Twitter refuses to uphold Terms of Service

Edit Subject

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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 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.