Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Twitter Communications Government Social Networks The Internet Technology Your Rights Online

Twitter Suspends 300,000 Accounts Tied To Terrorism In 2017 (bloomberg.com) 69

According to a new transparency report, Twitter said it suspended nearly 300,000 accounts globally linked to terrorism in the first half of the year. The company is improving automation tools used to help block accounts that promote terrorism and violence. Bloomberg reports: Of [the nearly 300,000 accounts that were suspended], roughly 95 percent were identified by the company's spam-fighting automation tools. Meanwhile, the social network said government data requests continued to increase, and that it provided authorities with data on roughly 3,900 accounts from January to June. Twitter said about 75 percent of the blocked accounts this year were spotted before a single tweet was sent, and that 935,897 accounts had been suspended since August 2015, with two-thirds of those coming in the past year. American authorities made 2,111 requests from Twitter from January to June, the most of the 83 countries tracked by the company. Twitter supplied information on users in 77 percent of the inquiries. Japan made 1,384 requests and the U.K. issued 606 requests. Turkish authorities continued a trend of aggressively policing Twitter, making 554 requests for account data and issuing court orders to remove 715 pieces of content. Other governments made only 38 total content-removal requests.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Twitter Suspends 300,000 Accounts Tied To Terrorism In 2017

Comments Filter:
  • by William Baric ( 256345 ) on Tuesday September 19, 2017 @08:37PM (#55228981)

    Or is it rather 300,000 accounts from people who were not politically correct?

    • by UnknownSoldier ( 67820 ) on Tuesday September 19, 2017 @08:38PM (#55228989)

      Ha! Good point. You know that saying:

      One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

      --
      t's been 1 minute since you last successfully posted a comment
      Fuck You /.

      • That's a fair point, but when someone is posting videos of burning apostates alive or beheading their enemies, I question what kind of freedom they're fighting for.
        • Your example. Not mine.
          http://www.latimes.com/world/m... [latimes.com]

        • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

          It seems you want to join in the action of being the target of a law suit. Lets see, twitter is accusing people of being terrorists and supporters of terrorism, that is slander of the worst sort, seriously that kind of accusation can get you killed in a steroid fuelled law enforcer raid. Twitter, you better have proof, you better have evidence before flinging around those kind of accusations. Now add in those bullshit claims by twitter, 'er' yeah morons, supporting terrorism is a fucking crime punishable by

          • Twitter is a private service and can remove users for violating their terms of services. I suspect that the grant-parent poster was trying to be a bit pithy by alluding to whether these accounts were actual terrorists or merely just people who held politically incorrect view points as Twitter has also caught a lot of flak for banning the accounts of people who have been associated with the alt-right or maybe even just the regular right.

            I personally think it's kind of pointless to ban anyone as free speec
            • Twitter is a private service and can remove users for violating their terms of services

              That wasn't his point - if they claim specific reasons, they DO have to be careful, as libel could be a concern depending on the accusation, and proof/lack thereof.

      • Ha! Good point. You know that saying:

        One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

        --

        Just because it's a saying doesn't mean it's true.

        Harming people not actively involved in an injustice is terrorism.

        Harming people or assets when the military objective is to inflict terror on the victims is terrorism. It's the definition of it.

        • by dave420 ( 699308 )

          No, the definition is using terror to further political aims, or more accurately: the use or threat thereof of violence to politically coerce a people. Terrorism isn't an act, it's a motive.

        • > Harming people not actively involved in an injustice is terrorism.

          Like the US dropping the atomic bomb killing ~129,000 of civilians in Japan. Got it.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        It's only terrorism if brown people (especially muslims) do it.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      That sounds like something a terriorist would say.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Man I hate terrierists, always walkin' around with their little yappy bastard rats.

        • by Anonymous Coward

          Found another terrorist. Get him!

    • Trump? (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Did they suspend Trump?

      Funny: Captcha was "unifies"

    • No, it's not.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Gravis Zero ( 934156 )

      Or is it rather 300,000 accounts from people who were not politically correct?

      Nope, terrorism. [bbc.com]

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        Oh, you mean terrorism [wikipedia.org]. And I guess you also mean terrorism [wikipedia.org].

        See? I can play that game too. So be very careful who you accuse of terrorism, because there's a big chance you are someone who supports a group which some people would happily consider as "terrorist", meaning you are probably a terrorist yourself.

        • Oh, you mean terrorism [wikipedia.org]. And I guess you also mean terrorism [wikipedia.org].

          Yes! You're getting it now! Terrorism is extreme violence that is intended to make political change by instilling fear.

          See? I can play that game too. So be very careful who you accuse of terrorism, because there's a big chance you are someone who supports a group which some people would happily consider as "terrorist", meaning you are probably a terrorist yourself.

          I do not support any person or group that promotes or uses violence to instill fear. Violence is a crude and ineffective tool for people who lack (metaphoric) vision.

          • by Anonymous Coward

            I do not support any person or group that promotes or uses violence to instill fear. Violence is a crude and ineffective tool for people who lack (metaphoric) vision.

            Looks like you don't belong to any nation that has an army. Violence is what keeps everything in order otherwise Politics wouldn't result in armed men being deployed.

            • Looks like you don't belong to any nation that has an army.

              You've moved the goalposts here. He said he didn't "support any person or group that uses violence...".

              Belonging to a nation and supporting the actions of a nation are two entirely different things.

    • Given that in the UK, they'll go after idiot trolls that make racist comments targeting celebrities. Yes, that's pretty much it. Not that I'm defending those trolls, but calling them terrorists is a bit much.

    • Considering...

      Twitter said about 75 percent of the blocked accounts this year were spotted before a single tweet was sent

      It really makes ya wonder how they knew these accounts were tied to "terrorism" and what criteria are they even being used to deplatform people.

      • I look at it differently. Once the mechanism is fully in place 90% of the work is done and you can start with very conservative criteria to minimize opposition.
        After that, you can update the criteria unannounced every day to the needs of the moment and you can counter criticism by saying the system is not perfect and will be corrected to take in account the reactions.

      • by dave420 ( 699308 )

        Because of who they liked/followed, the content of their profile, direct messages to known assholes, etc. Twitter is more than just tweeting. Not much more, but more.

    • by Zemran ( 3101 )
      "block accounts that promote terrorism and violence" = Anyone who questions the party line. In the UK you can get arrested for researching Hamas. Hamas are a democratically elected government, being Hamas official can mean being a school headmaster. Hesbollah the same.
    • Probably both...but they forgot to include Trump's account. I doubt hate speech and libel are covered by the terms of use.
      • by pjt33 ( 739471 )

        The rule which talks about terrorism is

        You may not make threats of violence or promote violence, including threatening or promoting terrorism.

        But either it's one rule for the élite and another for hoi polloi or threatening to nuke North Korea isn't a threat of violence.

    • That's my question. Well, that's my question about 5% of those, as the article states 95% of them were spam bots.

      But yeah, how many were terrorists, how many were "not preferred opinions", and how many were just pissed at their governments for clamping down on free speech?

    • by hey! ( 33014 )

      If only there were some kind of Internet mechanism that would somehow link to other information resources that could answer questions like this. I have great acronym for it too: Really Terrific For Answers.

  • Way to go, Twitter! If that doesn't stop them nothing will!

  • The twit-in-chief is still twitting away..
    • by Anonymous Coward

      He has been allowed to break the TOS by threatening violence against others. He is a source of advertising and revenue for twitter , so they let him stay.

  • WTF?

  • are being allowed to post, seeing as many of them are not classified as "terrorists" even though they bomb, burn, kill, threaten, etc.
  • http://talkingpointsmemo.com/l... [talkingpointsmemo.com] will her account be suspended?
  • They hired Anita Sarkeesian. "Terrorism" probably means you politely disagree with LGBT lifestyles.

All great discoveries are made by mistake. -- Young

Working...