
Mail bombing suspect repeatedly threatened Democrats on Twitter - slg
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/10/mail-bombing-suspect-repeatedly-threatened-democrats-on-twitter/
======
olivermarks
29\. Twitter seemingly ignored mail bombing suspect's repeated threats
(arstechnica.com)

30.Telegraph operators were first to know news of the Civil War
(laphamsquarterly.org)

Rather fascinating juxtaposition of two titles on HN...

------
throwaway00T
Twitter has also blocked links to a website, 1984SikhGenocode.org, that lets
Sikhs connect with their elected representatives in US, Canada, UK and
Australia. The website does not contain any content, political or whatsoever
else. The website is about raising awareness about politically motivated
massacres of Sikhs in India in 1984. The website was blocked at behest of
Indian Government that does not want the issue getting any air.

So on one hand, they don’t block violent accounts, but they do block innocuous
website. Guess some governments do have pull over them.

~~~
craftyguy
> Guess some governments do have pull over them.

Who said governments didn't have pull over them? Their biggest users tend to
be government officials (e.g. trump), so of course they are going to allow
themselves to be pulled to keep them happy.

------
anigbrowl
The 'oopsie' letters they're sending out to people who received death threats
aren't going to give them much insulation against legal liability.
[https://twitter.com/THE_natedogg/status/1055958716888039424](https://twitter.com/THE_natedogg/status/1055958716888039424)

Those of you who work in Twitter's legal department are going to be facing
some career-shaping decisions soon.

~~~
wahern
Please cite the law which creates a legal duty for Twitter to take any
affirmative action. Even if there is one, I'm sure it would be quite narrowly
interpreted.

If Twitter is covering its tracks it's purely for PR purposes.

~~~
anigbrowl
Please study tort and contract law before demanding statutory citations for
everything.

~~~
wahern
I have. While I'm particularly skeptical--certainly no Common Law theory of
liability comes to mind, at least no traditional theory--I was sincere in my
statement and I'm prepared to be schooled.

