Search Mailing List Archives


Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by: Reverse Sort
Limit to: All This Week Last Week This Month Last Month
Select Date Range     through    

[liberationtech] Independent UK Critic of NBC has Twitter account suspended after network complains

Jillian C. York jilliancyork at gmail.com
Tue Jul 31 14:48:47 PDT 2012


Mashable says it's 8 Google pages in:
http://mashable.com/2012/07/30/twitter-journalist-suspended/

Twitter's rules contain this sentence: *If information was previously
posted or displayed elsewhere on the Internet prior to being put on
Twitter, it is not a violation of this policy.*
*
*
If Twitter wants to remove that sentence from their rules, that's their
prerogative, but until they do, they're full of it on this one.

On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Simon Phipps <webmink at gmail.com> wrote:

> Where is Zenkel's e-mail on that page? I've yet to see a report that
> substantiates it was easy to locate on the web prior to this incident.
>
> But more to the point, Twitter appears to be coming clean here. Their
> policy says a bona fides complaint is met with preventative suspension,
> followed by reinstatement after review and, if necessary, assurances. For
> an organisation dealing with approximately infinite transaction levels,
> that seems about the only workable policy.
>
> In this case they assert that their NBC-attached team acted incorrectly by
> proactively reviewing traffic. They also imply that, had the Trust and
> Safety team been advised how the complaint arose, they would likely have
> acted differently. They have apologised for what they did wrong, left
> themselves free to continue to follow their (probably correct) policy and
> avoided commenting on the journalist's actual (borderline) behaviour.
>
> Since I don't see it in the thread below, here's Twitter's apology, which
> is worth reading & re-reading to get the implications as well as the
> details:
> http://blog.twitter.com/2012/07/our-approach-to-trust-safety-and.html
>
> S.
>
>
> On 31 Jul 2012, at 21:24, Bernard Tyers - ei8fdb wrote:
>
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Hi Jillian,
> >
> > Thanks for explaining the details. Pardon my language but...FFS. This is
> disgraceful.
> >
> > Adams used publicly available information like this:
> http://www.linkedin.com/pub/gary-zenkel/3/569/126 and Twitter closed his
> account?
> >
> > In which case, if I were Adams, I would release my legal attack hounds,
> and sue Twitter under what ever legislation they could.  Anyone from the
> EFF Legal want to comment?
> >
> > That is disgraceful. Another example of why I believe Twitters
> self-censorship "internal struggle" earlier this year was an easy out for
> them.
> >
> > I hope Adams doesn't take the usual "we're sorry" excuse thats trotted
> out.
> >
> > Bernard
> >
> > On 31 Jul 2012, at 16:13, Jillian C. York wrote:
> >
> >> Bernard,
> >>
> >> Twitter's explanation was not that the statement was defamatory, but
> that Adams had posted private information.  The email address he posted,
> however, is not private: it is available on NBC.com.  That's the entire
> case.
> >>
> >> -Jillian
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 1:39 AM, Bernard Tyers - ei8fdb <
> ei8fdb at ei8fdb.org> wrote:
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >>
> >> (Slightly devil's advocate/contrarian POV)
> >>
> >> Interesting story, and Adams probably has a case but it never ceases to
> amaze me when people disconnect their "real world" brains from their
> "Internet" brains.
> >>
> >> I would be the first person to complain if someone's free-speech was
> taken away, however, if Adams has said anything defamatory in his Twitter
> stream, then he is still bound by "real world" laws.
> >>
> >> Just because I say something defamatory or libellous about person X on
> the Internet, doesn't mean that *IF* it's found that a "real-world" legal
> process cannot be executed.
> >>
> >> Most people using the Internet may not understand that, but I would
> have expected journalists to understand it.
> >>
> >> Is it illegal to suspend someones services for naming an executive of a
> media company for doing XYZ in the USA? I have no idea.
> >>
> >> If it is illegal, then people need to speak out against a ridiculously
> brain-dead law.
> >>
> >> If it is not illegal, people need to complain to Twitter for freedom of
> speech. Twitter need to rewind their equally brain-dead actions and
> apologise to the guy.
> >>
> >> Now, if he has said nothing "illegal" on Twitter, then IMHO, fire up
> the legal drones Guy. This I unfortunately have direct experience of. At
> this point it becomes (certainly in parts of Europe) a case of "who's got
> the bigger legal team".
> >>
> >> (My reasoning comes from Bruce Schneier's argument on laws specific to
> "cybercrimes". To paraphrase "Prosecution can be difficult in cyberspace.
> On one hand the crimes are the same.....The laws against certain practices,
> complete with criminal justice infrastructure to enforce them, are already
> in place....Fraud is fraud, whether it takes place over the US mail or the
> Internet.")
> >>
> >>
> >> On 31 Jul 2012, at 00:17, David Johnson wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> http://sports.yahoo.com/news/olympics--critic-of-nbc-has-twitter-account-suspended-after-network-complains.html
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> David V. Johnson
> >>> Web Editor
> >>> Boston Review
> >>> Website: http://www.bostonreview.net
> >>>
> >>> Twitter:
> >>> http://twitter.com/BostonReview
> >>> Tumblr: http://bostonreview.tumblr.com
> >>>
> >>> Cell: (917)903-3706
> >>>
>
>


-- 
*+1-857-891-4244 |** jilliancyork.com | @jilliancyork *

"We must not be afraid of dreaming the seemingly impossible if we want the
seemingly impossible to become a reality" - *Vaclav Havel*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/attachments/20120731/58156892/attachment.html>


More information about the liberationtech mailing list