Loading Profile...
Twitter refuses to uphold Terms of Service
I've had an appallingly bad experience with Twitter's lack of community management. Please read this post for a summary of what I went through:
http://arielwaldman.com/2008/05/22/tw...
I think it's extremely important for Twitter to develop policies around their Terms of Service to stick by. In short, it's completely unacceptable for Twitter's users to be harassed to this level and have Twitter refuse to ban anyone for fear of being sued. Yahoo, Flickr, Pownce, and Digg do *not* take these kinds of TOS violations lightly and will ban users/content if there is even a question of harassment.
In fact, I would like to call out that Twitter can't be sued for banning users under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_...
As my lawyer wrote to me:
"It basically insulates any interactive computer service from liability for the postings of any of its users and gives it complete immunity anytime it removes user content because it is offensive. In fact, Section 230(c)(2) says expressly that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected."
This pretty clearly shields them from liability for removing posts and users who tweet offensive or harassing messages. Moreover, their own TOS says:
"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason at any time."
Thus, legally, they are pretty much entitled to kill any account they want for any reason and there's not much legally anyone can do about it."
http://arielwaldman.com/2008/05/22/tw...
I think it's extremely important for Twitter to develop policies around their Terms of Service to stick by. In short, it's completely unacceptable for Twitter's users to be harassed to this level and have Twitter refuse to ban anyone for fear of being sued. Yahoo, Flickr, Pownce, and Digg do *not* take these kinds of TOS violations lightly and will ban users/content if there is even a question of harassment.
In fact, I would like to call out that Twitter can't be sued for banning users under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_...
As my lawyer wrote to me:
"It basically insulates any interactive computer service from liability for the postings of any of its users and gives it complete immunity anytime it removes user content because it is offensive. In fact, Section 230(c)(2) says expressly that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected."
This pretty clearly shields them from liability for removing posts and users who tweet offensive or harassing messages. Moreover, their own TOS says:
"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason at any time."
Thus, legally, they are pretty much entitled to kill any account they want for any reason and there's not much legally anyone can do about it."
I’m offended
16
people have this problem
I have this problem, too!
Tell me when someone solves it.
The more people who report this problem, the more it gets noticed.
The more people who report this problem, the more it gets noticed.
The best solutions from everyone
-
I was trying to stay out of the mix on this, but I just want to make a couple of points. I applaud and respect Twitter, Ev, Biz, Jack and the rest for acting properly. They are smart and reasonable men who have actually thought this whole thing out logically. When I read this insanely giant thread, I am reminded of a lynch mob mentality from most of you. That's sad. The case is pretty clear. Read the facts as presented by both sides.
To me, the most important point is that one should be allowed to comment on "public figures." It's part of our basic freedom of speech. There's no evidence of hatred, harassment or stalking as far as I could tell. It's just someone expressing their opinion of Ms. Waldman and maybe using "salty language." Ariel is really a public figure or "Internet Celebrity" in some sense of the term, because she has marketing herself as such.
You know, I'm a pretty creative person and I like to satirize Twitter and it's prominent users here and there... and I really don't want to have to worry that something or someone is going to take my Twitter forum away from me, because they don't like something I wrote. I worked very hard to gain the Twitter following over over 2,300 people. Don't go making Twitter (assuming it's up) into a moderated and censored chat room. That would really suck!
Now, on with the show.
-gj
I’m sad for you and happy for me.
4 people say
this solves the problem
-
I think there is a TOS issue, and would hope that Twitter would stick to what is clearly written there. But who reads the TOS? Not many people, they just click to agree and that is that. But a community, which is what Twitter is (like it or not Mr. Communication Utility) as evidenced by this thread if nothing else, needs guidelines. I would propose a set of community guidelines like flickr (*you know the guy, don't be that guy*) that state the general rules of the road. Then, violations of those guidelines can be reported, dealt with, and the community can be at ease again.
Because at the end of the day, communication (via photos, text, video, etc.) is community. Don't hide your heads in the sand.
Oh, and I would be happy to take a shot writing the guidelines, with the support of all y'all out there!
I’m confident
4 people say
this solves the problem
-
I admire Twitter's laissez faire handling, but do agree they should have TOS that reflect their intentions. Perhaps replace them with "like SMTP, we route messages. Tracking who is offended by which content is beyond the scope of our service."
One does have to wonder about the order of events: "abuse" -> Ariel joins Pownce -> scandal
I’m nonplussed
3 people say
this solves the problem
-
Btw, how does *anyone* aside from the Twitter employees know that Ariel didn't just fake this whole thing to attract attention to her or her blog? Her blog is a little more racy and NSFW, so why not up her hits? Twitter knows who this person is via IP address (it was easy enough for me to find the profile) and based on their TOS, the profile could have been deleted solely for the many spam tweets (e.g. free ringtones, pharma ads, etc) I'm not like out to get Ariel or anything and I've had my own stalker or ten in my internet life, but it would be easy enough to fakeastalker. I don't always believe the hype. Besides, the profile has 750 people following it. I am a newb and recognized a few names. What does that say about the community if they are following such lame and disgusting tweets? I hate e-stalking. But if you give a story/stalker attention, they love it. I would have just kept after Twitter, but not been so public about it. But that's just my style - I don't feed trolls anymore. P.S. As far as an employer googling her name and finding the rants, um, have you all *seen* her blog. It's pretty um... sexual? I am not a prude, but an employer can see that the rants are stupid and harassing, but what will they think about her blog?
I’m tired of this story?
3 people say
this solves the problem
-
We're upset that Ariel is having such a bad experience with Twitter. She's been a long term user of ours and a great advocate of our service. Also, it's clear that folks here are interested and concerned about how we at Twitter react to content issues like this.
Something to keep in mind is that we're discussing content that has not been shared here. This account is no longer available for review because the person who created it willingly removed it back in March. We reviewed this account at the time of the complaint and did not find it in violation of our Terms.
The fact that so many of us can have differing opinions without having even reviewed the content we're discussing highlights the difficulty of this issue. In fact, Twitter recognizes that it is not skilled at judging content disputes between individuals. Determining the line between update and insult is not something that Twitter nor a crowd would do well.
We have deleted accounts for more straightforward violations of the existing Terms. That being said, we are engaged in an editorial review of those Terms to make it more clear what actions we will and won't take. Essentially, Twitter is a communication utility, not a mediator of content.
It's great that everyone's talking about this because it helps us make important decisions. After all, Twitter is a new medium that we're all figuring out as we go.
I’m thankful
The company and 16 other people say
this solves the problem
Create a customer community for your own organization
Plans starting at $19/month
Due to volume, only the 15 most recent replies are being displayed
-
Inappropriate?I think I'm actually proud of Twitter's stance on this one. As much as I don't like the comments that were made, corporate censorship may be one of the greatest modern threats to our freedom. The right to disseminate information is one of our most fundamental rights, and as such I would rather be censored by a court than by a corporation.
Twitter's responsibility as a communication medium and Internet service should instead be to assist authorities in investigating the illegal activities of its users (provided the authorities have the appropriate warrants).
Defamation of character, libel, and inciting a riot are cases where your words are not protected speech, and in these cases Twitter should help the police track down users who are abusing their right to free speech.
If someone's saying something you don't agree with and you can't make a case against them, they probably have a right to say it. If you aren't following someone on Twitter, then you don't have to listen to them.
2 people say
this solves the problem
5 Comments Add a comment
This solves the problem
-
Strong case; I must agree with you on that - a policy of informing police would also probably result in fewer violations - it's just harder to do on the Internet for most companies, so they end up doing the policing. Plus, there's a bit of a problem in the international nature of the Internet that makes enforcement of such a policy difficult or impossible to do in nations with differing views on rights and with different laws regarding speech and what's protected. To that end, corporations need to at least retain the right to handle things however they wish, but virtuously maybe elect not to most of the time, which is what twitter seems to be doing here. As I've said, they didn't do anything wrong, but generally, the web 2.0 social megalith enforces TOS and handles abuse fairly swiftly in the interest of "protecting users," which is usually the point of a TOS anyways - its an agreement to use the service in the way they define and you agree to. -
"The right to disseminate information is one of our most fundamental rights, and as such I would rather be censored by a court than by a corporation."
Then you are a fool. The limits on censorship contained within the Constitution apply only to the public sector. Corporations have no ability or right to censure you, unless you are on their property. Twitter is a PRIVATE web property, and if you want to use it, you have to play by their rules. Just because you have a right to free speech doesn't obligate Twitter (or any company) to provide you with a soapbox. -
Freedom of expression is both "freedom from" and "freedom to."
I'm pretty sure that @messages will show up in your timeline. If not, we still have a case where there is some evidence of harassment that continued after a slap on the wrist. You know what? Freedom of expression on a corporate site is practically meaningless. I'd rather that if a corp holds all the cards that they play them in a manner that benefits most of their user base.
Sorry, but there is no legal reason to defend our freedom of expression on Twitter -- it's a meaningless concept -- and barely a moral reason if censuring a single user for abuse of the Terms of Service results in a better place for many. -
This is the best comment I've read on this thread, or anywhere, in a long time, on the threat to our freedoms. It gives me hope.
-
A well written response, Chris H. If the authorities are involved, then Twitter needs to respond accordingly. Otherwise, their response was professional and concise.
-
Inappropriate?I didn't say Twitter doesn't have the right to censor us when using their service. They do have that right. They aren't obligated to provide us with a soapbox, but I'm glad they do.
I'm not sure how it makes me foolish to not want someone to censor my words. Do you want someone to censor yours? If I pay getsatisfaction.com $1 will they remove your comment? They may have that right, but you probably don't want them to.
1 person says
this solves the problem
1 Comment Add a comment
This solves the problem
-
It's foolish to prefer public censorship over private.
-
Inappropriate?meh, Twitter is *not* a communications utility, it is NOT an ISP. It is a website - a publishing platform, an online service - though a free one. It's a microblogging site, generally used in tandem with blogs for short updates and quick updates with friends. It is for PUBLISHING. Let's get that straight. Twitter does not provide any internet access, it's not a UTILITY like the freaking phone company! It's not even like the online services and bulletin boards of yesteryear, because it provides *no* internet access. It is *purely* a service on the web.
The law protects it only so far as to protect them from potentially illegal content posted without their knowledge, but that bit of protection evaporates once they've been notified of the situation - if they don't rectify it, it could well be actionable. That is to say: if some deadbeat is posting kiddy porn - no Twitter is not responsible, unless they were *notified* and then let it stay there.
And yes, Twitter is obligated to cooperate with the police and keep records.
comparing it to an ISP or a telephone company (the two are usually synonymous if you have DSL these days) is only applicable if you like, hooked up a loudspeaker to your telephone and blared all your telephone conversations to the neighborhood. (Good luck with the neighbors!) That's what Twitter does on the Intarwebs. Let's not forget that fact. So lets dispense with the freedom of speech blarney because Twitter legally has the right to censor whatever it wants on its own website, and it's totally protected by law. Flickr apparantly had no problem doing the same thing, and if Twitter had done as Flickr had done (and what most online services do these days), this wouldnt even be an issue right now.
I've worked for online services for years and yep, this is experience on my part.
Now to dispense with the next bit of blarney I've read on this ... seems like Twitter reps claim that there is no record of deleted tweets - better be aware of the law that requires to retain records in the event of a criminal investigation.
http://tinyurl.com/e3fo9
Now, the real possibility is this: all Miss Ariel has to do is file a POLICE report on the content - just the stuff I SAW - which is potentially *criminally* actionable in many western countries, (hey, one of those tweets was about using a dildo to well... you know... her) and then you guys at Twitter are going to claim you don't have the content to provide them?! Oh wow... Good luck! Are you people aware that its insanely easy for police to get IP records from a UK site? You're not safe just because someone used a UK site to send anonymous threats via twitter... it's just going to take a little time is all.
I really like twitter, I really do, I think its a great idea - Pownce isn't really the kind of site I was looking for - so no, this doesnt mean I'm going to run off to Pownce, no. But I call a spade a spade when I see it, and I honestly couldn't care less if Ariel Waldman was CEO of Google - the situation I've seen so far looks wrong, really wrong... and the responses from Twitter staff look bad... really bad.
I simply saw enough of those tweets to be sure something really wrong was going on. Speaking as someone who consistently bans people on a weekly basis in communities I moderate - being afraid of a banning of a user who has broken your terms is a wee, well... disingenous sounding to me. Sorry.
I’m sad, and I don't like cupcakes.
2 people say
this solves the problem
1 Comment Add a comment
This solves the problem
-
Right On!
-
Inappropriate?concerned tweeter, your analysis is merely the narrow analysis offered repeatedly in different forums by a tiny segment of tekkies who create and rule social media and Internet sites and think that their notion of what is just and proper should prevail. That doesn't mean it serves the public interest; it doesn't mean that it will remain this way forever.
There's nothing to say this "way things are" should last -- it won't.
Here's what it's about for you, Waldman, and other people like you -- power.
"Speaking as someone who consistently bans people on a weekly basis in communities I moderate - being afraid of a banning of a user who has broken your terms is a wee, well... disingenous sounding to me. Sorry."
And here's the message you need to hear: a) your TOS is unconscionable; b) your power is not legitimate, c) your behaviour is unjust, and more and more, people will be challenging your rule.
I'm quite sure a knowledgeable lawyer could take a look at all this and just as easily find that Twitter *is* a common carrier -- indeed, this topic is widely and heatedly debatedly all over, and your conviction that you can pronounce "the truth" on it is misplaced. It will be changing, and adapting to the needs of the public -- not to the needs of Silicon Valley.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_c...
If harassment rises to the test where you'd actually have a case in real life in person with a lawyer and court -- then go for it, and ask Twitter to cooperate. If it doesn't, then don't follow your vanity feed if you don't want to see criticism or nasty stalking of yourself. It's just that simple. Threatening the service with boycotts and smearing it all over town just don't work to persuade or impress.
I guess you aren't comprehending what the Twitter devs have written now repeatedly: it isn't that they didn't enforce their TOS, which I'd argue is arbitrary and overbroad anyway. They did in fact take a look at the material, *made a determination that it was not abusive* and moved on, responding to the customer. In this case Waldman tried to leverage her position to keep banging on Twitter and keep hollering on her blog and incite people like you to high dudgeon and self-righteous indignation. But again -- it's all vapour. It doesn't matter. They didn't find abuse. She needs to stop reading her vanity feed.You need to stop spouting outrage on behalf of your illegitimate and unconscionable occupation.
So again, what happened here is that Waldman made a false charge. It's not true that "Twitter refuses to uphold its TOS"; it's that Twitter refuses to interpret the TOS *the way that thin-skinned and petulant Internet prima donas think they should uphold it*. Let's be clear on the distinction.
2 people say
this solves the problem
6 Comments Add a comment
This solves the problem
-
I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
-
Prokofy, I think the dumb !@#$ would be you, actually. But then again that wouldn't be harrassment because Twitter doesn't think so. Absolute ignorance mofo.
-
This isn't twitter, lmnop. There's no need to resort to name calling simply because you disagree with someone. Be civil, mayhap?
-
From the common carrier wikipedia page: "A common carrier must further demonstrate to the regulator that it is "fit, willing and able" to provide those services for which it is granted authority." All other arguments aside, in its current state Twitter would not be able to prove that it is fit to be depended upon by anyone.
-
Bravo, Prokofy. Well stated.
-
Just as a reminder: We do have community guidelines that asks everyone to refrain from name calling. I think we can make our points without going for the jugular.
-
Inappropriate?Surely changing the TOS won't make a difference, Ariel and the abuser signed up to the previous TOS. This is what they should be working against. This is what Twitter can use against the abuser. Twitter needs to get its act together.
I’m annoyed
1 person says
this solves the problem
-
Inappropriate?Wow, this is unacceptable. I doubt very seriously I would employ Twitter without them doing some serious upgrades to their TOS violation response. Sad. You aren't small enough a company to ignore stalking!
I’m pissed!
-
Inappropriate?I would not consider this "harassment". Maybe defamation of character. Unless someone is actively persuing you to communicate their hate of you in a threatening manner, I don't see how this is harassment, especially on a medium like twitter. Unless they are spamming you with private messages, they can't harass you through twitter. Be an adult, stop following him on twitter and ignore him. This smells to more like a "victim" promoting herself to internet fame.
I’m annoyed
-
Inappropriate?Hmmm...smells like harassment to me. If I was going through the same thing, I would certainly call it that.
Would it make a difference if the "abuser" called her on the phone instead of posting it on Twitter? What if he sent her letters in the mail? Does it make it any less damaging because it's done on the web?
I’m confused
2 Comments Add a comment
This solves the problem
-
It would be different. That would be a communication directed at the insulted person. This [twitter] is a broadcast medium, she can just not follow his tweets, you do not chose what phone calls or emails you receive. Its no different than Howard Stern calling Paris Hilton a whore on the radio. Or calling someone these names on a website. Is it bad (especially if its untrue). Yes. Is there some legal remedy....maybe. In my example, in order to win a defamation of character suit, Paris would have to prove she isn't [a prostitute]. But is it "harassment"? No. And for twitter to shut down an account over these tweets would be offensive to my sense of free speech. What would be the difference between Ms. Waldman's complaint, and Walmart asking to have a twitter account shut down for calling their stores "sewers", "whore houses", "piles of useless cheap crap on shelves". The only difference is that as a community, we like a popular cute young blogger girl working at a web 2.0 company. We don't like walmart. so we would call that free speech, not harassment. I re-state, I am assuming these are general broadcast tweets, not personal messages directed at her via "@" that she cannot just chose not to follow.
-
Point taken. I think the line between "harassment" and someone being a jerk is blurred here, which is why this is such a contentious issue.
-
Inappropriate?I have to side with Twitter on this. Ariel is not being stalked or threatened. This is nothing more than a thin-skinned little girl who can't handle a little name-calling. Although the names are crude and rude, they do not qualify as cyberbullying or harassment.
Twitter would have been well within its right to tell her to take a flying leap, but they humored her, and that speaks well for them.
http://www.michaelcrook.net/2008/06/0...
I’m pissed at Ariel
4 Comments Add a comment
This solves the problem
-
They do, however qualify as "libelous, defamatory, obscene or otherwise objectionable" - all of those, in fact - quote from the TOS. (Yes, and I have read the part that says "We may, but have no obligation to, remove Content and accounts containing...").
The fact that the TOS is already weak on "Spam" (they apparently haven't realised there are many other types of spam than email spam - and that capitalization is hilarious) and their "sole discretion" in this case is to do nothing at all, is sending a powerful message that anything goes at Twitter. Keep it up, and Twitter will become a spammers' haven and a free-for-all platform to spew "unlawful, offensive, threatening, libelous, defamatory, obscene or otherwise objectionable" content. Keep that up for a little more and there won't be any scaling problems left. -
Marjolein, if Twitter had done absolutely nothing, then I could see your point. But since they responded professionally (just not to Ariel's satisfaction), your ending statement is simply a slippery slope.
-
Marty, the first account was apparently closed before they even could do something - we'll have to accept that statement because we can't verify it. The second account (confession) they said was closed before they could check it -- which was either just blatantly "saying something" without /actually/ looking if they could check, or simply a blatant lie, because it was up there with very obvious "libelous, defamatory, obscene or otherwise objectionable" content that many of us have seen long after Biz stated the account was closed and they could not check it. It was not /actually/ removed until I complained about that both here and on the Twitter blog. I'm sorry, but such a blatant lie, or simple neglect to even check whether such content is still on their server for all to see (and archive on other websites!), is not something that fits in my definition of "responding professionally". THAT behavior is the slippery slope that will make Twitter a spammers' haven and a free-for-all platform to spew objectionable (etc.) content -- unless such behavior is amended soon, and visibly, very clearly.
-
Well then, I stand corrected. Biz lied about his business practices and Twitter will be flooded with people calling each other vulgar names and ads for penis enlargement. Guess it's time to close my account now before that happens. Everyone move to Pownce. They block spammers and stalkers better than Twitter.
Sorry to be so sarcastic about this, but I still don't see the major issue here. If Biz lied and didn't follow his own companies' ToS, then shame on him. But all of this for one person? C'mon. And I don't care that she disclosed the fact that she works for Pownce AND that all of this happened BEFORE she worked at Pownce, that's now a factor hanging in the balance.
Seriously, I hope Twitter does respond better, but it sounds like no matter what Twitter/Biz does here, it will never be good enough for the users. Meanwhile, the true slippery slope that will happen will be censored comments from every person who was stalked, offended, called a "cunt", etc etc... Twitter will be reacting more to answering to complainers than they will fixing their network. It will be down more than up.... wait a minute... if they are down, people can't send threatening or vulgar tweets to others. Problem solved. Move to Pownce. -
Inappropriate?I see conflict of interest, Ariel works at pownce which is basically a twitter xerox. Boo-hiss. I mean, this is as well timed as campaign slam downs. I work at a competitor, I talk about this with colleagues, I elbow drop twitter and make my company more well known.
I’m amused
3 Comments Add a comment
This solves the problem
-
People who actually *read* what this is about don't see conflict of interest because this started long before Ariel was an employee of Pownce.
-
HARASSMENT she is saying I can't read and probably secretly thinking the typical European comment "Stupid American." Thats basically racism! BAN! Oh and did I mention I started a website? www.whatisitmadeof.com BOO-YAH!
-
Carter: I am confused as to how your Web site relates to this conversation. Is there something I am missing?
-
Inappropriate?Ariel works for Pounce? now I get what is going on.. ... yeah she blocked me on my first day ever using twitter. she isn't nice. I could see why a stalker would want a piece of her. Motive with a capital "M"... she is probably telling the truth. I was angered enough by her behavior to spiral out of control. I think it is time we start blaming the victim... just a bit. come on people. bring out the inner "Nelson" is all of us and go "HA HA"
I’m amused
1 person says
this solves the problem
-
-
This reply was removed on 10/21/08.
see the change log -
Inappropriate?My Twitter account suspended because of my support for Israel
I filled a Getsatisfaction complaint
http://getsatisfaction.com/twitter/to...
Twitter still not responded to me officially.
Twitter can you please reinstate my account?
I’m sad
-
Inappropriate?We discovered a runaway 3rd party client which ate up a bunch of our resources. We've corrected that behavior and are working to get the database back up and running!
I’m happy
1 person says
this solves the problem
