The rules are simple, okay? No threats of violence. No targeted abuse or harassment. No inciting anybody else to engage in targeted abuse or harassment. No hateful conduct. <\/p>\n
Now think about Donald Trumps tweeting habits. Is he breaking those rules, which come from Twitters terms of service? <\/p>\n
Trump has long been criticized for his impulsiveness, but less than six months into his presidency, alarm over his Twitter conduct has hit fever pitch. <\/p>\n
On Sunday morning, Trump tweeted a short video clip showing him pummeling another person outside of a wrestling ringwith the other persons face blocked out by the CNN logo. If thats not a direct threat of violence against the American citizens who work for CNN, its certainly a celebration of violence. <\/p>\n
The president is not only aware of the firestorm hes ignited, he appears to be relishing it. My use of social media is not Presidential, Trump tweeted on Saturday. its MODERN DAY PRESIDENTIAL. <\/p>\n
These latest messages came came on the heels of a bizarre barrage of tweetsodd even by the presidents standardsthat set off a new round of scrutiny of his use of social media. Beginning on June 29, Trump began tweeting repeated insults at Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, the hosts of the MSNBC talk show, Morning Joe. Trumps treatment of Brzezinski was particularly strange. In addition to calling her dumb, crazy, and low I.Q. in three separate tweets, he claimed that she and Scarborough traveled to Mar-a-Lago for New Years Eve and insisted on seeing Trump while Brzezinski was bleeding badly from a face-lift. (Brzezinski and Scarborough published a rebuke in The Washington Post, calling the presidents claim a lie.) <\/p>\n
In true Trump fashion, the president doubled down, calling Scarborough crazy and Brzezinski dumb as a rock. <\/p>\n
Does that constitute targeted harassment? And given Trumps huge followingmore than 33.1 million Twitter followers on his primary accountdoes a string of attacks against the same two individuals constitute inciting harassment? We dont comment on individual accounts, for privacy and security reasons, a Twitter spokesperson told me on Saturday. Twitter also declined to tell me whether, when considering the question of a user inciting harassment, it takes into consideration that persons number of followers or public statusa movie star or politician, for example. <\/p>\n
Twitters website does offer some clarification on how it assesses abusive behavior. The company says it assesses whether the primary purpose of an account is to harass or send abusive messages; and it looks at whether the reported behavior is one-sided.Setting aside Twitters notoriously bad track record for actually enforcing its own standards on harassment, the question of one-sidedness poses an interesting problem here. <\/p>\n
When one of the people involved in a Twitter fight isnt just a public official but also the president of the United States, is it fair to consider anyone hes attacking an equal player in a fight? <\/p>\n
We know what Trump would say. This is a man whose 2007 book Never Give Up has multiple chapters dedicated to the subject of fighting with people. Theres Chapter 5 (I Love a Good Fight) and Chapter 29 (You Will Be Attacked For Trying to Change Anything) and Chapter 38 (When Youre Attacked, Bite Back). If Trump doesnt like what a person says about him, he attacks them. Period. <\/p>\n
But Trumps Twitter conduct also raises a question about what Twitter is, and what it should be. Often, the service is treated as a new kind of public square, a place for the unfiltered exchange of ideas (and, clearly, hurling of insults). Silicon Valley has rarely stepped in to correct the persistent cultural conflation between the actual right to free speechthat is, the constitutionally protected right that says the government cannot make a law that inhibits peoples freedom of expressionand the idea that people should get to say whatever they want wherever they want to without consequence. (Complicating things further, Twitter must answer to its shareholders, and having the president use its service so routinelyand so bombasticallycertainly keeps the service relevant.) <\/p>\n
In reality, though, Twitter is a media company. Just like CNN and The New York Times are media companies. Except, unlike in a traditional model where publishers and readers are distinct groups, everyone can be both on Twitter. So whats a company like Twitter to do when one of its userswho is also the president of the United States, by the wayincessantly publishes attacks against individuals? Nothing, apparently. At least nothing yet. The thornier question is: What should it do? Only rarely would any news organization turn down the opportunity to exclusively print or broadcast a message from the president. (U.S. senators and presidential candidates, however, are another story.) Though its not like the president doesnt have plenty of opportunities for his voice to be amplified. He has said he likes Twitter because its a direct channel to the American people, but he has his own website where he could be live-streaming or blogging, for instance. He is also a constant subject of media attention; his press conferenceswhen the White House permits itare broadcast over cable and network television. <\/p>\n
Presidents have historically made good use of new media platforms. Franklin Roosevelts fireside chats may seem quaint to us now, but they were a revolutionary experiment with a nascent media platform when they began in the 1930s. But, as with all things Trump-related, looking to norms and historic conventions can only get you so far. Imagine if Roosevelt had used his radio access to relentlessly criticize individual Americans by name. Trump knows that his critics are disgusted by the way he represents the country on Twitter, and he trusts that his supporters delight in their disgust. <\/p>\n
It never stops, and I wouldnt have it any other way, he wrote in The Art of the Deal. I try to learn from the past, but I plan for the future by focusing exclusively on the present. Thats where the fun is. And if it cant be fun, whats the point? <\/p>\n
If Twitter were to suspend or even outright ban Trump, his most fervent left-wing critics would surely rejoice. His supporters would likely boycott Twitter. Their outrage could help him keep their support. And in Trumps worldview, this may well look like a win-win. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Originally posted here:<\/p>\n
Donald Trump Is Testing Twitter's Harassment Policy - The Atlantic<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The rules are simple, okay? No threats of violence Continue reading