

Twitter account suspension prompts user backlash - nsns
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19061032

======
dannyr
Spike Lee (Director) tweeted somebody's physical address.

[http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/spike-lee-apologizes-
geo...](http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/spike-lee-apologizes-george-
zimmerman-address-tweet-015514123.html)

His account is still good though.

<https://twitter.com/SpikeLee>

~~~
s_henry_paulson
I fail to see how this is similar unless you have proof that someone filed a
complaint and Twitter failed to act on it.

~~~
dannyr
So are you saying that even if Twitter knows about Spike Lee's violation
(which they likely do), Twitter does not have to act unless somebody files a
complaint?

~~~
willurd
Don't worry everyone, I have just filed a complaint (above). I'm sure Twitter
will suspend Spike Lee's account as soon as they receive it.

/s

In all seriousness, you all might want to fill their inboxes with similar
complaints.

~~~
res0nat0r
Unless George Zimmerman files the complaint himself, I think you getting Spike
Lee suspended isn't going to happen.

~~~
willurd
Maybe not me, but there is strength in numbers. I think the most important
thing is making it, at the very least, an uncomfortable situation for Twitter.
These 'untouchable' entities need to know they can't continue to get away with
stuff without a fight.

------
nilsbunger
Is a corporate email address really "personal information" ??

~~~
uncoder0
The email address is/was easily found by a google search. I don't think it was
private information but I can see how it is 'personal'. It really depends on
how Twitter defines "personal information".

~~~
masklinn
> The email address is/was easily found by a google search.

It is now, it looks like it was not before: [http://searchengineland.com/nbc-
olympic-executives-email-was...](http://searchengineland.com/nbc-olympic-
executives-email-wasnt-widely-available-in-google-128973)

~~~
uncoder0
That article does a poor job proving that you could not find the name before
with a simple google search and/or some basic deduction.

------
s_henry_paulson
Let's say someone "popular" posted a negative tweet about you, and included
your contact information.

Would you want Twitter to notify you about it and see if you wanted to file a
complaint, or would you rather just sit in a deluge of hatemail with no idea
of where it's coming from?

~~~
stfu
I, for one, know that there is a thing called "Google" that I use for solving
mysteries like these. Plus, applied in a general context, do you expect
Twitter now to contact every email address posted on the platform to check
back with the owner on the legality of disclosing the email address to the
public?

~~~
s_henry_paulson
Obviously you can't police the world, but if there is a system that prevents
abuse that they have the ability to use, I see no reason not to use it.

Also, this has nothing to do with legality, only TOS/privacy policy violations
that you agree to when you sign up.

------
frogpelt
The Twitter Rules state "Privacy: You may not publish or post other people's
private and confidential information, such as credit card numbers, street
address or Social Security/National Identity numbers, without their express
authorization and permission."

The lines are a little blurred when they consider an executive's email address
which is already on a public website to be private or confidential contact
information.

On the other hand, Twitter probably decided that suspending one user rather
than upsetting NBC was an okay trade off. That appears to have been a
miscalculation.

I doubt Twitter will suffer very long for it.

------
gmisra
I wonder what would have twitter done if this happend in March 2011, and the
e-mail address in question was that of a Libyan secret police "executive"?

------
zippie
Whether or not the e-mail address could be found out with "30 seconds of free
time and access to Google" is irrelevant. Posting private information about
someone violates twitter's TOS and therefore the account was banned.

The fact it's someone who criticized a sponsor of twitter is irrelevant
because that account would not have been suspended if an e-mail address
(personal information) had not been posted.

~~~
jonknee
It's the fact that they don't enforce this policy that makes it controversial.
How about to email Tim Cook about something? Plenty of tweets with
tcook@apple.com in them.

~~~
zippie
His e-mail is public information - it's widely available on Google. Gary
Zenkel's is not.

[http://searchengineland.com/nbc-olympic-executives-email-
was...](http://searchengineland.com/nbc-olympic-executives-email-wasnt-widely-
available-in-google-128973)

Beyond that, how would you like it if your e-mail, home address was tweet'ed
out and you were heckled?

~~~
pessimizer
You, and searchengineland, are fixating on the word "widely." At the last
company I worked at, my work email was in a single place - on the site of my
company, on the contact page. According to the searchengineland examination of
the word "widely" (which I'm not disagreeing with, and I think is a poor
choice of words), it was not widely available.

Maybe "clearly" available is a better word? But fixating on the word "widely"
is clearly a red herring, and is clearly not something that searchengineland
is advancing as a reasonable criterion for a TOS violation, and is clearly
being intentionally obtuse.

~~~
ceol
The parent isn't fixated on the word "widely"— you are. Your entire comment
talks about how "widely" is a poor word choice and, in doing so, misses the
parent's point.

Swap out the word "widely" with the word "intentionally" if it makes you feel
better, but don't claim red herring when the word was obviously used in an
off-handed manner.

~~~
pessimizer
I was commenting on the link offered as evidence, which was fixated on the
word widely. Any company that uses firstname.lastname@company.com is
intentionally making emails available.

------
ashbrahma
Looks like his account has been restored:
[http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/07/31/twitter-restores-
th...](http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/07/31/twitter-restores-the-account-
of-journalist-suspended-over-nbc-olympics-protest/)

------
crag
Wait.. Twitter notified NBC who then "filled out the forms" to have this guy
suspended?

I thought Twitter didn't monitor users tweets?

~~~
brianwhitman
The article says "He quoted an NBC spokesman as saying: "Our social media
department was actually alerted to it by Twitter and then we filled out the
form and submitted it."

I can read this in one of two ways: Twitter (the company) alerted NBC, or
Twitter users on the social network Twitter alerted NBC. There's not much
clarity there, but obviously the former is scary and confusing and the latter
happens all the time.

~~~
untog
_the former is scary_

Depends _a lot_ on context. If Twitter had said "FYI, one of your e-mail
addresses is currently publicly visible on our service, expect a deluge of
e-mail", I don't see a huge problem. If they said "Hey, want us to ban this
guy?" then that's something different.

~~~
shrikant
From here[1]:

 _The team working closely with NBC around our Olympics partnership did
proactively identify a Tweet that was in violation of the Twitter Rules and
encouraged them to file a support ticket with our Trust and Safety team to
report the violation, as has now been reported publicly._

Looks like your latter situation is exactly how it went down.

[1] [http://blog.twitter.com/2012/07/our-approach-to-trust-
safety...](http://blog.twitter.com/2012/07/our-approach-to-trust-safety-
and.html)

~~~
crag
OK then.. this is serious.

------
da_n

      "The team working closely with NBC around our Olympics partnership..."
    

I'm really worried about what Twitter is becoming.

