President Obama was getting hostile tweets. What Twitter did next will amaze you.

(The title is because this piece is from Buzzfeed, purveyors of clickbait to the masses. How seriously we take it is therefore uncertain.)

'According to sources' (n.b.) Twitter helped out Barack Obama by censoring 'abusive or hateful' tweets sent to him. Not sure what this was meant to achieve, but it's interesting that they've never offered this sort of assistance to any of the thousands upon thousands of snowflakes who scream about receiving abuse. Could mean that it's done manually, I suppose, but that seems hard to believe.

See: www.buzzfeed.com...

Speculate wildly here.

it's creates the image that everyone loves Obama, and if you don't...well, then...there is something wrong with you.

It's the same with all of the positive HR(C) press and the negative Trump press.

The press makes it seem like, if you are smart and good, you support Obama and you will vote for HR(C).

If you are evil, mean, stupid, and so on, you hate Obama and support Trump.

It could very well be done manually. Put a bunch of underpaid workers in India moderating tweets and you'll have an almost real-time censorship system in place.

#sourcessay, huh?

I don't care if they do that. Its their site, they can do whatever they want with it.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Its their site, they can do whatever they want with it.

Indeed they can, like letting Obama have a few million fake followers and doing nothing about it.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
#sourcessay, huh?

I don't care if they do that. Its their site, they can do whatever they want with it.

That's censorship - the people should be allowed to be heard.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
#sourcessay, huh?

I don't care if they do that. Its their site, they can do whatever they want with it.

Next, you'll be burning books.

originally posted by: Steak
That's censorship - the people should be allowed to be heard.

Businesses are allowed to censor if they want.

originally posted by: Steak

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
#sourcessay, huh?

I don't care if they do that. Its their site, they can do whatever they want with it.

That's censorship - the people should be allowed to be heard.

Twitter is a private entity and it can decide what sort of content it will allow to be spread on it's media platform. ATS does the same thing. It does not want to be tied to certain types of content, so they remove it.

That's not censorship. That's setting a standard for itself. You are still able to say anything you like...just not on someone else's private property.

Next, you'll be burning books.

Jesus. No need to go to that extreme.

So dramatic.

originally posted by: BlueShaman

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Its their site, they can do whatever they want with it.

Indeed they can, like letting Obama have a few million fake followers and doing nothing about it.

Nothing new under the sun. Bots can be bought. You can have as many followers as you pay for. Hell, you can probably get a good deal by paying for SEO services from some college kid trying to freelance. I know someone who will do it for $250, and get you first page ranking in at least 1 search term.

That is why i ignore the whims of the masses. I live in a sea of stupid people who are distracted simply by doing what the person next to them does. The Tyranny of the Majority is leveraged every singe day on social media.

a reply to: Steak

Censorship...Twitter (or the people who own/run it) ARE the people.

If all the other clowns want to be heard, then they need to invest in developing their own audience. Twitter has theirs, and they make up the rules for how that audience uses their service.

originally posted by: Steak

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
#sourcessay, huh?

I don't care if they do that. Its their site, they can do whatever they want with it.

Next, you'll be burning books.

Mindless hyperbole. Hiding an ad hominem.

originally posted by: Steak

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
#sourcessay, huh?

I don't care if they do that. Its their site, they can do whatever they want with it.

Next, you'll be burning books.

And if the books belong to him, then he has the right to do whatever he wants with them. Just like social media venues, which are privately owned.

originally posted by: Steak

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
#sourcessay, huh?

I don't care if they do that. Its their site, they can do whatever they want with it.

That's censorship - the people should be allowed to be heard.

So are the ATS T&C's but you aren't complaining about them. Maybe try to understand the difference between government censorship and private censorship next time?

a reply to: audubon

Twitter censors and removes tweets all the time. Some tweets to a President can be federal crimes.

How is it that you think you know what Twitter does on a daily basis?

It was also called #AskPotusTownHall, not #SayRandomInsultsToPotus

originally posted by: reldra
How is it that you think you know what Twitter does on a daily basis?

Well, OK then, every single one of the snowflakes on Twitter who scream and whine about not being protected from abusive tweets is a liar. Silly of me to take their complaints at face value, I suppose...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Steak

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
#sourcessay, huh?

I don't care if they do that. Its their site, they can do whatever they want with it.

That's censorship - the people should be allowed to be heard.

So are the ATS T&C's but you aren't complaining about them. Maybe try to understand the difference between government censorship and private censorship next time?

Sure in a legal sense - I'm talking morally. Of course those on the left have no morals.

This thread is clickbait!

originally posted by: Steak

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Steak

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
#sourcessay, huh?

I don't care if they do that. Its their site, they can do whatever they want with it.

That's censorship - the people should be allowed to be heard.

So are the ATS T&C's but you aren't complaining about them. Maybe try to understand the difference between government censorship and private censorship next time?

Sure in a legal sense - I'm talking morally. Of course those on the left have no morals.

Wow. This post is ironic to the extreme. Talk about morality then level an ad hominem against the left. Kudos. That hypocrisy is truly remarkable.

originally posted by: Steak
Sure in a legal sense - I'm talking morally.

Why is your particular stance or morals any more important than someone else's? Maybe my morals say that a private business can do what it wants in regards limiting speech and if someone does not like it then they can buy the business and change the policy or start their own.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Nothing new under the sun. Bots can be bought.

Yes, I am very aware of that. I used one of those fake followers exchange services once.

Within seconds of registering my account I was following Obama and Britney Spears.