, and how the open marketplace of ideas has a pretty impressive track record.
But to not have the discussion in the first place because of this meme of free speech solely being a citizen/government issue and not a concept in itself is a damn shame.
If you want free speech, you must foster a society in which it can exist without being exploited to coerce masses of people to think in the way you want them to by deceptive means.
So in this way, crying free speech in the streets is useless until people start preventing themselves from falling under the corrosive spells of populists.
I think you're getting it backwards, you can't reverse engineer a perfect society to cradle free speech, the society advances and becomes less violent through more speech.
Going back to the original point though, I think that it's totally fair to discuss freedom of speech alongside twitter as the company has in the past used it in their PR for positive gain. I actually agree that twitter is private and can enforce or ban what they like. What I don't agree with is thought-terminating cliches like not being able to discuss it because of the narrow view that freedom of speech is solely a citizen/government relationship.
In saying that, thank you for expanding on your thoughts.
Can we stop using ungrounded dicta from a since-overturned decision suppressing core political speech as if it were an uncontroversial statement of an established valid limit on free speech?
There are limits imposed upon free speech by the force of law, but no, we don't all agree on them.
People have the right to tell someone they disagree with that they aren’t welcome here anymore. It’s kind of like ‘yeah I heard your opinion and it’s not welcome here’ - no freedom of speech has been infringed upon; I have the right to tell you to buzz off if I do please too
Freedom of speech is not solely "about the right to criticize ones own government without prosecution". It's fair to discuss it as a concept in itself.
Especially when the past leadership of the very company the article is about has enthused the free speech angle of the company.
But kudos for putting it in a sentence and not lazily breaking out that xkcd comic.
What I was getting at, is that there seems to be this knee-jerk reaction recently where when someone mentions freedom of speech and a private platform in the same sentence, it's like a trope that lets people say "a-ha! this isn't a freedom of speech issue as it's not government, disregard all of this!".
It seems that people treat freedom of speech solely like a legal doctrine, when it's a broad concept that has legal implications in jurisdictions worldwide. I guess it's fair to say that the conversation will always sway towards what legal protections are offered or infringed, but that shouldn't prevent us talking about how private companies and individuals choose to explore it.
I just don't like the idea that private companies have some obligation to be bi-partisan; because that's the way some people are throwing around the term "Freedom of Speech" like it's this ticket to say whatever you want to anyone you want.
To me this is the same as a UX problem. Don't get mad at the user for the way they interpret your interface.
To say that it's a UX problem is to lend credence to the idea that all interpretations are equal. My assertion is that the narrow legal interpretation is a recent phenomenon that's nowhere near as 'equal' as talking about it as a concept.
Even the article on Freedom of Speech on wikipedia states that it's a principle, and then directs the user to other articles on legal implications of freedom of speech by jurisdiction.
Not that wikipedia is an absolute authority, but it acts as a demonstration that the language people generally use when talking about freedom of speech is that it's a principle and a set of ideas.
The fact that there are legal implications in jurisdictions doesn't mean that we have a UX problem with the word, nor does it mean that we need "new word" in order to talk about it from the angle in which it's most commonly approached anyway.
But it chooses instead to be a proaganda outlet that lets everyone participate, but select politicians participate on a preferential bases with greater latitude, reinforcing the power of the already powerful and further marginalizing the already marginalized.
What happens if Donald tweets a nude photo or a member of the Saudi royal family posts a video of a state beheading? Are those going to get deleted?
There are people seriously suggesting that Donald J. Trump be held to the same standards with regard to content as other Twitter users, rather than Twitter being a biased, pro-Administration propaganda organ.
Twitter has clearly decided against that (that's been clear for some time, but now it's official.)
> Look, he's a madman, but he's also the president.
And that's why reporting about him is valuable and ought to be protected, and it certainly a reason that he has disproportionate power of government tools of communication.
It's not a reason for a private entity to grant him preferential liberties in a discussion forum that are not granted to others, particularly his domestic political opponents.
Allowing accounts of “world leaders” (so designated by Twitter) does not.
Allowing such accounts freedom from content and participation standards that are applied as a bases for restricting or banning other participants, OTOH, does.
It's always before an election.
With Twitter granting preferential status to “world leaders” not available to others including internal critics and challengers to such leaders, asymmetry no longer needs to occur as a matter of candidate recognition, because it's baked in as a matter of Twitter policy.
Even if such privileged were granted to official challengers, there would be a by-policy assymetric, because in practice political debate which affects election outcomes is continuous, not just during particular phases of the electoral cycle.
As the president, he'll easily find other means to get his message out, just not on Twitter.
The only sort-of argument I can see here is that the modern state gives the government a monopoly on the use of force, so there is something special about the government already, and maybe Twitter should reflect that by not banning the government for acting that way. But I don't really buy that logic.
In the end, either Twitter is a place where threats of violence are allowed, or not. Letting only some people make such threats makes no sense.
PR. No thanks.