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

[groundloop]

Source: CBS News

Twitter Inc. said it will not block world leaders from its social media platform because they play a critical role in global and public conversations. Friday's statement comes after some Twitter users have called on the company to ban President Trump for tweets that they say encourage violence, even stoking fears of a nuclear war between the U.S. and North Korea.

"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," the company said in a blog post Friday.

Twitter said the company reviews tweets by world leaders "within the political context that defines them" and then "[enforces] our rules accordingly."

Twitter has come under fire in the past for falling short when it comes to reining in bullying, threats and hate speech. It has repeatedly promised to improve its policies and has issued a succession of new rules aimed at reducing abuse on the platform. Twitter's rules "prohibit promoting violence against or directly attacking or threatening other people on the basis of their group characteristics, as well as engaging in abusive behavior that harasses, intimidates, or uses fear to silence another person's voice." Some Mr. Trump critics claim the president's more bombastic tweets fall into that category.



Read more: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/twitter-statement-trump-world-leaders-controversial-tweets/

---

In other words 45* drives a lot of business to twitter so they're going to let him continue with his abusive, divisive, racist bullshit

[GusBob]

1. It's good to be the king

Rules only apply to serfs and peons

[50 Shades Of Blue]

2. Twitter: Complicit in WW3...

[riversedge]

7. Horrible to say, but it may come to that.

[democratisphere]

3. Twitter Sh'tter is managed by a bunch of hypocrites.

Empowering insanity and destruction.

[efhmc]

6. Agreed.

nt

[ck4829]

4. That's fine. It's time to connect respect for his tweets and "respect for the office" together.

[Roy Rolling]

5. They don't have to ban him

They just have to enforce their own Terms of Service for improper tweets.

Weasels.

[kydo]

8. Well, maybe it's time to not take part in twitter anymore. Just like facebook.

I have never had a my space, or facebook page. Never needed them. I used to design websites, so no need for that crap. I want a page on the net I make my own.

Now twitter I have an account. Not for me. For a not for profit org that doesn't even use it. I look at twitter though. Just don't post. Don't need an account for that.

But if peeps are supposed to adhere to terms of use but some don't have to because they are "important" or world leaders, they don't have to abide by the terms everyone else does. No! The only reason given is cause they hold some title or office. People that have these, titles/offices are generally excepted to not abuse their positions and treat their office/title with respect. None of that applies to orange man. He is NOT using the PoTUS #. He is using his personal account. Suspend that account!

[Ligyron]

9. Problem is: Twitter allows Trump to drive the narrative every.freaking.day.

Whereas in the past a Pres would have to ask for airtime or send out a shill for a press briefing, etc., Twitter allows him to distract from any potential criticism just by using his thumbs. If he does something crazy and folks start to call him on it - he just does something even crazier to change the subject.

Nothing much we can do about it so I guess we have to be somewhat appreciative for this instantaneous window into his thinking at any given time.

[Cosmocat]

10. "if we banned this lunatic the GOP zombies would revolt and our stock valuation would plummet"

nm

[rock]

11. Has Donald got a mouse in his pocket

That happens to be a world leader?

[Arazi]

12. Then he shouldn't be allowed to block anyone. If "seeing" his tweets is their rationale

Then he should not be allowed to block anyone

[truthisfreedom]

13. 2 sets of standards. One for the people that keep twitter alive, and another for twitler.

This is a pile of disgustingly weak excuses that their lawyers cooked up to silence dissent and sell out to the repukes.

Twitter is no better than the worst characters they support.

[herding cats]

14. Thing is, this is his private twitter account.

I could accept this rationale if it were the official @POTUS account, but it’s not. This is his ‘just another citizen’ account.

[Puzzler]

18. Precisely!!!

-Puzzler

[snort]

15. Fuck Twitter

Fuck Facebook too.

[keithbvadu2]

16. I would rather he stay on twitter... He shows himself in a negative light.

[bitterross]

17. At least they are finally being somewhat honest about it.

Sure, it is a BS reason. I'm certain they'd have no trouble banning Kim Jong Un or some third-world leader if they called for genocide of a segment of their population. At least we've finally moved them to the point of actually putting out a statement saying that he can shoot someone in the middle of 5th avenue and they won't be bothered with it.

Also, they do kind of have a point about how it won't silence him. He's still got FOX news and right-wing radio. It isn't as if the MSM isn't also very much responsible for his rise too. They should have had much different coverage of him during the election than they did.

From their standpoint I can't really say I blame them. He's going to get his message to the base and why shouldn't they make money off of it when everyone else is going to and no one else is going to stop him either. The congress who really should be, isn't going to.

No, they're actually right to make the money they can off of it all. Especially in this country. Remember - Capitalism! He who dies with the most zeros at the end in his bank account balance wins. We are all really responsible for this outcome if we stop to think about it.