Have Twitter (and Facebook) provided valuable information to the world? Sure. Have they also harmed democracies? I think it's fairly obvious they have.
Oh shoot, turns out it's a complex issue...
This is why intention is so important when interacting with new technologies.
It's all in how you use it. I honestly think Twitter is the only decent one out of all the big social media sites. They give you really good filtering capabilities, the ability to hide sponsored posts, and the content is actually accessible via the web, not locked within their walled garden a la Facebook. Twitter is great if you curate the people you follow and stick to technical and scientific topics. Avoiding politics is the key; 140 characters is simply not the platform to have those kind of discussions, which leads to the toxicity.
By the way, the character limit has been doubled to 280 a few years ago.
Well, look at Twitter now. I got what I wanted, and I hate it. I was wrong. I’d happily go back to early Twitter.
It seems that Twitter makes it much easier to follow and hear from US representatives.
Twitter can be useful for following people and orgs you care about. And TBH, the "hot takes" I have sometimes seen on Twitter have changed my opinions about things. And people are using it now, in America, to share videos and communicate about things like they did in Iran 11 years ago.
Where Twitter fails to be useful is in
* Trusting it too much when you don't already know the source
* Looking at the replies to Tweets (IOW, tweet convos are rarely useful)
* Hashtags as journalism (#blah is trending!)
100% of Twitter’s value is network effects. People are there because other people are there.
So even though people like Trump are technically a nuisance for Twitter, they are also the reason why Twitter has millions of people on it.
In a sane world, this would mean that the President is held to a higher standard because of his position. Now you're using it to mean the opposite.
this is a different experiment: what if a regular person would be posting content with the same language as Donald Trump?
the answe is, such person would see his twitter account suspended within three days.
what can we extrapolate from this? maybe that twitter is whitelisting Tump from its automatic content moderating bots/filters.
Twitter should try and make this a bit more visible in general.
But seriously, having a good experience with Twitter is not hard I think. Follow and interact with people who post interesting or funny stuff and unfollow/block/mute political posters.
Platform manipulation and spam: You may not use Twitter’s services in a manner intended to artificially amplify or suppress information or engage in behavior that manipulates or disrupts people’s experience on Twitter.
Impersonation: You may not impersonate individuals, groups, or organizations in a manner that is intended to or does mislead, confuse, or deceive others.
the person doin this experiment was very clear about not being the real donald trump.
I've kept the Twitter app on my iPad but not my iPhone, mostly to follow certain trending topics in my downtime.
I don't miss it a whole lot, and I've upped my RSS feed count reading.
But mostly I want to stop consuming as much as I am consuming right now.
Read some books this last weekend... it was a far better use of my time, and a much better outcome for my mood.
Also, Twitter stated that publicly elected national leaders tweets don't get removed, because the people they lead, for better or worse, need to see what they're saying. I, for one, want to know what my President says. This doesn't mean I like it.
So the owner of the account just baited people to report posts. I don't see anything newsworthy here.
They added the 'Public interests exception' rule for a reason.
OTOH, if Trump is actually bothered by Jack, then Trump has only a bazillion options open for sidestepping the media and going straight to his audience.
Therefore, the back-and-forth should be seen as so much theater, to be enjoyed or rejected at audience will.
I wonder how this will play out once he one longer holds the 'in the publics interest' badge.
So the question of whether the 'Public interests exception' should apply for a website where any reasonable user knows the content is dodgy on its best day.
This is a recurring favorite bad legal take for @BadLegalTakes: https://twitter.com/BadLegalTakes
This ruling was not upheld. Please stop using this example, HN.
Brandenburg v Ohio established the current standard for free speech, and it's extremely permissive.
We've come around, though, as Holmes' line of reasoning is very common today.
Some details in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is protected by the 1A as long as it passes the Brandenburg Test of "imminent lawless action".
Remember that Sec. 230 is about liability not about responsibility. That is to say it’s about monetary damages and not regulatory compliance obligations.
probably because they waited until everyone was using the platform before enforcing those rules?
Is the belief that Twitter shouldn't have any rules against violence speech, or that those rules shouldn't apply to the president? Or is the belief that the president hasn't violated those rules, but if he did the rules should still apply to him?
How is this a story? A user called “suspendthepres” posted the presidents tweets and encouraged like-minded individuals to report them... gets banned?