Quantcast
Twitter statement reveals why it won't ban Trump over his controversial tweets

Forums - Politics Discussion - Twitter statement reveals why it won't ban Trump over his controversial tweets

JWeinCom said:
DonFerrari said:

Where in "Yes let's silence all we disagree with. A very good policy. " I stated general random facebook posts?


Have I said they aren't allowed to do it? I know they are a private corporation, that is even why I said they are free to not follow or enforce their ToS, I just said I'm against this part of it, simple as that.

May be a question of the bubble we leave within in facebook. But on my account I see a lot of those getting banned and "reverse racism" and manhating getting props and no ban.

"It's quite common on Brazilian facebook accounts and movements speaches."

There.

That wasn't my first post on this thread. And the "movement speaches" is something about random posters? Nope those are mouthpieces of some progressive movements.

ArchangelMadzz said:
DonFerrari said: 

Have I said they aren't allowed to do it? I know they are a private corporation, that is even why I said they are free to not follow or enforce their ToS, I just said I'm against this part of it, simple as that.

May be a question of the bubble we leave within in facebook. But on my account I see a lot of those getting banned and "reverse racism" and manhating getting props and no ban.

I think it's a pretty good idea to have a rule against inciting hatred or violence against an individual for a social media company.

Well considering you spend your free time looking for people who aren't banned for certain things it's not odd that you'd pay more attention to those who aren't getting banned.

Well not going to discuss what the company have to do or not, they decide if they do and if we don't agree we don't go there.

Well it may be a case of looking at the subject or not, for sure. But since we do agree on the premisse that all should be threated equally under the ToS independent of their reasoning or alignment there isn't much for us to discuss =]



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network

I have no issue at all with Twitter not banning Trump but this statement is just way for them to cover their back since they ban people left and right for way less offenses. Very apporiate of them to adress this issue AFTER Trump became president :).



imo it shows what he thinks



DonFerrari said:
JWeinCom said:

"It's quite common on Brazilian facebook accounts and movements speaches."

There.

That wasn't my first post on this thread. And the "movement speaches" is something about random posters? Nope those are mouthpieces of some progressive movements.

By initial, I meant the first post I responded to.  And I've honestly never heard the term movement speeches, nor does a google or dictionary search yield any relevant usages, so I can't be expected to know what you mean by that. 



ArchangelMadzz said:
DonFerrari said:
Yes let's silence all we disagree with. A very good policy.

Way to put a spin on "You can't threaten violence on our platform"

Governments can legally engage in violence, individuals cant. Different standards, Trump represents a government.



Around the Network
Aeolus451 said:
Nem said:

What he is saying is against the terms of service. Anyone else would be banned. If anything he is getting special treatment.

Like the verified users who say stuff like "kill white people"?

You should report them.



contestgamer said:
ArchangelMadzz said:

Way to put a spin on "You can't threaten violence on our platform"

Governments can legally engage in violence, individuals cant. Different standards, Trump represents a government.

It's his personal twitter account that is threatening violence. Anyway, we're not talking about anything legal, we're talking about a private company and their terms of service. 



ArchangelMadzz said:
DonFerrari said:
Yes let's silence all we disagree with. A very good policy.

Way to put a spin on "You can't threaten violence on our platform"

Usually limited to ineffectual ALL CAPS abuse... 



It was Britain, it is America, tomorrow France and next year, the world... 

Warning: This poster has a very negative opinion of Sony and Nintendo, Idea Factory and companies Tecmo Koei, EA, BioWare, Blizzard, Treyarch, Infinity Ward, Kadokawa and Sega. If you have very positive views of these and a negative view of Microsoft or Bethesda Game Studios, AVOID ENGAGEMENT AT ALL COSTS! 

    I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that Trump is basically keeping Twitter alive at this point.



    JWeinCom said:
    DonFerrari said:

    That wasn't my first post on this thread. And the "movement speaches" is something about random posters? Nope those are mouthpieces of some progressive movements.

    By initial, I meant the first post I responded to.  And I've honestly never heard the term movement speeches, nor does a google or dictionary search yield any relevant usages, so I can't be expected to know what you mean by that. 

    Ok for the initial, miss comunication.

    You couldn't associate movement speeches with the major representatives of a movement speaking in the name of it? But ok. My bad if I was unprecise.

    contestgamer said:
    ArchangelMadzz said:

    Way to put a spin on "You can't threaten violence on our platform"

    Governments can legally engage in violence, individuals cant. Different standards, Trump represents a government.

    That is indeed and sadly true. Government retain the monopoly over violence. And to the answer gave to you, Trump currently is the maximum representative of the govern, but surely Twitter isn't mandated to keep his account and allow him to break ToS because of it.



    duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

    http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

    Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

    http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994