Twitter is paralysed by Trump's tweeting

[Deleted]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-42191166

Once again, Twitter finds itself between a rock and a far-right place.

Donald Trump’s retweeting of Britain First's Jayda Fransen on Wednesday was a truly shocking moment. The British Prime Minister said it was "wrong". It contributed, as one US news site put it, to Trump's "darkest day" as President.

Yet as Wednesday rolled into Thursday, the leader of the free world retweeting a far-right organisation became just another frightful part of what we apparently refer to as the "new normal".

Now perhaps the most surprising element of this spectacle isn't that the President amplified the tweets of a woman who has been fined for hate speech - but that those tweets are still there.

Volatile space

Recently Twitter has pledged to crack down on hate speech, and, more importantly, promised to be more transparent about how it goes about moderating its increasingly volatile space.

It said those who engaged in hateful behaviour, online and offline, would see their "verified" status removed, acknowledging that some saw the bright blue tick as badge of honour for Twitter users.

Twitter has pledged to be more transparent about how it deals with hate speech

The three tweets in question showed shocking video clips, though Ms Fransen's captions added context that was both inaccurate and inciteful, targeting, as Britain First usually does, Muslim immigrants.

On Thursday, Twitter said it wouldn't take any action against the tweets - though it did tag the material as "sensitive".

Despite its new transparency pledge, it refused to offer an explanation, or give any indication - even off the record - as to its reasoning for keeping the tweets online.

Ms Fransen, Britain First's deputy leader, remains on the platform - verified with a blue tick - despite "offline" behaviour that includes a fine of almost £2,000 for religiously-aggravated harassment of a stranger in the street. Ms Fransen admitted to shouting abuse at the Muslim woman, who was with her children.

When asked about Ms Fransen's tweets and status, a Twitter spokeswoman sent the BBC the following statement.

"To help ensure people have an opportunity to see every side of an issue there may be the rare occasion when we allow controversial content or behaviour which may otherwise violate our Rules to remain on our service because we believe there is a legitimate public interest in its availability."

Jayda Fransen has more than 52,000 followers on Twitter

The follow up questions are obvious. What is "every side" to this story? What is the "public interest in its availability"?

Twitter said it would not offer further comment.

Irrelevant nature

One argument might be that the precise content of the videos are important to those wanting to have an informed opinion on Trump's decision - but even his own press secretary apparently disagrees with that.

"I'm not talking about the nature of the video," Sarah Huckabee Sanders told White House reporters on Wednesday.

"I think you're focusing on the wrong thing. The threat is real, and that's what the president is talking about."

In other words, the content of the videos were irrelevant to Trump's wider point, whatever that may have been. Twitter, however, considers it vital to the public interest to keep the videos online, boosted by the President to more than 40 million followers.

That's not a view shared by Brendan Cox, whose wife, the MP Jo Cox, was shot dead in 2016 by a man who shouted "Britain first" as he killed her.

"Spreading hatred has consequences and the President should be ashamed of himself," Mr Cox wrote on Twitter.

With that in mind, Twitter's safety team might want to consider whether there's greater public interest in taking the tweets down.

Inconsistency

It seems a lifetime ago now that Twitter billed itself, back in 2012, as the "free speech wing of the free speech party", a characterisation that both the company, and arguably the internet as a whole, has well outgrown.

Things were simpler for Twitter back then. Now, its reality is one where it apparently can't please anyone. While its team in San Francisco debated internally (we assume) what to do about Trump's retweeting, the head of the US communications regulator was in Washington accusing it (and other big networks) of unevenly and unfairly censoring conservative voices online.

Twitter chief executive Jack Dorsey has not commented on the issue

The firm's chief executive Jack Dorsey, who from time-to-time weighs in on controversial matters to dampen the hysteria, has so far been silent on Mr Trump's retweeting of Britain first.

Renowned tech commentator John Gruber described Twitter's statement as "weasel-ese" - another sign of a company paralysed; unprepared to handle the tidal wave it would face were it to take action against the President's Twitter activity.

Twitter's inconsistent treatment of hate speech surely makes you consider if rather than acting in in the public's interests, it's far more concerned about its own.

I was tempted to post this in the other thread but feel this could be discussed enough in its own thread

[Deleted]

Twitter IS Trump. If you bookmark twitter than it's for the President of the United States. Twitter lacks any other identity.

[Manabomb]

Tbh, Trump broke twitters ToS a long time ago, the fact they keep him on even now is pandering to the #1 thing that gets them $$$$.

Also, see late night hosts.

- - - Updated - - -

Twitter should really remove what ever content they want from their site. They are not governmental body so free speech laws do not apply.

That's technically not true when using statements from state and government officials. Twitter is, of course, a corporation within the United States and obeys those laws. What is the intellectual property of the website and what is the referenced intellectual property of the combined united states people is up to the courts/historians to decide.

[ONCHEhap]

Twitter IS Trump. If you bookmark twitter than it's for the President of the United States. Twitter lacks any other identity.

yeah man all those trump memes

[Independent voter]

We all know people who are very left wing, they are so left wing that if they see a centrist they place him in the ultra-right group and if they ever ran across a right wing person they'd classify him as insane.

The trick is finding someone who has a decent perspective on who is where on the political spectrum, you don't want to hire a extreme person left or right to rule on a twitter post, you want someone who knows what left right and center is.

[Deleted]

We all know people who are very left wing, they are so left wing that if they see a centrist they place him in the ultra-right group and if they ever ran across a right wing person they'd classify him as insane.

The trick is finding someone who has a decent perspective on who is where on the political spectrum, you don't want to hire a extreme person left or right to rule on a twitter post, you want someone who knows what left right and center is.

So somebody who isn't American ?

[Allybeboba]

We all know people who are very left wing, they are so left wing that if they see a centrist they place him in the ultra-right group and if they ever ran across a right wing person they'd classify him as insane.

The trick is finding someone who has a decent perspective on who is where on the political spectrum, you don't want to hire a extreme person left or right to rule on a twitter post, you want someone who knows what left right and center is.

That’s why people shouldn’t let their biasness cloud their personal judgment my friend.

Cheers!

[Deleted]

Trump reposted a mildly shocking (you can find similar posts on reddit btw) video of ISIS being ISIS and killing people. So what's the issue here?!

[Deleted]

Trump reposted a mildly shocking (you can find similar posts on reddit btw) video of ISIS being ISIS and killing people. So what's the issue here?!

You would know if you read into it

[derpkitteh]

Twitter should really remove what ever content they want from their site. They are not governmental body so free speech laws do not apply.

i would enforce free speech laws on social media. it has become something more than just a company at this point.

i really don't see what the big deal is. nobody should be surprised by anything he does at this point. if you don't like it, impeach. the constant furor and outrage is just a nuisance.

[Rennadrel]

I mean, I don't agree with Trump but he isn't wrong when he told May that she should be focusing on fighting religious terrorism rather than on what he shares on Twitter. And really, I think part of that is honest truth. We spend way too much time giving a damn about what other people say who aren't causing us a problem, while you have numerous networks of terrorists and criminals who pose significant threats to national security.

That said, Twitter needs to be shut down. The amount of far-left propaganda, and the racist, anti-male hate speech is outright ridiculous enough as it is.

[Hyral]

Yet another example of why he won.

[shimerra]

Yet another example of why he won.

Stupid people more concerned with blind partisanship and tribalism than facts and a competent leader?

Yeah we all knew that.

[Destump]

i would enforce free speech laws on social media. it has become something more than just a company at this point.

i really don't see what the big deal is. nobody should be surprised by anything he does at this point. if you don't like it, impeach. the constant furor and outrage is just a nuisance.

Hm I disagree. I think the constant outrage is quite funny. It shows how weak some people are because they cannot handle any authority that doesn't completely fit within their world view, and I think it has a boy who cried wolf effect. People are whining and pissing their pants so much, that the negative impact of Trump's actions in normal people's minds will diminish.

[Rennadrel]

Twitter should really remove what ever content they want from their site. They are not governmental body so free speech laws do not apply.

No, it can't work like that. You can't set a precedent for a single agenda or viewpoint in a public forum, because doing that just leads to more aggravation of the people who are being censored for their beliefs. You can't ban one form of hate speech and tolerate another, because that just amplifies the outrage from one side more, and in turn leads to more escalating conflicts between opposing sides. You can have a debate, but the line needs to be drawn that at a certain point, the rules are broken, no matter what the position is.

[shimerra]

No, it can't work like that. You can't set a precedent for a single agenda or viewpoint in a public forum, because doing that just leads to more aggravation of the people who are being censored for their beliefs. You can't ban one form of hate speech and tolerate another, because that just amplifies the outrage from one side more, and in turn leads to more escalating conflicts between opposing sides. You can have a debate, but the line needs to be drawn that at a certain point, the rules are broken, no matter what the position is.

That percedent has already been established. You don't get to come into my house and scream about how all black people are just trying to get high on reefer and rape all our white women any more than I have to rent you my arena so you can have a rally to scream that at a lot of people. Hell the same even applies for saying that that isn't the case if I were someone who believed that. Twitter, just like you, is under no obligation to give anyone a platform. It's sound business to give as many people as they can but that's it.


You also mistake twitter. It is not a public forum. It's a privately owned forum that the public has access to. What you're actually pissing and whining about is that you don't always agree with what they chose to ban as hate speech. Not anything of actual substance.

[Deleted]

You would know if you read into it

1. Video is legit.

2. Western civilized world hates ISIS, because they try to impose their own version of islam with cruelty and crime

What's more to read into it? Nothing invalides the truth of the video.

[Deleted]

1. Video is legit.

2. Western civilized world hates ISIS, because they try to impose their own version of islam with cruelty and crime

What's more to read into it? Nothing invalides the truth of the video.

You're aware the video in question are the three fake propaganda videos he re-tweeted

[shimerra]

1. Video is legit.

2. Western civilized world hates ISIS, because they try to impose their own version of islam with cruelty and crime

What's more to read into it? Nothing invalides the truth of the video.

Well you don't even have to read into it, you just need to be able to read to know the videos are faked.

Ccan you read?

[Rennadrel]

You're aware the video in question are the three fake propaganda videos he re-tweeted

Part of it isn't fake, from what I have heard.