Why won't Twitter ban tRump?

[ProudLib72]

Can someone explain why they won't? I really don't understand how he can be allowed to spew hate. Aren't they getting thousands of complaints daily? Maybe everyone should boycott Twitter, just lay off of it for a few weeks.

[MFM008]

1. Probably fear now

.............

[ProudLib72]

2. If that's true

(and it probably is), then it's a very sad statement about social media. Millions want him banned, and he has tweeted enough to be banned. It's just one demagogue and the potential, unforeseeable threat he poses to Twitter that keeps them from stopping his BS.

[Equinox Moon]

3. Great question.

I will add: Why will America allow him to spew hate? Why is he being sworn in and given keys to the WH?

[CajunBlazer]

5. Because he won the Electorial College vote?

Or maybe it's something else.

[Equinox Moon]

7. I realize that is the literal answer.

[CajunBlazer]

21. Oh, good

[hack89]

6. The Constitution is why he is being sworn in

Their is no Constutional means to stop it.

[Equinox Moon]

8. Something is dreadfully wrong with our process

that we could not stop a mentally ill person.

We need to have better vetting and safeguards.

(I realize the literal answer to my questions.)

[hack89]

11. So he has been legally adjudicated as mentally incompetent

by a judge? Because our system actually does have safeguards and procedures. But they are within the context of the legal system, not of public opinion.

[hack89]

4. Because they are not stupid

They are not going to set off a PR firestorm that can do nothing but harm to their company by picking sides in a political pissing contest.

[ProudLib72]

9. But did they consider

what their PR will consist of when he is impeached? I guess they are just betting that either he won't be or the backlash will minimal. I'd say that, at some point, people are going to be harping on the fact that tRump used Twitter to disseminate his misinformation. They will come under scrutiny. Catch 22

[hack89]

10. Why would they be blamed if he impeached?

If he is impeached it will not be over anything he has said on Twitter.

[ProudLib72]

15. I didn't explain that well.

I mean that, when he is impeached, the public will be looking for accomplices. It will be easy to blame Twitter for "allowing" him to tweet obvious lies. I'm saying that, in the aftermath of impeachment, the witch hunt/blame game that ensues will include Twitter. This is guilt by association. Look at what is being said about the responsibility of the main stream media in reporting on tRump's lies. A lot of people on DU are fed up with main stream media. It's a small step from MSM to social media. I would argue that in a web 2.0 environment, social media must behave more in accordance to the dominant social trends than main stream media. Maybe I'm wrong. It just seems like this would be the case.

[hack89]

16. Twitter is an app

People will not blame an app for Trump. If it is Twitter is a big part of their lives they will not change. If it is not, Twitter doesn't care what they think.

[Kilgore]

12. Never will happen. They make too much profit.

[Takket]

13. unless you are harassing other users or recruiting for ISIS

Twitter isn't going to ban you.

And Trump generates tons of traffic for them, for free.

[JI7]

14. twitter isn't the problem . at least one can respond to him

And there are many good responses to the crap he spews.

The real problem is the msm .

[Warpy]

17. I have an account over there

but I've made maybe 3 posts since the site started. About all I use it for is the rumor mill when a big story is breaking.

I can see why Trump finds it ideal, the bozo has always "thought" in bumper sticker sized sound bites.

[KamaAina]

18. Because the Russkies would hack them out of existence?

[KamaAina]

19. They banned pharma profiteer Martin Shkreli.

So there's precedent. 😀

[tammywammy]

20. Which Twitter rule is he violating? n/t

[ProudLib72]

22. Excellent point

Which brings up the question, Exactly what are the moderators/owners of social media sites responsible for? Hate speech? Racism? Bullying? It's not like the content of the people they ban are judged by a jury of their peers. It all comes down to one (maybe two) administrator's subjective opinion. We like to think of administrators as at least conveying a semblance of impartiality, but those are real people with real political leanings.