Why Does Twitter Refuse to Shut Down Donald Trump?
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/001150.html
A reporter asked me a provocative question some days ago: "Why do you
think Twitter hasn't enforced their own Terms of Service rules when it
comes to Donald Trump?"
I didn't have an immediate answer. I told him I'd look into this, think
about it, and get back to him.
So I've been researching this in considerable depth.
I found that any reasonable analysis of the situation suggests that
Trump should have been closed down on Twitter long ago.
To be sure, I don't regularly follow Trump on Twitter, just as I don't
frequent websites devoted to close-up photos of diarrhea.
Certainly I do hear about some of his tweets from time to time, when
they leak onto other social media or when the press tries to get more
clicks from displaying them on cable news and such (ah, perhaps our
first clue to the mystery!).
Exploring an archive of even his relatively recent Twitter activity --
which instantly reminded me somehow of a vile bully named Sheldon I knew
back in elementary school -- it was startling what a hateful, deceitful
spew of apparent lies and direct attacks that Trump has been leveraging
Twitter to deliver -- with his enormous following on Twitter, presumably
to Twitter's financial benefit as well (another clue!).
It's quite a Twitter stream Trump has going there -- if you're into
gawking at gruesome highway wrecks, that is. Onslaughts against
individuals. Similar attacks against organizations, even against entire
races. White supremacist propaganda. On and on and on. Try
retrospectively reading Donald's tweets without feeling the need to
vomit -- virtually impossible if you're a socialized human being and not
someone raised by hyenas.
Yet as long as a Tweet isn't actually illegal (irrespective of Trump's
creepy, sexualized comments about his own daughter) Twitter is not
actually obligated to take any action against anyone.
But Twitter is certainly obligated to apply the rules that they do have
in an evenhanded manner. And looking back over the collection I have of
complaints from Twitter users who feel Twitter terminated their accounts
inappropriately -- even for a single comment that was interpreted to be
disrespectful in some way -- it would appear that Twitter is coddling
Trump in a unique manner indeed.
A reading of the Twitter content Terms of Service suggests at least
three categories relating to hate speech and harassment that should
apply to Trump (but apparently haven't been applied), but seem to have
been rigorously enforced against other, ordinary users on a hair-trigger
basis.
Are there special exceptions in the Twitter ToS for obnoxious
billionaires running for the presidency? Or for tweets where the
individuals, organizations, or others targeted by those tweets did not
formally complain to Twitter?
No matter how deeply you study those Terms of Service, you won't find
such exceptions.
But wait! Perhaps there's an exception if you're only retweeting other
users' material? After all, Trump's most popular excuse for his most
offensive tweets seems to be that he was "only retweeting someone else."
Nope, I can't find an exception for that, either. You retweet someone
else's tweet, you own that content just as if it was your tweet
originally.
The conclusion appears inescapable. Twitter apparently has voluntarily
chosen to "look the other way" while Donald Trump spews forth a trolling
stream of hate and other abuses that would cause any average Twitter
user to be terminated in a heartbeat.
There's always room to argue the proprietary or desirability of any
given social media content terms of service -- or the policy precepts
through which they are applied.
It is also utterly clear that if such rules are not applied to everyone
with the same vigor, particularly when there's an appearance of
profiting by making exceptions for particular individuals, the moral
authority on which those rules are presumably based is decimated,
pointless, and becomes a mere fiction.
In other words, we thought that Twitter was far more ethical
than Donald Trump.
Apparently, that assumption is in error.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein ([email protected]): http://www.vortex.com/lauren
Founder:
- Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org
- PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com/privacy-info
Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: http://www.pfir.org/pfir-info
Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Google+: http://google.com/+LaurenWeinstein
Twitter: http://twitter.com/laurenweinstein
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com
I have consulted to Google, but I am not currently
doing so -- my opinions expressed here are mine alone.
_______________________________________________
nnsquad mailing list
http://lists.nnsquad.org/mailman/listinfo/nnsquad
