
World Leaders on Twitter - minimaxir
https://blog.twitter.com/official/en_us/topics/company/2017/world-leaders-and-twitter.html
======
anigbrowl
_Twitter is here to serve and help advance the global, public conversation._

Twitter is there to make money for its shareholders by showing ads to regular
users in exchange for cash money.

 _Elected world leaders play a critical role in that conversation because of
their outsized impact on our society._

World leaders are a cash cow for Twitter, who doesn't give a hoot about how
they came to power. I doubt they'd deny an account to a Saudi prince, for
example.

 _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._

These two statements are mutually exclusive; if leaders are dependent on
Twitter to get information out (they're not) then it ought to be run as a
public utility in a truly open fashion. Meanwhile, someone being on or off
Twitter would seem to have little impact on other people's ability to discuss
their doings on Twitter.

But if we're to accept Twitter's stance, then political leaders ought not to
be able to delete their tweets, since the purported necessity of seeing and
debating them is undermined if they can retroactively edit the record of their
own public statements.

 _We review Tweets by leaders within the political context that defines them,
and enforce our rules accordingly._

Twitter is absolutely not going to mess with anyone who could seize any of
staff or assets by force, but would like to retain a shred of dignity.

 _No one person 's account drives Twitter’s growth, or influences these
decisions. We work hard to remain unbiased with the public interest in mind._

Please think of Twitter as a public utility even though it is actually a for-
profit business with a PR problem.

 _We are working to make Twitter the best place to see and freely discuss
everything that matters. We believe that’s the best way to help our society
make progress._

NYSE: TWTR has been in a 2 year trough since falling to ~1/3 of its 2014 high
and would really like to like to have and eat its cake simultaneously, pretty
please.

~~~
l_t
Thanks for this, seems appropriately cutting. The whole situation has put
Twitter in a weird place, and I can understand why they don't want to cut
Donald off, but it's clear that this post is just "We don't want to", but with
a few paragraphs of spin. I wish they would be more honest about it.

Personally, I don't think it should be Twitter's responsibility to censor
Trump. He has a way of shoehorning himself into public consciousness, and I
think the public (especially the mainstream media) needs to self-censor and
stop paying him so much attention. I wouldn't care if Donald tweeted whatever
he wants, except that it always seems to end up in the news.

~~~
linkregister
The fact the president of the United States made an inflammatory public
statement is news whether you like it or not. Foreign governments make
decisions and tailor their own rhetoric based off of the Twitter messages made
by the president.

“Ignore him and he’ll go away” was fantastic advice I wish the media used in
2015 and 2016; a different candidate would have won the Republican primary
were it not for the president’s overwhelming media coverage.

That advice no longer holds true. I agree that sensationalizing public
statements is destructive to society.

~~~
l_t
I don't necessarily think his comments should be ignored, just treated like
what they are: childish rants that don't have a strong connection to reality.

Foreign governments are going to do what they do either way -- we are past the
point of pretending that our POTUS isn't a flaming dickhead. By giving him
additional attention, we're validating him as an important part of the
American dialogue. He should not be that, whether he is the POTUS or not.

It's true that because of his position, he is now afforded certain powers that
make him difficult to ignore. But I think his nighttime Twitter rants are just
"acting out" for attention. If he was 5 years old, we would know to pay
attention when he's being serious and ignore him when he's not. But we don't.

Honestly, I think at this point we just have to wait it out and try to
minimize the damage he does to our society. I can only hope that the
experience will be sobering enough to incite actual social change.

------
chasing
Trump using Twitter isn't the problem. In fact, it actually gives us a weirdly
detailed bit of oversight into his actions and thoughts (such as they are). I
actually think this is helpful when dealing with someone so erratic and
uninformed. Everyone in their right mind sees his tweets for what they mostly
are: Frustrated bloviations and childish temper-tantrums.

The _problem_ is electing someone as President who would use Twitter the way
Trump does. We should never have done that in the first place and, thankfully,
that's an error We The People can correct.

Addendum:

I do, though, think that Twitter's response is inadequate. They have a
community. Their community is being turned toxic by this man and his ilk. His
use of Twitter as President isn't the problem, but Twitter needs to address
the effect of people like him on their platform and the world in general.

And that _way_ more complicated than just banning a warmonger President.
Sadly, I'm not sure Twitter has shown themselves to be up to the challenge.

~~~
Matt_Mickiewicz
Without his tweets, we'd only know about how crazy and unbalanced he is via
the "biased" and "corrupt" and "failing" media... with Twitter, we get to see
it directly from his keyboard, thus leading to better debate about his fitness
to serve.

P.S. Loved the Full page NY Times ad of his tweets -
[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cviq5rBWYAQeh56.jpg](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cviq5rBWYAQeh56.jpg)

That being said, it's a double standard, most ordinary people would have been
banned before they tweeted half-way down the first column of what's in that
ad...

~~~
dragonwriter
> Without his tweets, we'd only know about how crazy and unbalanced he is via

...video of (or live attendance at) his speeches, and via the actual concrete
actions he undertakes in government.

~~~
davidw
Right - things that were not tweets:

* Mocking the parents of a man killed in action serving his country in the military.

* The "grab em by the pussy" tape.

* Racist comments about Mexicans.

* Mocking a disabled reporter

* 'Both sides' about actual nazis.

* Having no knowledge of policy

* Constant lying

We don't need twitter to tell us that he's unfit, unhinged and incapable of
doing the job.

~~~
nailer
What were the racist comments about Mexicans? I know he made some comments
about illegal immigrants, but most Mexicans in America are not illegal
immigrants.

------
PascLeRasc
If they'll single out political leaders and give them special protection from
being blocked, the leaders should lose their ability to block others. Twitter
is admitting that they are a "town hall" here and they need to let everyone
speak their mind to their politicians.

~~~
maxerickson
Celebrities aren't using twitter in a way that they read replies so it only
matters in a box checking sort of way.

~~~
kylnew
doesn't blocking someone on twitter also block others from seeing the replies
too? If so, it's a lot more impactful than that

~~~
maxerickson
That's a good point, the block stops them from replying altogether (or quote
tweeting).

~~~
Grue3
I think the fundamental property of a block feature should be complete
undetectability that the user has been blocked by the user in question. For
example Usenet killfile: you never know if you're in somebody's killfile
unless they tell you so. Twitter's block function obviously fails this test,
which makes it completely useless: once you realize you're blocked, just
create another account to continue harassing the user who blocked you.

~~~
maxerickson
Mute does that.

~~~
Grue3
So you're saying Twitter already has a block function that actually works?
Then it's all the more baffling they also have one that doesn't work, and yet
is somehow more well known.

~~~
maxerickson
They have 2 different functions with different names that do different things.
They call the method of blocking you prefer "mute".

~~~
Grue3
My point is that "mute" is strictly better than "block", so there's no reason
to have "block" in the first place. Even if somebody likes the misfeature of
the blockee knowing they're blocked, you can always tweet "I just muted
@theannoyingperson", so that @theannoyingperson knows they're muted.

------
LeoPanthera
I could almost understand this if they had a policy of not blocking anyone
else who posted similarly hate-filled speech, but they don't. If you're not in
the white house you're going to have a bad time.

So the policy is, "We don't allow hate speech unless you are extremely famous
and well-known and then hate speech is totally fine".

Which is, IMHO, total bullshit.

~~~
minimaxir
It's worth noting that in this post, Twitter does not explicitly define what a
world leader is.

~~~
tw1010
Also weird that they chose to use the phrase "world leader" instead of
president or country leader or something like that. There aren't really that
many _world_ leaders around. So Twitter can still prevent the leader of some
other country from having their say?

~~~
girvo
I mean, while I agree that Twitter is mincing words here, “world leader” is a
super standard phrase.

------
nanodano
I think it is hilarious when people argue with Trump on Twitter, because I
realize he is 71 years old. He's literally someone's old grandpa on Twitter.
How many 71 year olds do you know on Twitter? How many people do you know
would argue and talk shit with a 71 year old grandpa on Twitter?

I understand he's not just _any_ 71 year old grandpa, but it's so funny to
think about it that way.

------
dreta
That's a very roundabout way of saying they won't ban Donald Trump because
he's keeping Twitter relevant.

------
_kst_
"Blocking a world leader from Twitter or removing their controversial Tweets,
would hide important information people should be able to see and debate."

I actually agree with this.

"We review Tweets by leaders within the political context that defines them,
and enforce our rules accordingly."

Certain world leaders have sometimes posted tweets that would likely get
anyone else banned. I would prefer Twitter to be more explicit about what
they're doing -- namely _not_ enforcing rules against hateful and abusive
content when exposing such content is seen a net benefit.

If Random Q. Person posts something that's abusive enough to violate Twitter's
rules, there's no particular benefit in allowing that content to remain. If
Powerful Famous Person posts the same thing, there's arguably substantial
benefit in letting it be exposed.

On the other hand, applying the same rules to both would also be a valid
policy. I merely suggest being a bit clearer about what those rules are and
how they're enforced.

------
adrianratnapala
I feel as if I am missing some background that this blog post is responding
to. Can HNers fill in the blanks a little?

~~~
ceejayoz
People have been suspended from Twitter and required to delete posts for
pretty mild, joking stuff like "we should get rid of men", but Trump has not.
@jack has stated a few times that Trump gets exempted from the rules because
of the "newsworthiness" of his tweets - this just makes that official.

Example: @Popehat got suspended for posting screenshots of someone abusing
him:
[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170803/16341437919/twitt...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170803/16341437919/twitter-
suspends-popehat-writing-about-violent-threats-he-received-another-twitter-
user.shtml)

Example: This guy got suspended for killing a mosquito:
[http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-
trending-41097947](http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-41097947)

~~~
nailer
Popehat got suspended for doxxing. See the screenshot in your link. The person
is abusing him, and should also be banned, but doxxing is bad.

Mosquito ban sounds like a natural language mistake - only a human would
understand the subject he's threatening to kill is the mosquito pictured, and
your link confirms Twitter said it was a mistake.

Obviously Twitter should enforce rules for sex and racial discrimination.
Joking doesn't make those things OK.

Trump is a military leader - making threats, like any military and police
person, is part of their job. Would you support banning Barack Obama for
threatening Assad?

~~~
adrianratnapala
If I am reading that right, somone threatened Popehat, and Popehat blogged
about the threat. And you are calling that "doxing"???

~~~
nailer
See the tweet in the link above - Popehat published the person's phone number
and physical address. The person is an asshole but Popehat shouldn't have done
that.

[https://imgur.com/0gIrajl](https://imgur.com/0gIrajl)

~~~
ceejayoz
He published the _business_ address and phone number of a _lawyer_. Calling
publishing a screenshot of a threat sent voluntarily with that person's
contact info as a signature "doxxing" is pretty weird.

~~~
nailer
Introducing non-Twitter contact details for someone you're having an argument
with on Twitter is doxxing. The contact details were sent to Popehat, not to
all Popehat's followers.

Pretending it shouldn't count in this case for some unspecified reason is
weird.

------
weirdwitch
How do racist slurs and threatening to murder millions of people "advance the
global, public conversation"?

~~~
advisedwang
It advances the global, public conversation to a racist and war-filled future.

------
danso
This decision to treat public officials as a different class makes sense to
me, especially in light of Twitter's (eventual) decision to let Politwoops
continue operating despite violating the TOS for API usage:
[https://www.wired.com/2016/01/twitter-reverses-itself-on-
pol...](https://www.wired.com/2016/01/twitter-reverses-itself-on-politicians-
deleted-tweets/)

------
imhelpingu
I'd love to see an example of a tweet he actually deserves to get banned for.
Note that "expressing support for Donald Trump" doesn't count.

~~~
tb303
You mean like threatening nuclear action against another nation?

"Examples of what we do not tolerate includes, but is not limited to behavior
that harasses individuals or groups of people with:

violent threats; wishes for the physical harm, death, or disease of
individuals or groups;"

~~~
nailer
Would you support banning all police and (non Trump) military from Twitter?

------
lloeki
IOW not silencing obviously stupid, downright heinous, or otherwise extremely
dangerous speech from a certain political leader or three serves as public
display of their outrageous opinion, hopefully serving as self-public shaming
or something.

Honestly I'm still baffled by the situation as a whole (i.e how such
despicable people came to be in power _and_ stay in the office), which I feel
is kind of unprecedented.

~~~
cgore
Or, you know, we could actually have freedom of speech for everybody. Crazy
talk included, whatever your definition of crazy happens to be.

~~~
ortusdux
There are famous public safety exceptions to free speech that we all agree on.
We don't allow people to yell "fire" in a theater for example. The current
discussion is about if nuclear posturing threatens public safety.

~~~
dragonwriter
> We don't allow people to yell "fire" in a theater for example.

Can we stop using ungrounded dicta from a since-overturned decision
suppressing core political speech as if it were an uncontroversial statement
of an established valid limit on free speech?

------
sschueller
So is Twitter going to filter fake news on one end and let world leaders spew
their crap on the other?

What happens if Donald tweets a nude photo or a member of the Saudi royal
family posts a video of a state beheading? Are those going to get deleted?

------
skj
Are there really people here suggesting that Twitter block the POTUS? Look,
he's a madman, but he's also the president. It's not up to Twitter to try and
alter the national dialogue.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Are there really people here suggesting that Twitter block the POTUS?

There are people seriously suggesting that Donald J. Trump be held to the same
standards with regard to content as other Twitter users, rather than Twitter
being a biased, pro-Administration propaganda organ.

Twitter has clearly decided against that (that's been clear for some time, but
now it's official.)

> Look, he's a madman, but he's also the president.

And that's why reporting _about_ him is valuable and ought to be protected,
and it certainly a reason that he has disproportionate power of _government_
tools of communication.

It's not a reason for a private entity to grant him preferential liberties in
a discussion forum that are not granted to others, particularly his domestic
political opponents.

~~~
liquidise
Allowing accounts of world leaders does not make twitter "a biased, pro-
Administration propaganda organ". It makes twitter a place where world leaders
are given a generally unfiltered communication tool. This has nothing to do
with bias. If anything it is arguably the absence of bias.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Allowing accounts of world leaders does not make twitter "a biased, pro-
> Administration propaganda organ"

Allowing accounts of “world leaders” (so designated by Twitter) does not.

Allowing such accounts _freedom from content and participation standards that
are applied as a bases for restricting or banning other participants_ , OTOH,
does.

------
onion2k
I blocked Trump on Twitter a long time ago for my own sanity. It's
understandable that Twitter won't ban him, but that doesn't mean we have to
read what he tweets.

------
NelsonMinar
Content aside I wish Twitter could have at least gotten the English grammar
correct on their post. Whoever wrote it doesn't know how to use commas.

------
jwtadvice
Except that they block world leaders (and other globally important actors) as
requested by the US security/power community.

PR. No thanks.

------
nathantotten
TLDR: @realDonaldTrump can post whatever he wants and we won't do anything
about it. Also, we claim that he doesn't impact our growth.

------
aceoflala
Blocking a user 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 user, but it would certainly hamper necessary discussion
around their words and actions.

~~~
tb303
Except that it's only newsworthy in a recursive way. They give him a platform
to break their own rules and be controversial. The simple fact is they want
him to be controversial on their platform, not someone else's. This is a
dangerous game.

------
aphextron
What a joke.

------
connorelsea
I feel like this effectively makes Twitter an avenue for propaganda
dissemination, giving world leaders who frequently blur the line near facism a
"no-rules" platform to give out (mis)information. I mean, trump just denied
climate change on Twitter and then threatened to bomb a country that has
millions of people (aka killing millions of civilians). I can't be the only
person who, at the very least, is a little freaked out by trump's presence on
Twitter and this announcement

~~~
bmmayer1
Isn't Twitter much more akin to something like a bulletin board or a printing
press? Certainly the platform on which speech is disseminated should be viewed
independently from the speaker?

~~~
connorelsea
Twitter frequently removes and censors users at the request of governments and
due to rule breaking, etc. They aren't a bastion of free speech

