Advice To Twitter Worker Who Deactivated Trump's Account: 'Get A Lawyer' (thehill.com) 271
An anonymous reader quotes The Hill:
A prominent attorney for cybersecurity issues has this advice to the unnamed Twitter worker said to have pulled the plug on President Trump's Twitter account: "Don't say anything and get a lawyer." Tor Ekeland told The Hill that while the facts of the case are still unclear and the primary law used to prosecute hackers is murky and unevenly applied, there is a reasonable chance the Twitter worker violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act...widely considered to be, as Ekeland explained it, "a mess." Various courts around the country have come up with seemingly contradictory rulings on what unauthorized access actually means. Ekeland said the Ninth Circuit, covering the state of California, has itself issued rulings at odds with itself that would have an impact on the Trump Twitter account fiasco as a potential case. The Ninth Circuit ruled that employees do not violate the law if they exceed their workplace computer policies. It has also ruled that employees who have been told they do not have permission to access a system cannot legally access it. Depending on which ruling a court leans on the hardest, a current Twitter employee without permission to shutter accounts may have violated the law by nixing Trump's account.
Ekeland points out that just $5,000 worth of damage could carry a 10-year prison sentence.
Friday the New York Times also reported that the worker responsible wasn't even a Twitter employee, but a hired contractor, adding that "nearly every" major tech company uses contractors for non-technical positions, including Google, Apple, and Facebook.
Ekeland points out that just $5,000 worth of damage could carry a 10-year prison sentence.
Friday the New York Times also reported that the worker responsible wasn't even a Twitter employee, but a hired contractor, adding that "nearly every" major tech company uses contractors for non-technical positions, including Google, Apple, and Facebook.
Nonsense (Score:3)
The greatest legal minds advise that if you have access to a system you can do whatever the fuck you want with it [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Part of Job Description (Score:5, Insightful)
If they are authorized to disable accounts that violate their Terms of Use, it seems like it is part of their job. If it were anyone else it would be no problem but good forbid Donald Trump get smacked.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyone else is not the president of the US. Also - there was no authorization to disable his account. So - the perp was violating company policy.
Likely nothing much will happen. But if you're Twitter the company, you have to be thinking that having the Feds crawl up your rectum looking for anything to charge you with has got to be a problem.
Because a $4 trillion federal bureaucracy can do a lot of damage to an individual or a company it doesn't like.
Re: (Score:3)
Anyone else is not the president of the US.
Irrelevant. The POTUS may be able to alter traffic and pre-empt television broadcasts, but on Twitter, he's just another user who is subject to their terms of service and various attached rules and policies.
Also - there was no authorization to disable his account. So - the perp was violating company policy.
Okay, now that is relevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but if you are going to antagonize the government, then better make sure everything you do is squeaky clean, all papers are correct form, signed, all "i"s dotted and "t"s crossed. Because if you piss the government off enough, it will most likely find something to use against you.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You seriously think TheRealDonaldTrump is "just another user"? Sorry, the fact that someone is POTUS is actually pretty significant. You'll note that while I can go in and edit most articles on Wikipedia, I cannot go and alter the article for Donald Trump or Barrack Obama, and for good reason. It has special protection against the inevitable vandalism that would occur otherwise from random idiots and zealots.
Why Twitter didn't think it necessary to put some special protections on high-profile accounts is
Re: (Score:2)
You seriously think TheRealDonaldTrump is "just another user"?
As far as Twitter is concerned? Yes. [And BTW, it's @realDonaldTrump.]
Sorry, the fact that someone is POTUS is actually pretty significant.
Yes, but not as far as the Twitter terms of use, rules, and policies are concerned. Twitter is no more obliged to offer an account to the POTUS than you are obliged to let him use your bathroom.
You'll note that while I can go in and edit most articles on Wikipedia, I cannot go and alter the article for Donald Trump or Barrack Obama, and for good reason. It has special protection against the inevitable vandalism that would occur otherwise from random idiots and zealots.
All of that is up to Wikipedia. Whether Twitter offers special protection for (or from?) some users is entirely up to them. It's their dojo.
Re: (Score:3)
As far as Twitter is concerned? Yes. [And BTW, it's @realDonaldTrump.]
We'll Twitters very actions prove that they don't consider @realDonaldTrump just another user. The fact they shit all over themselves restoring the account in 30 minutes and then issuing press statements distancing themselves from the event prove that. I promise that if I had a twitter account and something happened to it, it wouldn't be head line news when it got disabled.
There is another reason that twatter, and faceboo, would be acting like this and treating the president with such gloves. While t
Re: (Score:3)
An yes, I know only the government can truly "censor" someone. I'm just using as a figure of speech.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes I do, and yes I did. Deal with it.
Re:Part of Job Description (Score:4)
OMG, this is absolutely hilarious. Let's unpack this, one mistake at a time.
Like OMG, so much ignorance and arrogance bound up in one post. How efficient of you. Oh look, you even used a number list that I can use to correct you. Aren't you smart? Let us begin.
There we go. You have been illuminated.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone else is not the president of the US. Also - there was no authorization to disable his account. So - the perp was violating company policy
You got this totally wrong. This is not about whether he should have disabled this account or not. He shouldn't have, and would have been fired about it if he hadn't left already.
This is about whether he is guilty of abusing his ex-employer's computers. And he clearly was authorized to delete accounts.
A similar recent case was about a woman whose job it was to operate a computer that fills out lottery tickets, and take payment for those tickets from customers. She used the computer to fill out about 1
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
private corporations have no obligation to service anyone
I have some Christian bakers here who'd like a moment to rebut your assertion...
Re: (Score:2)
Leaka s chat!
Not all Private corporations are bakeries with retail store fronts. If you want to discriminate against gays, Jews, Milagros or whatever group of potential customers, you are free to do as long as you don't have a public operation.
Retail storefronts using public sidewalks and featuring and unlocked front door are not private. If you are in a mall, then the mall has its own rules and is subject to the same.
So, all I need to do is own the sidewalk in front of my store? Really? That can be done.
I will buy a lot in an undeveloped block, clear the land, build a store, pour a cement sidewalk, and put a sign next to the building and sidewalk that I did put there: We only serve people of the correct race.
Does that pass your test of public vs private business?
Re:Part of Job Description (Score:5, Insightful)
Their job is to disable accounts when told to do so. Not whenever they feel like it. Not when they don't like what someone is saying. Not because they feel like it.
This is no different than an admin leaving or being fired and botching the system before they walk out.
Re:Part of Job Description (Score:5, Interesting)
It could be that this person was a moderating who decides if a person violated the term of service based on the companies policies.
Maybe this person decided to finally correctly apply this to this twitter account.
If that is the case, the lawsuit is going to be interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably only designated personnel whose specific job is to do that are authorized to do so, but customer service representatives may have technical ability but No authorization to use that capability.
Re: (Score:2)
If it were anyone else it would be no problem but good forbid Donald Trump get smacked.
All this worrying over nothing. I’m sure President Trump will take the high road and turn the other cheek.
Fucked (Score:5, Insightful)
As soon as you have to pay a lawyer, you are FUBAR.
Remember how money gets distributed by courts. Lawyers first.
Re: (Score:2)
As soon as you have to pay a lawyer, you are FUBAR.
He doesn't need a lawyer . . . Trump would not even bother to touch this guy or gal.
When push comes to shove, it won't matter about your political motivations concerning your actions at work.
Skank Donald Trump? Well, he seems to have his team to handle this.
Skank Hillary Clinton? Well, she will declare that she is responsible, but will clearly put the blame on someone else.
The person who did this will need to apply for a change of name. It doesn't matter if you are a democrat or a republican. Someon
Re: (Score:2)
I also do not think that Trump would bother with the ex-employee, because if he wanted to sue somebody, he would sue Twitter and then let Twitter figure out what to do with the ex-employee. Though I do not think that he will sue Twitter for this either.
However, Twitter may try to preempt a lawsuit by Trump with a lawsuit against the ex-employee in an effort to show that "yes, we did not authorize this, he/she did this on their own etc".
A mess? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a fucking travesty!
Had this been any other president or political candidate, airlines would be diverting traffic to extradite this guy already.
But hey, if 'cause Trump' finally gets the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act the scrutiny it sorely needs, then I'm all for it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a fucking travesty!
Had this been any other president or political candidate, airlines would be diverting traffic to extradite this guy already.
But hey, if 'cause Trump' finally gets the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act the scrutiny it sorely needs, then I'm all for it.
Why? Because a Twitter account got deactivated for a couple hours? Turn off Fox News and rejoin the real world.
Some contractor decided to pull a dumb stunt, the meaningful consequences of which were precisely zilch.
The guy should be sued and/or face some additional legal consequences, it should certainly impact his future employment prospects because he's proven he'll abuse his access.
But otherwise, it's just not that big a deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump has been violating Twitter's policies almost as long as he has had a Twitter account, but double-especially since he became POTUS. The thing that will hang this contractor is that they were no longer a contractor when they deleted Trump's account.
Without knowing any laws... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd prefer if they let the guy just walk away. He made a fool of himself and achieved nothing, which is punishment enough. And he risked his own skin career-wise for what he believed in (or couldn't control himself about), which is something to respect.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Impulsive pointless vandalism is something to respect?
No. He fucked himself sideways.
What's his name? He should be _radioactive_ in the job market. Risked? It's gone, over. He's going to be selling speakers out of a van. Staying out of jail? Most likely, but not until a google search of his name is forever toxic.
Re: (Score:2)
He knew that was going to happen (he'd be just too dumb not to, which is a possibility, but less likely I hope), hence respect.
No harm is done, in fact it may have put Twitter under closer scrutiny so they'll make doubly sure a deleted account can be recovered. At most I think he'd need to get mandatory therapy so he learns to control his emotions.
Re: (Score:2)
The southern states in the Civil War are often referred to as "the states in rebellion" - kinda sounds like they the South started it, since the Northern army was fighting to PRESERVE the union, they are fighting to SECEED from the union.
Damage turning it back on (Score:5, Funny)
What about the employee who turned it back on? How much damage is that?
yes, please see a lawyer immediately (Score:3, Insightful)
While these comments are fairly amusing, Trump and Twitter entered into a contractual agreement. This employee violated that agreement. Unless you are an expert in contract law, you can't begin to estimate the potential damage done or even which states rules apply. In fact, just pick a favorable State and sue. While Twitter claims they can terminate services for no reason, Twitter wasn't involved here. Civil suit damages can reach crazy numbers fast, so even if you don't see jail time aka CFAA, you may never make another dime.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I guess you haven't read Twitter's "Hateful Conduct Policy". Trump's account should have been disabled long ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which bits of those do you think violate: "You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or disease"?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If twitter was in the game of enforcing their ToS, they wouldn't have any users.
By all means, keep moving the goalposts. If you move them far enough, Trump will wind up in the goal for sure!
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's interesting to look at the groups that Trump hates on
Account terminated for violating terms of service. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Account terminated for violating terms of servi (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Progressives really like "hate speech" laws. It makes it easier to censor people, you know, just like what is happening in Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless of Twitter's TOS, they may not be able to just terminate a contract without cause. State and Federal override whatever silly rules you have written.
The ability to terminate at will, along with bottom-line savings of benefits costs, are the two main reasons companies hire contractors over full-time employees.
What law says you can't terminate a contractor at-will, any time for any legal reason - you can't fire them for being a member of a protected class, but that's about it.
Re: (Score:2)
https://twitter.com/realdonald... [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:3)
That was not hate speech, no matter how much you want to fucking redefine the term.
It's useless cunts like you declaiming shit like this as 'hate speech' that led to Trump getting fucking elected in the first place. People can see that it's not hate speech, so they immediately distrust anybody claiming it is.
Incidentally even under your pathetic fucking definition that tweet doesn't count. It doesn't attack anybody.
If you disagree with the policy then put some fucking arguments together and state sensible o
Re: (Score:3)
By your alleged definition, any critique of a population group, religion or nationality is hate speech.
Fuck that and fuck you. Sign me up for the hate speech bus because if telling cunts like you that you're cunts is hate speech then I'm right on board.
Re: (Score:2)
Give an example of "hate speech" that trump posted.
Well, there was that one about threatening to nuke North Korea... Does that count? https://www.vanityfair.com/new... [vanityfair.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there was that one about threatening to nuke North Korea... Does that count? https://www.vanityfair.com/new... [vanityfair.com]
Yeah, I also remember Trump threatening Iran with "massive retaliation" if they attacked Israel and later clarified Iran's aggression against Israel "would provoke a nuclear response from the United States" [nbcnews.com]. Hate speech!
And what about that time Trump threatened to "erase North Korea from the map of the world" [atimes.com]? So much hate speech!
Oh, wait...
No way he can claim this was accidental (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly the real problem (Score:2)
the negative reactions to the company must have a bottom line calculation.
I don't care who this happened to; Trump, Omaha, some unknown janitor - it's hugely damaging to find out someone in such a low level position can so easily mess with an account without authorization from the holder.
We all know that support personnel have to be able to manage accounts to do their jobs, but remember they also always ask you questions as well related to the account that one presumes are also to give the system enough con
Re: (Score:2)
applied after termination
That right there will (or should) hang him.
He may not have to claim it was accidental (Score:2)
The stickler on this is whether he was following company policy. Remember, they haven't cut off his access yet. It's likely therefore that he has not been given instructions to stop doing his job. Given that he's empowered to terminate accounts we can assume that doing so is within his job description. We also know that Donald Trump has repeatedly pushed the limits of Twitter's terms of service. Unless this person has been instructed otherwise, terminating the account could be entirely legal.
The real loser
Shareholders? (Score:2)
Since when does Twitter have shareholders?
Re: (Score:2)
Assumptions based on what I've read: The contractor's actions appear to have been intentional, applied after termination, done without company directive, and did harm to the business. I think this ticks a lot of the boxes of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
There is one essential thing missing: He wasn't hacking into the computer. That's what makes the "Computer Fraud and Abuse Act" apply, and that's not there. For example, a bank employee who is authorised to give people loans and transfer money into their bank accounts, and transfers money into his own account, is surely guilty of theft - but the "Computer Fraud and Abuse Act" doesn't apply. As far as hacking laws are concerned, he wasn't hacking.
Tor? (Score:2)
I find it amusing that "A prominent attorney for cybersecurity issues," is named Tor. Great name for it!
Re: (Score:2)
Define "Prominent" - I've never heard of him, and I dare say most here have not - within what realm is he "prominent"?
So what have we learned? (Score:2)
Tech companies hire contractors,
"Hacking Laws" are a mess, and
A lawyer offered up the unsolicited advice that the contractor that may have violate a "messy" law should secure the services of a lawyer.
Wow, that Is "News for Nerds" - who knew any of the above?
Punishment to fit the crime (Score:3, Insightful)
Seeing as how the experts canâ(TM)t figure out if it is a crime and the victim is the idiot a very large village had to try very hard to send away the most appropriate punishment is to throw he book at him.
By which I mean the biggest book Donald Trump can personally read and explain correctly. So basically pelt this guy with some Seuss and letâ(TM)s be done with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is the stupidest man in the world to buy his own 757.
Trump has been outperformed financially by Paris Hilton. If he had just invested his money into various mutual funds, he would have more money today. He's a shit investor, but a pretty good criminal. However, that's not because he's smart. It's because of inertia. Without his father's money, you would never have heard of him at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
K, tell you what, take a few million and turn it into billions by real estate sales.
He did it with fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
New Flash! (Score:2)
Friday the New York Times also reported that the worker responsible wasn't even a Twitter employee, but a hired contractor, adding that "nearly every" major tech company uses contractors for non-technical positions, including Google, Apple, and Facebook.
Thank you Captain Obvious! YES, major tech companies hire contractors for non-technical positions, and you know what, they've even been known to hire consultants for technical positions too! (Ever heard the term H1-B visa?)
Get a lawyer is good advice for many who (Score:3)
If the Fastest Delete Key In The West here had been working for Microsoft or Amazon and deleted a bunch of high profile clients' cloud accounts on his last day, he'd want a lawyer just the same. The fact that he only did it to one user and didn't cost anyone any real productivity is probably the one good thing he's got going for him.
Sorry, no crime here (Score:2)
If the employee did this after employment ended, we would have a problem. But you see, this employee was granted access to Twitter's systems freely by his/her supervisors. While the act was pretty childish and silly, it fails to meet the requirements of being a criminal act. Let it go, move on, geeze. No quantifiable damage was caused.
punish them all! (Score:2)
The American lawyer frenzy and harsh punishment driven mentality feel really strange to an outsider.
So deactivating Trumps account was probably a stupid thing to do, but c'mon 10 years in prison? Is that really productive?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Oh he's getting a cigar alrighty.
Clinton style.
Re: (Score:2)
the sentence would probably be lower, though.
Re:Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
U know it.
No, I doubt it.
IANAL, but it is widely understood that the prosecution carries the burden of proof. In this case, the prosecution would need to prove that hate was a motivating factor in the crime, in order for it to be characterized as a hate crime. Deactivating Obama's Twitter account just because you don't like his politics would not qualify.
Re: (Score:2)
Your argument is logical. Why would you assume that the court would come to a logical conclusion?
When it comes to political hot topics like race, verdicts are more or less random.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you assume that the court would come to a logical conclusion?
Because despite your news bite view of the courts they handle thousands of cases across the country daily and the vast majority of them follow a perfectly logical conclusion and thus you never hear about them.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you assume that the court would come to a logical conclusion?
Because despite your news bite view of the courts they handle thousands of cases across the country daily and the vast majority of them follow a perfectly logical conclusion and thus you never hear about them.
Funny, that. Some of the laws that are getting activists pushing for them being dropped, the basic reason they're against them is because that is not at all the normal result. It's not news, because it's the normal situation--and, really, some of these laws seem to be inherently against logic.
It turns out that 'ability to use basic logic' is not a basic skill among those who hold elected offices.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Racism would be the immediate claimed motive, by multiple organizations, with or without evidence.
That's the clear implication of the OP. How you choose to suspend recollection of the typical news cycle, seems a lot like noise farming.
If you have nothing to add, just being disagreeable isn't very interesting and makes you look overtly biased.
It would be a lot more useful to apply the tactics used to attack Trumps "racism", since similar tools would be employed.
Facts are not as compelling as they are portray
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, just because someone may or may not be a citizen, does not give us an excuse to use different rules. Nothing good comes of that path.
People living in a country illegally are breaking the law (obviously) and should be punished with jail time and then deportation.
The idea is to make it unprofitable to live in a country illegally. Living with a constant fear of being caught and deported is one way of achieving that. Declaring illegals to be outside the protection of the law may be another.
It is similar to how drunk drivers are punished in my country. If you drive drunk and get caught, you get punished, that's obvious. But you may also be pu
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Also, just because someone may or may not be a citizen, does not give us an excuse to use different rules. Nothing good comes of that path.
People living in a country illegally are breaking the law (obviously) and should be punished with jail time and then deportation.
I was more thinking of Gitmo, but I'd say punish them for crimes they commited, and perhaps a token amount for the costs to ship them out. If they commit a crime they must of course serve the time or face that punishment before they are allowed out. There is no reason to make it excessive.
The idea is to make it unprofitable to live in a country illegally. Living with a constant fear of being caught and deported is one way of achieving that.
Create/use an identify check system. Punish the employers for hiring the illegals. Problem (mostly) solved.
Most illegals are from an overstayed visa from what I recall, so Trump's wall aint going to do much. It surely
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Nail some 2x2's on the side and you can climb almost any wall, then you just need a knotted rope to get down.
If you climb over the wall, you may be detected easier (it probably is possible to detect when something is climbing the wall), the wall may have barbed wire on the top and, if caught, you will not be able to say that you somehow managed to get here by accident ("I thought this was still Mexico").
At least this is my opinion.
As for a Muslim US President - well, that day I would be really happy with the government of my country, even if it is corrupt. Islam does not seem to be compatible with the Western way
Re: (Score:2)
(...talks about politics, religion, culture...)
"You're just a racist."
WTF?
Re: Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to make it unprofitable for undocumented foreigners, then the government should prosecute the employers that hire them.
However, that won't happen, because the Republicans don't really want to change anything. They just want to use the issue politically.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, immigration is little more than a political football. Illegal immigration wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't a lucrative alternative. And business wouldn't employ illegal immigrants if it wasn't so profitable to do so. Today's penalties for using illegal immigrant labor comes down to a finger wag and a slap on the wrist. As long as it remains more profitable to employ illegal immigrants than the penalties for doing so, they're going to keep doing it.
But you'll never see republican pushing for harsh pen
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The press and media have been working for years to destroy their own credibility.
Re: (Score:2)
If a person attempts to commit murder it is attempted murder. Hate is a motive not a crime. If a person actually commits murder it is murder. It is not more or less of a crime if the person belongs to a protected minority. That a person hates is not really relevant.
There is actually a good reason for this, and that is maths. Assume you have 10,000 people, and 1,000 of them are member of some minority. And there are 10 people among those 10,000 who are willing to kill just because of someone's race. Nine from the majority, one from the minority. If you are a member of the majority, your chance of becoming a victim is one in 9,000. If you are a member of the minority, your chance of becoming a victim is one in 111. Clearly this is a good reason for laws protecting the m
Re:Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember forks censorship is ok when the left does it.
This wasn't "the left". It was a lone wolf performing an act of digital vandalism, and he'll face the consequences of his actions.
That being said, it might benefit his approval rating if Trump spent less time incessantly whining on Twitter about sensationalized issues du jour, and more time learning how to suck less at being president. He could start by reading the Constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
His staff would have to create a specialized version of the Constitution for him to read. All bullet points, with no line being longer than 144 characters and no word beyond a third grade vocabulary. They'd also have to throw in a random statement on every page about how awesome he is or he'd stop reading after the first one or two bullet points.
Re: Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama (Score:2)
Re: Hate Crime if it had happened 2 Obama (Score:2, Informative)
I think the parent post meant Trump should _understand_ the Constitution. It'd help if he understood it better than you.
The Obama administration's immigration policies were perfectly constitutional. Are the police acting unconstitutionally when they fail to arrest me for jaywalking? No? Oh, then let's turn to your other piece of bullshit: the employment authorizations. You know, the ones that the AG/Director of Homeland Security can, according to legislation passed by Congess and signed by Reagan, give to
Re: (Score:2)
Also: what if Twitter decides to thumb their nose at Trump, who then throws a hissy fit and in a rare case of sanity decides to push for legislation that would make T
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL Either...However, if I'm not mistaken, Trump can still bring a civil suit against that employee and make his life a living legal hell, even if Trump has nothing on the guy legally speaking.
I'm having a hard time seeing how one can bring a lawsuit and make someone's life a "living hell" if they have nothing on the guy "legally speaking"...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to America.
Re: (Score:2)
You only need to familiarize yourself with Green & Fazio [nbc.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If this happened to a regular user instead of the President of the United States, what would be the recourse?
No. This wouldn't even be a story.
It is quite amazing that the POTUS Twitter account being out for 11 minutes is almost a state issue. Speaks more about Trump's use and abuse of social media than anything else.
Re: (Score:2)
It is quite amazing that the POTUS Twitter account being out for 11 minutes is almost a state issue. Speaks more about Trump's use and abuse of social media than anything else.
No, it doesn't - has the Whitehouse actually done anything about the 11 minute outage? An individual, even the President, merely "tweeting" about something isn't really anything at all... The issue is that the press/media are obsessed with all things that spill across the POTUS personal twitter account.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, but it so is. Trump has made a point, over and over again, of announcing policy over his personal Twitter account; he himself reminds us regularly that Twitter is the main way to "get his message out" (sic). The POTUS is effectively using social media as his main communication channel, which is absolutely insane.
Now ponder this: do you imagine this uproar over @POTUS being offline for 11 minutes? And what would've happened if instead of disabling @realDonaldTrump someone over Twitter wrote "I've instruc
Re: (Score:2)
...But Trump isn't a normal POTUS...
^^^ This. For anyone else this would be a complete non-story.
Re: (Score:2)
Said cop then let him lie there, dying, for ten minutes until medics arrived.
Yeah, that cop should have made him stand up and "walk it off"!
What should the cop have done for the victim, beyond basic CPR? Since I'm unaware of your story, I have no idea what said officer did or did not do - you aren't even clear if the teenager died or suffered permanent brain damage.
Re: (Score:3)
Not to mention, people are filing suit [wikipedia.org] over being blocked. So yes, some people seem to care. Too much so.