Twitter Employee Blamed For Deleting President Donald Trump's Account (npr.org) 377
A reader shares an NPR report: With the push of a button, an employee at Twitter accomplished for a brief few minutes on Thursday what President Trump's closest advisors have reportedly been trying unsuccessfully to do for months: shut down the seemingly never-ending tweet stream at @realDonaldTrump. Perhaps it was an act of civil disobedience, or maybe just a "take this job and shove it" moment, but shortly before 7 p.m., the president's personal account kicked back the error message "does not exist." By 7:03 p.m., it was up and running again and within about a half-hour, new presidential tweets were forthcoming. The folks at Twitter leapt into action to find out what had happened: "Earlier today @realdonaldtrump's account was inadvertently deactivated due to human error by a Twitter employee. The account was down for 11 minutes, and has since been restored. We are continuing to investigate and are taking steps to prevent this from happening again," the company said in a statement. Two hours later, the company said, "Through our investigation we have learned that this was done by a Twitter customer support employee who did this on the employee's last day."
The REAL question is (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the real question is why they restored it so quickly. I would have loved having a week or two without having to hear about the latest Trump rant on CNN.
Re:The REAL question is (Score:4, Insightful)
I would have loved having a week or two without having to hear about the latest Trump rant on CNN.
Then maybe you should watch less CNN. Do you really think that their non-stop anti-Trump ranting is in any way going to be modified by whether or not he's just tweeted something? If they can go on for a solid day about which shoes his wife wears on the way to get on an airplane, your hopes for them shutting up their one-note editorial focus for a week or two because of ANY change in communication method by Trump is just a silly fantasy.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Trump's tweets are the only reason I have Twitter installed. They're a national embarrassment, incredibly reckless, and I wish they'd stop. I REALLY wish they'd stop. But, since they won't, I make the most of them. They're a window into the confusing mind of a very powerful man. We always know exactly what he's thinking. And, for better or worse, so does anyone else. In the sense that he's accurately reflecting his thoughts, he's more honest there than anywhere else. Even when his tweets are wildly inaccura
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
...coastal liberals, they make my day.
Wishing that DJT would stop tweeting does not make me a liberal. Wishing that everyone had access to food, shelter, and healthcare makes me a liberal.
Re:The REAL question is (Score:4, Insightful)
Nitpick: I thought that everybody would wish that, but liberals think society should intervene directly to force that goal, while conservatives think society will be better off as a whole if this is left to the actions of private organizations and individuals. Am I correct?
Re: (Score:2)
If you infer that "wishing" everyone had those things meant that they would materialize from thin air, then you are right that everyone would wish that. What I meant was that I would like to see those things made available by mandate even with the consequences that carries. You're not wrong; I'm not either. Forcing everyone to pay for health insurance whether they want it or not is a liberal idea that I like.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
They're a window into the confusing mind of a very powerful man.
More like, a window into his butt.
Triggered, Ivan?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They're a window into the confusing mind of a very powerful man.
More like, a window into his butt.
Triggered, Ivan?
Wow, the Ivans really don't like the association with Trump's butt. I totally understand, having to spend so much time licking out Vlad's butt and all.
Re:The REAL question is (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The REAL question is (Score:4, Insightful)
Every story was the same just different characters, places, and clauses/issues. Just the same bovine scat. Like in the "Casablanca" film, at the end, when the Vichy French officer instructs his junior police officers to round up the "usual suspects". American Politics is exactly the same -- just a drama to keep the uninformed from living their lives.
That's because most "news" has to be entertaining, in order to attract people's attention and keep it long enough to expose them to an ad, ask them for a pledge, or persuade them their tax money is well spent (depending on what country you're in). So they broadcast most often what they think is going to grab the most attention.
There's actually two kinds of news. The first kind you watch only because your job depends on it. This news is boring: farming reports, commodity news, financial news and market reports, that kind of thing. You won't see Trump's Tweets there, but unless you have some reason to watch/read/listen to this stuff, you won't.
Then there's the other news that you watch because it's at least part-way entertaining. Informative, sure, but politics, disasters, and videos of kittens being rescued from a tree are all entertaining, and the people in these businesses are in competition with each other to get more viewers. They all look the same? No surprise - in media and politics, you tend to work the same formula that succeeded in the past. FWIW, Trump's Tweets attracts attention, so infotainment news splashes them up like they're the next damn moon landing. Followed by an important message from Polident denture cleaner (keeps your teeth from being stinky and gross). Mission accomplished.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
No, the real question is why they restored it so quickly. I would have loved having a week or two without having to hear about the latest Trump rant on CNN.
Then don't watch CNN.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the real question is why they restored it so quickly.
Indeed. I have read enough stories of how others have had to fight to get access back when it was removed in error. He should have gone through the same process as others, and being met with the same runarounds and scripted first level support as everybody else.
He has the @POTUS account for presidential use, and should not have any special privileges for his personal account.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Loads. I hear about it from their friends on Twitter all the time. Never seen one get restore this fast though. Usually its weeks, or the user just gives up and creates a new account.
Arguably in this case, the account in question has in fact violated twitter's TOS repeatedly. Its been making death threats and bullying other twitter users even today after restoration. If it was anybody BUT the POTUS it would have been shut off long ago.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the REAL question is - does this ex-employee have a Patreon?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Obviously, Trump should not issue anything resembling military commands via twitter nor should the military follow anything that looks like a command via twitter.
The first part of that should go without saying, but given that the electoral college elites have successfully put the most in
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It means that some arbitrary process is in place to censor any point of view. Get the wrong censor, and your own pet cause could be next. It's all fun and games until a Scientologist is the censor.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it sounds like they have a review process in place, and it worked.
If I were designing a system to handle TOS violations I'd probably start with allowing employees to act swiftly but closed accounts go into a review queue with a note about what they did. I'd imagine Twitter has something like that in place and another employee saw it and quickly undid the damage.
Or maybe they just have alerts set up on changes to Trump's account, since it's so valuable to them.
Re: (Score:2)
We're both speculating, but my speculation is that they only caught it so fast because it was the President. I'm think you are probably right that they have a review process in place, but I suspect it is not triggered automatically because that would cost them money. You are thinking like an engineer looking to make a robust system, but that is not necessarily who is calling the shots.
Re: (Score:2)
If I were designing a system to handle TOS violations I'd probably start with allowing employees to act swiftly but closed accounts go into a review queue with a note about what they did. I'd imagine Twitter has something like that in place and another employee saw it and quickly undid the damage. Or maybe they just have alerts set up on changes to Trump's account, since it's so valuable to them.
I'd probably make the review queue weight by number of followers as well as time so that any account with millions of followers would jump right to the top of the queue. You could say that past a certain number of followers they should have a two-tier process before it gets deactivated in the first place, but even a popular account could get hacked and those 11 minutes is a lot of time to spout a lot of garbage to many millions of people. Not that anyone would notice the difference in this case, but in gene
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm glad you see things so black and white. I completely agree that some random religion's website is completely theirs to screw with. Twitter is not a religion, it is a company with a corporate charter. They get economic perks like tax incentives and limited liability. They are hugely influential in our national discussion. I think the public/private line is sufficiently blurred that the analogy begins to fail. If Twitter decides to tilt the decision a certain direction, it has a large impact on society. I
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't an individual employee's place to judge who/what is appropriate.
Let's vote on it, then. Popular vote, thank you.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You are correct, aside from the ad hominem. In this case, however, it was not the business that deleted the account. It was a rouge employee on his last day. Big difference.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You are correct, aside from the ad hominem. In this case, however, it was not the business that deleted the account. It was a rouge employee on his last day. Big difference.
Does it matter what their skin color is? Or did you mean rogue?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you quite seriously saying that if you're 'unimportant', other people and companies get to screw you over at their leisure?
Re:The REAL question is (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure that Twitter was scrambling to restore the account as fast as they could. Regardless of what Mr. Fat Fingers thinks of POTUS Trump, Twitter would suffer horribly without everyone following his 3am tweets.
Re:The REAL question is (Score:5, Insightful)
Jail time incoming for this illegal misuse of corporate services and computers.
That is extremely unlikely to happen. If a user cannot sue Twitter for deleting his account, who is going to bother with the ex-employee?
As far as "illegal misuse", this employee was apparrently granted access to manage user accounts. Unless he circumvented security measures to get that access, he didn't break the law. Firing an employee for misuse is certainly reasonable, but Twitter doesn't need to bother if he already left the company.
I anticipate no legal consequences. Is 11 minutes without Twitter even justification for a torte?
Another libtard is about to realise the world isn't like their faggy echo-chamber they create for themselves.
Ah, so we have a reason for your rush to authoritative, punitive judgment: partisan politics.
Re: (Score:2)
That is extremely unlikely to happen. If a user cannot sue Twitter for deleting his account, who is going to bother with the ex-employee?
Not sure what you're trying to suggest, the company has both made the terms of service and the employment contract so both favor Twitter. That Twitter can do whatever it wants with the users doesn't mean the employees can do whatever they want with Twitter, quite far from it.
As far as "illegal misuse", this employee was apparrently granted access to manage user accounts. Unless he circumvented security measures to get that access, he didn't break the law. Firing an employee for misuse is certainly reasonable, but Twitter doesn't need to bother if he already left the company.
I'm pretty sure that if I as a DBA "accidentally" dropped the production database on my last day of work there'd be some kind of criminal law on the books. I may not be charging with hacking as I'd only abuse privileges I rightfully hav
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure that if I as a DBA "accidentally" dropped the production database on my last day of work there'd be some kind of criminal law on the books.
I work in IT, not in the court system, so I'll take a lawyer's word on that. Not yours though, unless you have the credentials. I work on the security side of the profession now, and I understand the legal stuff at a basic level.
Federal law has the CFAA, which generally does not apply if you exercised permissions you were legitimately granted. Unless there are state/local or industry-specific rules in place, there is no basis for criminal prosecution. Not from I've seen, anyway.
My employer has seen delibera
Re:The REAL question is (Score:5, Funny)
Jail time incoming for this illegal misuse of corporate services and computers.
That would be nice, but nothing really sticks to Trump, and he's said that he can pardon himself if need be...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a business - not the government. They have no obligation to freedom of speech or any other freedoms.
They're a business alright, but the CEO has gone on record more than once claiming that they don't apply the rules differently based on political leanings. They're completely free to be as biased as they want to, but they should at least be up front about how they apply different rules to people with different ideologies. If they don't want traditional liberals like myself who criticize conservatives and liberals when they do/say stupid things (i.e all the time), at least don't pretend like we're welcome wh
Re: (Score:2)
They're completely free to be as biased as they want to...
No, they are not. Bias would jeopardize their common carrier [wikipedia.org] status.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Good point, Google has common carrier status, Twitter doesn't. Twitter will follow in Google's footsteps for the same reasons, as soon as they acquire the legal competence. So let's just say "future common carrier status" above.
Here we go - NAZIS!!!! Aaaaaaa! (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, deleting accounts of blacks and gays is acceptable? I seem to remember a recent court case about a wedding cake for a gay wedding that LEGALLY decided differently.
Good to know racism and sexism is ok, as long as you are a private company. Thanks for sticking up for racists!
Yes, I will stick up for racists. One has every right to be a racist, bigot or whatever. They have a right to speak their mind. But we also have the right to not listen to him - to censor him: tell him to get off of private property for instance, like a website.
Now, does the racist have a right to walk into a synagogue and start pontificating of the evils of Jews? Nope.
Does Twitter or any other media outlet have to allow the Nazi to share his views? Nope.
Do you have a right to tell him to STFU? Yep.
Does
Re:Here we go - NAZIS!!!! Aaaaaaa! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Here we go - NAZIS!!!! Aaaaaaa! (Score:2, Insightful)
The sole point of freedom of speech is so that you canâ(TM)t be jailed or killed for your opinion. Not because your opinion isnâ(TM)t wrong, but rather because whoâ(TM)s to say the guy in power is right?
You have no obligation to let people post things that you think are evil on your website. Thatâ(TM)s just ludicrous. America has a long tradition of valuing FREEDOM. Letâ(TM)s give people the freedom to regulate sites as they see fit.
Re:Who gives a shit? Everyone should... (Score:4, Informative)
Twitter is probably considered a "Public" means of communications (or a public utility). Just like the telephone...
Common carrier [wikipedia.org] is the legal term you're looking for. Yes, megatechs guard that status jealously, it helps keep employee costs down.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Those who enjoy legal protections as members of the press incur an obligation to be honest and to disclose all the facts regardless of whether they like them. I don't see why any other kind of media should have any obligation to its users.
Everyone can freely associate or communicate as they see fit---or refuse to associate, if they object to someone else. That's the default; that's protected by the Constitution. If a social platform wants to remove content or ban users based on their content, they are entit
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
First they silenced the losers,
And I said nothing, because I was not a loser.
Then they silenced those with bad attitudes,
And I said nothing, because I didn't like their attitude.
Then they silenced the trolls,
And I said nothing, because trolls are bad, m'kay?
Then they silenced the guys with an actual, if controversial, point,
And I said nothing because I didn't notice.
Then ... You can see where this is going, right?
@POTUS retweets @realDonaldTrump an awful lot (Score:2)
The White House's @POTUS account [twitter.com] is a government contract. President Trump's personal account (@realDonaldTrump) is de facto a government contract to the extent that @POTUS is largely composed of Retweets from @realDonaldTrump. When @realDonaldTrump was briefly deactivated, half the Tweets on @POTUS became unavailable during that time.
Cloud yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
Where your data can get deleted by a click of a button by a disgruntled employee and even the fucking president of the United States can't be spared nor can his data be restored in less than 11 minutes.
Imagine if you weren't the president, would they even care?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nothing gets deleted in the true sense. It's flagged to be hidden. If you're one of the many agencies or advertisers with API access to twitter, FB, Google, Apple accounts, you'll see everything ever posted even if the account holder cannot.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Uhh it is fucking Twitter and it is NOT YOUR DATA. You use their service and agree to their terms and conditions. And being president does not give him anymore fucking authority on Twitter than you or I. Hell, if Twitter deactivated POTUS and Trump's personal account and decided they don't want the likes of him on their service that is their choice.
The market may decide to respond with new alternatives to Twitter because of the censorship and that is the risk Twitter will take.
Re: (Score:2)
Where your data can get deleted by a click of a button by a disgruntled employee and even the fucking president of the United States can't be spared nor can his data be restored in less than 11 minutes.
. . . and just how much do you pay for your Twitter account . . . ? It's just like the rest of life: you get what you pay for.
Imagine if you weren't the president, would they even care?
Obviously, they don't even really care if you are president . . . otherwise, his account would not have been deactivated in the first place.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Restored in 11 minutes no less. Anecdotally, it usually takes weeks. Try that trick if you aren't POTUS.
Particularly if your profile is full of name-calling and threats like his is. Good luck.
Re: (Score:2)
The question is, when we place all of our free speech eggs into the corporate basket... should we care? Or should we rather say, "Good! This is why you don't let Facebook/Twitter/Youtube be the sole carriers of your voice and online identity."
I, for one, think the latter reaction is more appropriate. Some are reacting like there was some "right" violated. Not at all. Company hits delete button. Because they can. Sure, this was a rogue employee, but if Twitter itself did it, the masses would be crying
Re: (Score:2)
Where your data ...
wait, whose data?
Re: (Score:2)
Uhh, I've worked in a place where we went from our own internally hosted and managed DB to a cloud hosted one. I had master DB access before the change and after, so I could have deleted or modified a user account on the cloud or off the cloud. The cloud did not make that any better or worse. And restoring from backup or (as was the case here) changing a record that was incorrectly made inactive to active again didn't get significantly faster or slower on the cloud vs off the cloud either.
None of this ha
Re: (Score:2)
But there is always going to be someone else who has full access to your information when your information is in the cloud, just like your company's IT department can get in to every folder on every server in the company, just as the custodian typically has the keys to every door in the company.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree in principle, but that statement isn't strictly accurate. It depends on the service and its implementation.
There is always someone who can handle your information when it's stored in a cloud service. If it's encrypted properly, they may not actually have access to view or modify it. A closer analogy would be a bank safe deposit box. While the bank has keys to the vault and is responsible for the vast majority of its upkeep, you're the only one with the key to look inside the box.
In the case of Twitt
Re: (Score:2)
If I'm not the President or an entertainer, then no one cares if your account is deleted.
You and your followers would care.
And who is qualified to judge that an entertainer (and we have to include Trump in that) is more important than, say, a scientist or an activist?
Monopoly (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
At least Twitter supports Unicode (Score:2)
Twitter unconscionably restricts users's free speech to fewer than 255 characters. We demand the full 8-bit width of a one-byte length descriptor.
Individual characters in Tweets are from a set larger than 255, <cough>unlike on Slashdot...</cough>
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone can set up another twitter clone. Heck, a quick search shows several clones so they're not a monopoly.
There is no law that says they have to let you speak. The Republicans fixed that back in the 80's by removing the Fairness Doctrine and again in 2004 or so by refusing to consider reinstating it. Punishment to a company/corporation is by folks going to alternate twitter sites or just not using it.
[John]
Re:Monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
As a note, the reason for the Fairness Doctrine being removed was Cable News like CNN. The Fairness Doctrine was intended to make sure everyone had a voice on the big three channels. With Cable, people aren't locked in to ABC, NBC, or CBS. You can get news from CNN or any other company that can get a cable presence. Then with the 'net, there are even more options with FoxNews and lots and lots of other sites like BBC and Al Jazeera.
The problem with this though is folks start to gravitate to their bubbles. Don't like hearing a Conservative or Liberal spin on the news? There are sites that cater just to your ideology. You don't hear other viewpoints and worse, the viewpoints you do hear are much stronger. And even worse are News Aggregators like the ones on devices (phones and tablets) and like Facebook where they're weighing what you click on and configuring your feed to give you more of what you indicate you like enough to read. Without a conscious effort to go to alternate sites, you get into a feedback loop.
Over the years I've found myself getting into that loop and having to work at broadening my news to include sites outside my ideology. The bad part are the aggregation sites aren't good at providing just news. I'll go to different sites and then have the "For You" sites include opinions that can be quite offensive, to the point that I have to block them from my views.
[John]
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Pretending that it's somehow equal is totally wrong. The Left utterly banished opposing opinions from the airwaves. It got so bad that conservative opinions retreated all the way to AM radio, a terrible ghetto, to be heard. I mean, come on, AM radio? It's a wonder that it still exists, and I had that thought 30 years ago. Then Murdoch started his Fox news, but what else? Prior to the rise of citizen journalism on Youtube, there was hardly anything but tame, controlled opposition which would be allowed
Re: (Score:2)
The Fairness Doctrine was only for licensed broadcasters which twitter, facebook, and other social media, etc... is not. It didn't cover newspapers or magazines either just radio and TV.
It also didn't give you the right to speak it actually took away the rights for editorial opinions and required that broadcasting be for the public interest and that controversial issues be reported in a non-biased manner.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
1. That's not how free speech rights work. You are protected from the GOVERNMENT preventing you from speaking. This is a private company. They can censor anything they like (including the president, although they might have to retain his tweets, because of legal reasons).
2. I'd really like to understand your logic for how a service that depends on other mediums for transmission could possibly be a "common-carrier". They don't provide service. They aren't a telephone company. They aren't a wireless c
Re: (Score:2)
It's not even close to a monopoly, but it is hugely influential and I think you are 100% correct that they need to be forced to choose between being an editor or taking advantage of common-carrier types of protections of content. Most of these companies want it both ways, and I don't think they should be allowed to succeed.
Re: (Score:2)
Being a racist bigot isn't a protected class. In many places being gay is.
Re: (Score:2)
and adding any or all of
Honey
Almonds
Peanuts
Sorbital Based Sweetener
Valerian Root
Lemon
to the cake "forgetting" or "not knowing" that members of the wedding party are allergic could not cause any more than normal liabilty
Twitter CSR doesn't need manager approval (Score:5, Insightful)
What we've discovered is that Twitter CSRs can whack any account whenever they want, for whatever reason they want. They have no real oversight whatsoever, so when this juvy decided to do something they just did it and left the building.
Besides being an asshole move, it shows a distinct lack of internal controls.
Re:Twitter CSR doesn't need manager approval (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
What we've discovered is that Twitter CSRs can whack any account whenever they want, for whatever reason they want.
I suspect that if this were a story about how a Twitter account were hijacked and used to spread malware, and the owner contacted customer support, you would be complaining that the CSR has to get managerial approval before he can deactivate the account to stop the bleeding.
Re:Twitter CSR doesn't need manager approval (Score:4, Insightful)
They have no real oversight whatsoever
Except for the oversight that restored the account in 11 minutes. And the fact that the data wasn't even deleted, merely deactivated in case it needed to be restored later. But yeah, other than that oversight, there is none whatsoever.
Re: (Score:2)
Foolish employee... (Score:2)
It would have been much more effective if they'd banned the account for violating TOS rather than deleting it.
It would have been a bit more embarrassing for Twitter to handle, and I'm guessing the reason it took only 11 minutes to notice was some notification system that was triggered when a billion hits went to the same dead link. Maybe if the site had been serving up a banned user message, it would have taken longer to notice.
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't talking about it being a more successful action for Twitter, but for the presumably disgruntled employee's attempt at symbolically damaging Trump.
And I assume if you're a disgruntled employee, actually destroying the company on your way out counts as a win, too.
Maybe they should've left it down for longer (Score:3)
His approval rating would probably rise if they did.
I neither voted for the guy, nor am I a "nevertrumper"; I think he's unfairly maligned much of the time (sometimes he deserves it too), but a lot of his tweets are ridiculous.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
>It would be tough for it to drop.
Nicolae Ceausescu had double-digit approval ratings when he was executed (And oddly enough, today about half the rural population and a third of the urban population of Romania would vote for him if he weren't busy being dead).
The leader always has some support, if only because there are selfish and immoral people prospering under the regime.
Re: (Score:2)
They are (5 year olds).
The Amazing Part (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They probably have a bot that continiously polls high profile accounts for continued availability and a convinient reactivate button on SRE dashboard?
Re: (Score:2)
The Resistance Strikes Again! (Score:2)
Obviously it was their last day (Score:2)
our investigation we have learned that this was done by a Twitter customer support employee who did this on the employee's last day
Was it the employee's last day before they deleted Trump's account?
Twitter should retaliate by naming the person (Score:4, Interesting)
They got lucky that the person was smart enough to not delete the account. There are plenty of political radicals in SV that would have not been so rational. Since the threat of firing was already gone, the only way Twitter can punish them now is to publicly name the person who did this. That is also a good way to make it clear to other employees that if they follow in this person's footsteps, Twitter will not hesitate to nuke them in defense of its interests and users.
Like it or not, Trump is not just some user. He is almost a full blown asset with a monetary value to Twitter because he drives so much user engagement. Had the person deleted the account, Trump would have had a few options. One of which is Twitter's nightmare: move to Gab. Right now, Gab only has a few hundred thousand users and the neo-Nazis retards have a loud and proud presence there. I can guarantee you that if this SJW had deleted the account, Gab would have grown at least an order of magnitude within a few days. With 90 days, it would probably have at least 5M, if not 10M, users. Twitter would have also lost a huge source of engagement which would drive the conversations there down even further.
If Twitter management cares about shareholders (we know they don't, as Dorsey is still in charge), they'll take swift and brutal action against this person and their career.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
self-fulfiliing excuse? (Score:5, Insightful)
>> this was done by a Twitter customer support employee who did this on the employee's last day.
Was it their last day before they did it?
And there was much rejoicing (Score:2)
But couldn't he have deleted *Trump*, not just his twitter account?
Blamed? (Score:2)
Why start out on such a judgmental note?
Violation of ToS (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Try searching for "you're hired" today on Twitter and you'll see there are enough job vacancies to accommodate people who like and those who dislike the disgraced 45th president of the USA.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Is rather be like the "intolerant" antifa than what they stand against.
The Nazis hate black people, brown people, Jews, Muslims, gay people, transsexuals, women, foreigners and so on.
Antifa hate the Nazis.
Those are not equivalent.
By defining "Nazis" an anyone who doesn't agree with Antifa, Antifa ARE Nazis.
Look at it this way:
Both Antifa and the Taliban respond to statues they don't like in the same way: tear them down.
Both Antifa and Mussolini's Fascists stated that they will violently attack people simply for preferring different economic policies.
When an organization has that much in common with the Taliban and Mussolini's Fascists - and masks themselves just like the KKK - there's a problem with that organization.
Re:Are all the editors on Slashdot liberal SJW's? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Are all the editors on Slashdot liberal SJW's? (Score:5, Insightful)
So somehow reporting that someone shut down Trump's twitter account is Trump bashing? It's a simple matter of fact.
Oh that's right - I forgot. Any facts that you guys don't like are fake news/someone's agenda/whatever so you don't have to face them.
Let me tell you something, my friend. Reality doesn't give two shits what you think about it.
Re:Are all the editors on Slashdot liberal SJW's? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, this. It's probably the most famous Twitter account, which happens to be a technology firm, so News for Nerds kind of qualifies. I don't think TFS is very biased either, it's quite factual. The only thing it fails to mention is if said rogue employee will be charged, but I'd be amazed if they aren't...
Re: (Score:2)
If I were that employee I'd have posted to the account instead of deleting it. What words to put in his mouth, though? I'd be hard-pressed to come up with something offensive enough to shock anyone. Maybe take the other tack, and admit to some of his shit.
Re: (Score:2)
And a Criminal Record in the process. That might restrict their ability to work in some industries.
Re: (Score:2)
Just so you know the actual facts...
Manafort has been charged with what amounts to tax evasion and none of it has anything to do with the Russians. Also, all the charges allege activities that happened BEFORE Trump's campaign was even a pipe dream, 4 YEARS before Trump announced back in 2012. Also, remember that Manafort's position as campaign manager ENDED right after Trump was the obvious nominee, so had nothing to do with the campaign in the general election fight with Clinton.
The campaign worker wh
Re: (Score:2)
Give that (wo)man a medal! Hmm, actually, a gofundme. Really.
Wow, the Ivans found this post too!