Search form

You are here

  • Home
  • Twitter bans Trump, citing risk of incitement


Twitter bans Trump, citing risk of incitement

Short Url

https://arab.news/pfwc8

Updated 09 January 2021
AP
Reuters
Follow

Twitter bans Trump, citing risk of incitement

  • In an act of defiance, Trump tweeted “We will not be SILENCED!” from the @POTUS government account
  • Twitter reacted by deleted new Trump tweets on @POTUS and suspended his campaign account
Updated 09 January 2021
AP Reuters

WASHINGTON/PALO ALTO:  Twitter Inc. banned President Donald Trump’s @realDonaldTrump personal account on Friday, citing “the risk of further incitement of violence”.

In an act of defiance, Trump tweeted “We will not be SILENCED!” from the @POTUS government account, which has 33.4 million followers. 

“Twitter is not about FREE SPEECH,” Trump wrote in the now-deleted tweets, adding that he is considering building his own social media platform in the near future.

Twitter responded by deleted new Trump tweets on the @POTUS and also suspended the account of Trump's presidential campaign.

Twitter shut down his @TeamTrump campaign account shortly after it sent out a tweet with a “statement from President Trump” accusing Twitter of “banning free speech” and coordinating with “the Democrats and the Radical Left” to silence him.

The account shortly before that had pointed its 2.3 million followers to its account on Parler, which is popular with conservatives for its hands-off approach to content moderation.

Alphabet Inc’s Google suspended Parler on Friday, citing posts inciting violence, while Apple Inc. gave the service 24 hours to submit a detailed moderation plan.

Twitter has been under growing pressure to take further action against Trump following Wednesday’s deadly insurrection at the US Capitol. The social media platform initially suspended Trump’s account for 12 hours after he posted a video that repeated false claims about election fraud and praised the rioters who stormed the Capitol.
Twitter’s move deprives Trump of a potent tool he has used to communicate directly with the American people for more than a decade. He has used Twitter to announce policy changes, challenge opponents, insult enemies, praise his allies and himself — and to spread misinformation, flirt with inciting violence and denounce targets of his ire in capital letters.
Twitter has long given Trump and other world leaders broad exemptions from its rules against personal attacks, hate speech and other behaviors. But in a detailed explanation posted on its blog Friday, the company said recent Trump tweets amounted to glorification of violence when read in the context of the Capitol riot and plans circulating online for future armed protests around the inauguration of President-elect Joe Biden.

FASTFACTS

  • Facebook and Instagram on Thursday suspended Trump’s account for at least two weeks, and possibly indefinitely.
  • Twitch, the live-streaming site owned by Amazon and used by Trump’s campaign to stream speeches, disabled Trump’s account until he leaves office
  • E-commerce company Shopify shut down two online Trump memorabilia stores
  • YouTube announced more general changes that will penalize accounts spreading misinformation about voter fraud in the 2020 election, with repeat offenders facing permanent removal
  • Reddit on Friday banned a forum for Trump supporters, called “donaldtrump.”

In those tweets, Trump stated that he will not be attending the inauguration and referred to his supporters as “American Patriots,” saying they will have “a GIANT VOICE long into the future.” Twitter said these statements “are likely to inspire others to replicate the violent acts that took place on January 6, 2021, and that there are multiple indicators that they are being received and understood as encouragement to do so.”
The company said “plans for future armed protests have already begun proliferating on and off-Twitter, including a proposed secondary attack on the US Capitol and state capitol buildings on January 17, 2021. ”
Twitter said its policy enables world leaders to speak to the public, but that these accounts “are not above our rules entirely” and can’t use Twitter to incite violence. Trump had roughly 89 million followers.

In the wake of Wednesday’s deadly insurrection at the US Capitol, calls mounted for Twitter, Facebook and other social platforms to suspend President Donald Trump’s access to social media — permanently.
Facebook and Instagram, which is owned by Facebook, on Thursday suspended Trump’s account for at least two weeks, and possibly indefinitely. Twitter, however, merely revoked Trump’s posting privileges for 12 hours after he posted a video that repeated false claims about election fraud and praised the rioters who stormed the Capitol.
On Friday, the company permanently banned two Trump loyalists — former national security adviser Michael Flynn and attorney Sidney Powell — as part of a broader purge of accounts promoting the QAnon conspiracy theory. Twitter said it will take action on behavior that has the potential to lead to offline harm.
“Given the renewed potential for violence surrounding this type of behavior in the coming days, we will permanently suspend accounts that are solely dedicated to sharing QAnon content,” Twitter said in an emailed statement. The company also said Trump attorney Lin Wood was permanently suspended Tuesday for violating its rules, but provided no additional details.




He has used Twitter to announce policy changes, challenge opponents, insult enemies, praise his allies (and himself), and to spread misinformation. (AFP/Getty)

The company says that when it determines a group or campaign is engaged in “coordinated harmful activity,” it may suspend accounts that it finds primarily encourages that behavior.
Social media companies have been under intensified pressure to crack down on hate speech since a violent mob egged on by Trump stormed the Capitol. Dozens of QAnon social media accounts were hyping up Trump’s Jan. 6 rally in the heart of Washington, expressing hope that it could lead to the overturn of the election results.
On Friday, the advocacy coalition Stop Hate for Profit launched a campaign to pressure the major platforms, including YouTube owner Google, to kick Trump off their services for good. The organization, which includes the Anti-Defamation League, the NAACP, the National Hispanic Media Coalition, Free Press and Color of Change, said it will call for an advertiser boycott if the platforms don’t take action by Jan. 20, the date of President-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration.
Last summer, the coalition organized a monthlong ad boycott of Facebook that ultimately involved hundreds of companies to push for more assertive action on hate speech at the social network.
Some federal lawmakers and celebrities have likewise called on the tech companies to extend suspensions or ban Trump altogether. Frank Pallone, a powerful Democratic congressman from New Jersey, tweeted that “It’s time for (Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey) and Mark Zuckerberg to remove Trump from their platforms.”
“President Trump’s platform on social media has been used to incite violence and insurrection,” said Sen. Joe Manchin, a centrist Democrat from West Virginia, in an emailed statement. “Facebook and Instagram made the correct decision in banning President Trump for at least the remainder of his term and I will continue to urge Twitter and other platforms to do the same.”
Former First Lady Michelle Obama tweeted Thursday that Silicon Valley companies should stop enabling Trump’s “monstrous behavior” and called for them to permanently ban Trump and enact policies to prevent their technology from being used by national leaders to ”fuel insurrection.”
One former Twitter official has called on the platform to suspend Trump’s account in a way that would block anyone from following him and keep past tweets invisible for an indefinite period. It’s a change in position for Adam Sharp, Twitter’s former head of news, government, and elections, who tweeted Thursday that he had “long been a defender of Twitter’s permissiveness” regarding Trump’s violations of its rules. Sharp left the company in 2016.
Trump resumed tweeting Thursday. Twitter has said it could take further action as it kept track of “activity on the ground and statements made off Twitter.”
Other tech companies also acted against Trump’s accounts, citing threats of violence. Snapchat locked Trump’s account “indefinitely.” Twitch, the live-streaming site owned by Amazon and used by Trump’s campaign to stream speeches, disabled Trump’s account until he leaves office. E-commerce company Shopify shut down two online Trump memorabilia stores.
YouTube announced more general changes that will penalize accounts spreading misinformation about voter fraud in the 2020 election, with repeat offenders facing permanent removal. Reddit on Friday banned a forum for Trump supporters, called “donaldtrump.”
Whether the external pressure will lead to a policy change at Twitter is unclear, said Sinan Aral, social media researcher and director of the MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy. But it is more in the spotlight because other companies have taken more aggressive steps, which could influence its decision-making. “Being the platform that is now making the proactive decision to give the microphone back kind of puts you in the spotlight,” he said.
Some criticized tech companies for blocking or barring Trump. Mexico President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who is seen as friendly to Trump, on Thursday said, “I don’t like anybody being censored or taking away from the the right to post a message on Twitter or Face(book). I don’t agree with that, I don’t accept that.” He said the issue should be decided by government and not private companies.

 

 

Related

Media
Donald Trump returns to Twitter as Facebook’s Zuckerberg bans him for ‘fanning the flames’

China court jails journalist for seven years on spy charges, family says

Updated 29 November 2024
Reuters
Follow

China court jails journalist for seven years on spy charges, family says

  • Police in the Chinese capital detained veteran Chinese state media journalist Dong Yuyu in February 2022
  • ‘Sentencing Yuyu to seven years in prison on no evidence declares to the world the bankruptcy of the justice system in China’
Updated 29 November 2024
Reuters

BEIJING/HONG KONG: A Beijing court sentenced veteran Chinese state media journalist Dong Yuyu on Friday to seven years in prison for espionage, his family said in a statement, calling the verdict a grave injustice.
Police in the Chinese capital detained the 62-year-old former Guangming Daily editor and journalist in February 2022 while he was lunching with a Japanese diplomat, the US National Press Club said in a statement. He was later charged with espionage.
“Sentencing Yuyu to seven years in prison on no evidence declares to the world the bankruptcy of the justice system in China,” Dong’s family said in a statement provided to Reuters.
“Today’s verdict is a grave injustice not only to Yuyu and his family but also to every freethinking Chinese journalist and every ordinary Chinese committed to friendly engagement with the world.”
The family added that in the court judgment, Japanese diplomats whom Dong met were “specifically named as agents of an ‘espionage organization,’ which is the Japanese embassy in Beijing.”
Dong’s conviction implied every Chinese citizen would be “expected to know that the Chinese government may consider those embassies to be ‘espionage organizations’,” it said, causing a chilling effect.
Police guarded the court on Friday, with seven police cars parked nearby, and journalists were asked to leave the area. A US diplomat said they had been barred from attending the hearing.
Dong has been detained in a Beijing prison since a closed-court hearing in July 2023, the press club said in September.
“Chinese authorities must reverse this unjust verdict, and protect the right of journalists to work freely and safely in China,” said Beh Lih Yi, Asia program manager at the Committee to Protect Journalists.
“Dong Yuyu should be reunited with his family immediately.”
Dong regularly had in-person exchanges with diplomats from various embassies and journalists.
The Japanese diplomat he met, one of two he had regularly met in the past, was also detained for several hours, spurring a complaint from Japan’s foreign ministry.
At the time, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson said the diplomat was engaged in activities “inconsistent with their capacity” in China. The diplomat was later released.
A Nieman Fellow at Harvard University in 2007, Dong was a visiting scholar and visiting professor at Keio University and Hokkaido University in Japan, his family said in a statement in April 2023.
He joined the Guangming Daily, affiliated to the ruling Communist Party, in 1987, after graduating from Peking University law school, and was the deputy editor of its commentary section.
He wrote opinion articles in Chinese media and liberal academic journals on topics from legal reforms to social issues, and co-edited a book promoting the rule of law in China.
His articles advocated moderate reforms while avoiding direct criticism of President Xi Jinping.
His family had initially kept news of his detention private in the hope that charges could be reduced or dropped, but were told in March 2023 that he would stand trial, they said in their statement.
Non-government bodies (NGOs) advocating press freedom have called for his release, with more than 700 journalists, academics and NGO workers signing an online petition for him to be freed.
“Dong Yuyu is a talented reporter and author whose work has long been respected by colleagues,” said Ann Marie Lipinski, curator of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard.
“We stand with many in hoping for his release and return to his family.”
In February, a Beijing court handed a suspended death sentence to Australian writer and pro-democracy blogger, Yang Hengjun, on espionage charges.

Topics: China

Related

World
Hong Kong journalists jailed in China
Media
US tightens visa rules for Chinese journalists amid coronavirus tensions

Social media companies, UNICEF slam Australia’s under-16 ban

Updated 29 November 2024
AFP
Follow

Social media companies, UNICEF slam Australia’s under-16 ban

  • Tech companies say the measure is littered with “many unanswered questions” ut they are willing to engage with the government on shaping its implementation
  • UNICEF Australia also warned that the law was no “silver bullet” against online harm and could push kids into “covert and unregulated” spaces online
Updated 29 November 2024
AFP

MELBOURNE: Social media giants on Friday hit out at a landmark Australian law banning them from signing up under-16s, describing it as a rush job littered with “many unanswered questions.”
The UN children’s charity UNICEF Australia joined the fray, warning the law was no “silver bullet” against online harm and could push kids into “covert and unregulated” spaces online.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the legislation may not be implemented perfectly — much like existing age restrictions on alcohol — but it was “the right thing to do.”
The crackdown on sites like Facebook, Instagram and X, approved by parliament late Thursday, will lead to “better outcomes and less harm for young Australians,” he told reporters.
Platforms have a “social responsibility” to make children’s safety a priority, the prime minister said.
“We’ve got your back, is our message to Australian parents.”
Social media firms that fail to comply with the law face fines of up to Aus$50 million ($32.5 million).
TikTok said Friday it was “disappointed” in the law, accusing the government of ignoring mental health, online safety and youth experts who had opposed the ban.
“It’s entirely likely the ban could see young people pushed to darker corners of the Internet where no community guidelines, safety tools, or protections exist,” a TikTok spokesperson said.

Tech companies said that despite the law’s perceived shortcomings, they would engage with the government on shaping how it could be implemented in the next 12 months.
The legislation offers almost no details on how the rules will be enforced — prompting concern among experts that it will simply be a symbolic, unenforceable piece of legislation.
Meta — owner of Facebook and Instagram — called for consultation on the rules to ensure a “technically feasible outcome that does not place an onerous burden on parents and teens.”
But the company added it was concerned “about the process, which rushed the legislation through while failing to properly consider the evidence, what industry already does to ensure age-appropriate experiences, and the voices of young people.”
A Snapchat spokesperson said the company had raised “serious concerns” about the law and that “many unanswered questions” remained about how it would work.
But the company said it would engage closely with government to develop an approach balancing “privacy, safety and practicality.”
“As always, Snap will comply with any applicable laws and regulations in Australia,” it said.
UNICEF Australia policy chief Katie Maskiell said young people need to be protected online but also need to be included in the digital world.
“This ban risks pushing children into increasingly covert and unregulated online spaces as well as preventing them from accessing aspects of the online world essential to their wellbeing,” she said.

One of the biggest issues will be privacy — what age-verification information is used, how it is collected and by whom.
Social media companies remain adamant that age-verification should be the job of app stores, but the government believes tech platforms should be responsible.
Exemptions will likely be granted to some companies, such as WhatsApp and YouTube, which teenagers may need to use for recreation, school work or other reasons.
The legislation will be closely monitored by other countries, with many weighing whether to implement similar bans.
Lawmakers from Spain to Florida have proposed social media bans for young teens, although none of the measures have been implemented yet.
China has restricted access for minors since 2021, with under-14s not allowed to spend more than 40 minutes a day on Douyin, the Chinese version of TikTok.
Online gaming time for children is also limited in China.

Related

Update video
Media
Australia passes landmark social media ban for under 16s
Media
Turkiye arrests journalist over social media post on prosecutors

Canada sues Google over alleged anticompetitive practices in online ads

Updated 29 November 2024
AP
Follow

Canada sues Google over alleged anticompetitive practices in online ads

  • The Competition Bureau is asking a tribunal to order Google to sell its ad tech tools, which it uses "unlawfully" to maintain its dominant market position
  • Google maintains the online advertising market is a highly competitive sector and that it intends to defend itself against the allegation
Updated 29 November 2024
AP

TORONTO: Canada’s antitrust watchdog said Thursday it is suing Google over alleged anticompetitive conduct in the tech giant’s online advertising business and wants the company to sell off two of its ad tech services and pay a penalty.
The Competition Bureau said that such action is necessary because an investigation into Google found that the company “unlawfully” tied together its ad tech tools to maintain its dominant market position.
The matter is now headed for the Competition Tribunal, a quasi-judicial body that hears cases brought forward by the competition commissioner about non-compliance with the Competition Act.
The bureau is asking the tribunal to order Google to sell its publisher ad server, DoubleClick for Publishers, and its ad exchange, AdX. It estimates Google holds a market share of 90 percent in publisher ad servers, 70 percent in advertiser networks, 60 percent in demand-side platforms and 50 percent in ad exchanges.
This dominance, the bureau said, has discouraged competition from rivals, inhibited innovation, inflated advertising costs and reduced publisher revenues.
“Google has abused its dominant position in online advertising in Canada by engaging in conduct that locks market participants into using its own ad tech tools, excluding competitors, and distorting the competitive process,” Matthew Boswell, Commissioner of Competition, said in a statement.
Google, however, maintains the online advertising market is a highly competitive sector.
Dan Taylor, Google’s vice president of global ads, said in a statement that the bureau’s complaint “ignores the intense competition where ad buyers and sellers have plenty of choice.”
The statement added that Google intends to defend itself against the allegation.
US regulators want a federal judge to break up Google to prevent the company from continuing to squash competition through its dominant search engine after a court found it had maintained an abusive monopoly over the past decade.
The proposed breakup, floated in a 23-page document filed this month by the US Department of Justice, calls for sweeping punishments that would include a sale of Google’s industry-leading Chrome web browser and impose restrictions to prevent Android from favoring its own search engine.

Topics: Google Canada

Related

Media
Microsoft faces wide-ranging US antitrust probe
Media
Canadian publishers seek antitrust probe of Meta blocking news

Australia passes landmark social media ban for under 16s

Updated 29 November 2024
AFP
Follow

Australia passes landmark social media ban for under 16s

  • Aussie premier Anthony Albanese chapioned the bill in an effort to take young Australians “off their phones”
  • Critics say the ban would not “make social media safer for young people,” lacks details about its enforcement
Updated 29 November 2024
AFP

MELBOURNE: Australian lawmakers passed landmark rules to ban under 16s from social media on Thursday, approving one of the world’s toughest crackdowns on popular sites like Facebook, Instagram and X.
The legislation ordering social media firms to take “reasonable steps” to prevent young teens from having accounts was passed in the Senate with 34 votes in favor and 19 against.
The firms — who face fines of up to Aus$50 million ($32.5 million) for failing to comply — have described the laws as “vague,” “problematic” and “rushed.”
The new rules will now return to the lower house — where lawmakers already backed the bill on Wednesday — for one final approval before it is all but certain to become law.
Speaking during the Senate debate, Greens politician Sarah Hanson-Young said the ban would not “make social media safer for young people.”
She said it was “devastating” that young people were “finding themselves addicted to these dangerous algorithms.”
Center-left Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, eyeing an election early next year, has enthusiastically championed the new rules and rallied Aussie parents to get behind it.
In the run up to the vote, he painted social media as “a platform for peer pressure, a driver of anxiety, a vehicle for scammers and, worst of all, a tool for online predators.”
He wanted young Australians “off their phones and onto the footy and cricket field, the tennis and netball courts, in the swimming pool.”
But young social media users, like 12-year-old Angus Lydom, are not impressed.
“I’d like to keep using it. And it’ll be a weird feeling to not have it, and be able to talk to all my friends at home,” he told AFP.
Many are likely to try to find ways around it.
“I’ll find a way. And so will all my other friends” Lydom said.
Similarly, 11-year-old Elsie Arkinstall said there was still a place for social media, particularly for children wanting to watch tutorials about baking or art.
“Kids and teens should be able to explore those techniques because you can’t learn all those things from books,” she added.

On paper, the ban is one of the strictest in the world.
But the current legislation offers almost no details on how the rules will be enforced — prompting concern among experts that it will simply be a symbolic piece of legislation that is unenforceable.
It will be at least 12 months before the details are worked out by regulators and the ban comes into effect.
Some companies will likely be granted exemptions, such as WhatsApp and YouTube, which teenagers may need to use for recreation, school work or other reasons.
Late amendments were introduced to ensure government-issued digital ID cannot be used as a means of age verification.
Social media expert Susan Grantham told AFP that digital literacy programs that teach children to think “critically” about what they see online should be adopted — similar to a model used in Finland.
The legislation will be closely monitored by other countries, with many weighing whether to implement similar bans.
Lawmakers from Spain to Florida have proposed social media bans for young teens, although none of the measures have been implemented yet.
China has restricted access for minors since 2021, with under-14s not allowed to spend more than 40 minutes a day on Douyin, the Chinese version of TikTok.
Online gaming time for children is also limited in China.

Topics: Australia social media Meta TikTok X

Related

World
Social media sites call for Australia to delay its ban on children younger than 16
World
Australia’s plan to ban children from social media proves popular and problematic

Microsoft faces wide-ranging US antitrust probe

Updated 28 November 2024
Reuters
Follow

Microsoft faces wide-ranging US antitrust probe

  • Competitors complain Microsoft locks customers into its cloud service
  • FTC earlier set the stage for probe into Microsoft’s role in AI market
Updated 28 November 2024
Reuters

The US Federal Trade Commission has opened a broad antitrust investigation into Microsoft, including of its software licensing and cloud computing businesses, a source familiar with the matter said on Wednesday.
The probe was approved by FTC Chair Lina Khan ahead of her likely departure in January. The election of Donald Trump as US president, and the expectation he will appoint a fellow Republican with a softer approach toward business, leaves the outcome of the investigation up in the air.
The FTC is examining allegations the software giant is potentially abusing its market power in productivity software by imposing punitive licensing terms to prevent customers from moving their data from its Azure cloud service to other competitive platforms, sources confirmed earlier this month.
The FTC is also looking at practices related to cybersecurity and artificial intelligence products, the source said on Wednesday.
Microsoft declined to comment on Wednesday.
Competitors have criticized Microsoft’s practices they say keep customers locked into its cloud offering, Azure. The FTC fielded such complaints last year as it examined the cloud computing market.
NetChoice, a lobbying group that represents online companies including Amazon and Google, which compete with Microsoft in cloud computing, criticized Microsoft’s licensing policies, and its integration of AI tools into its Office and Outlook.
“Given that Microsoft is the world’s largest software company, dominating in productivity and operating systems software, the scale and consequences of its licensing decisions are extraordinary,” the group said.
Google in September complained to the European Commission about Microsoft’s practices, saying it made customers pay a 400 percent mark-up to keep running Windows Server on rival cloud computing operators, and gave them later and more limited security updates.
The FTC has demanded a broad range of detailed information from Microsoft, Bloomberg reported earlier on Wednesday.
The agency had already claimed jurisdiction over probes into Microsoft and OpenAI over competition in artificial intelligence, and started looking into Microsoft’s $650 million deal with AI startup Inflection AI.
Microsoft has been somewhat of an exception to US antitrust regulators’ recent campaign against allegedly anticompetitive practices at Big Tech companies.
Facebook owner Meta Platforms, Apple, and Amazon.com Inc. have all been accused by the US of unlawfully maintaining monopolies.
Alphabet’s Google is facing two lawsuits, including one where a judge found it unlawfully thwarted competition among online search engines.
Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella testified at Google’s trial, saying the search giant was using exclusive deals with publishers to lock up content used to train artificial intelligence.
It is unclear whether Trump will ease up on Big Tech, whose first administration launched several Big Tech probes. JD Vance, the incoming vice president, has expressed concern about the power the companies wield over public discourse.
Still, Microsoft has benefited from Trump policies in the past.
In 2019, the Pentagon awarded it a $10 billion cloud computing contract that Amazon had widely been expected to win. Amazon later alleged that Trump exerted improper pressure on military officials to steer the contract away from its Amazon Web Services unit.

Topics: Microsoft US Federal Trade Commission

Related

World
Microsoft ‘crumbled under pressure’ over Palestinian vigil, fired employee says
Media
EU accepts Apple pledge to let rivals access ‘tap to pay’ iPhone tech to resolve antitrust case

Latest updates

Pakistan court grants bail to journalist detained after probing protest, lawyer says
Pakistan PM sympathizes with Malaysian counterpart over loss of lives in recent floods
Taiwan’s Lai departs for US stopover during Pacific trip
Participation of foreign nationals in political activities in Pakistan ‘unacceptable,’ FO says
Syria’s military announces Aleppo troop withdrawal to prepare counteroffensive

Search form

Print Edition
Read pdf version Subscribe now
© 2024 SAUDI RESEARCH & PUBLISHING COMPANY, All Rights Reserved And subject to Terms of Use Agreement.