Should Twitter be allowed to ban people without telling them why they were banned?

Rogifan

macrumors Core
Original poster
Nov 14, 2011
20,649
22,295
Jesse Kelly is a conservative writer/radio host. He was suspended over the weekend and claims Twitter didn’t give him a reason. I’m not familiar with his writing or tweets but my Twitter feed lit up with conservatives complaining about this.

https://reason.com/blog/2018/11/26/twitter-permanently-banned-conservative/amp?__twitter_impression=true

Apparently it is a violation of Twitter’s rules to suspend someone without telling them why. I think that’s the policy Twitter should always follow. Of course at the end of the day Jack gets to decide who can tweet or not but if someone is removed there should be a clear explanation of why they were removed and there should be a path where the suspended account can appeal the suspension. And there should be an independent body at Twitter that reviews these appeals and reinstates accounts they determined should not have been suspended. I’m not sure why this is so difficult. Like Facebook, perhaps Twitter needs new leadership too?
 

ericgtr12

macrumors 65816
Mar 19, 2015
1,237
7,278
Jesse Kelly is a conservative writer/radio host. He was suspended over the weekend and claims Twitter didn’t give him a reason. I’m not familiar with his writing or tweets but my Twitter feed lit up with conservatives complaining about this.

https://reason.com/blog/2018/11/26/twitter-permanently-banned-conservative/amp?__twitter_impression=true

Apparently it is a violation of Twitter’s rules to suspend someone without telling them why. I think that’s the policy Twitter should always follow. Of course at the end of the day Jack gets to decide who can tweet or not but if someone is removed there should be a clear explanation of why they were removed and there should be a path where the suspended account can appeal the suspension. And there should be an independent body at Twitter that reviews these appeals and reinstates accounts they determined should not have been suspended. I’m not sure why this is so difficult. Like Facebook, perhaps Twitter needs new leadership too?
Sounds like this is the reason (from your link above)
Your account was permanently suspended due to multiple or repeat violations of the Twitter rules. The account will not restored. Please do not respond to this email as replies and new appeals for this account will not be monitored.
What you aren't hearing in any of this is what those violations and warnings to Kelly may have been, we're hearing just his side of it and based on some of his hate filled comments in the past I'm guessing his take is slanted.

I am on Twitter all the time and Conservatives regularly spew hate on there that aren't banned, there is no conspiracy, he likely crossed the line somewhere and was repeatedly warned about it.
 

Rogifan

macrumors Core
Original poster
Nov 14, 2011
20,649
22,295
Sounds like this is the reason (from your link above)

What you aren't hearing in any of this is what those violations and warnings to Kelly may have been, we're hearing just his side of it and based on some of his hate filled comments in the past I'm guessing his take is slanted.

I am on Twitter all the time and Conservatives regularly spew hate on there that aren't banned, there is no conspiracy, he likely crossed the line somewhere and was repeatedly warned about it.
In other words, nobody but Twitter knows why but you assume it was for good reason because you’ve been offended by things he’s said in the past.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KennethS and hulugu

ericgtr12

macrumors 65816
Mar 19, 2015
1,237
7,278
In other words, nobody but Twitter knows why but you assume it was for good reason because you’ve been offended by things he’s said in the past.
Assume what you will about me and my offend-o-meter. All I am saying is that you have zero insight into any warnings they have issued him in the past, they made it clear he was in violation and they never "specifically" say "you did this exact thing to get you banned". Lest you can show me cases where this actually happened.

You're taking his word blindly. No matter who one is offended by, it's without any real basis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scepticalscribe

Rogifan

macrumors Core
Original poster
Nov 14, 2011
20,649
22,295
yes, it's a private CO .
Really so if MacRumors perma-banned you and didn’t say why you’d be perfectly fine with it? I know a Twitter is a private company but when they ban random people like this and not someone like Louis Farrakhan it makes one wonder if their rules around what’s allowed and what’s not need to be revisited.
[doublepost=1543253666][/doublepost]
Assume what you will about me and my offend-o-meter. All I am saying is that you have zero insight into any warnings they have issued him in the past, they made it clear he was in violation and they never "specifically" say "you did this exact thing to get you banned". Lest you can show me cases where this actually happened.

You're taking his word blindly. No matter who one is offended by, it's without any real basis.
Why should I assume he’s lying or not telling the whole truth? Especially when IF Twitter did give him warnings in the past they could easily produce them?
[doublepost=1543253815][/doublepost]
Their ball, their rules.

Still it's petty to ban an account without giving a reason why. I don't like those rules, ergo, I don't use Twitter. Besides, no one cares for the senseless rambling of a madman.;) I'm referring to me, of course.:p
Apparently those aren’t the rules though. It all seems very arbitrary. Some random right of center blue check mark gets booted but Louis Farrakhan is a-ok.
 

ericgtr12

macrumors 65816
Mar 19, 2015
1,237
7,278
Really so if MacRumors perma-banned you and didn’t say why you’d be perfectly fine with it? I know a Twitter is a private company but when they ban random people like this and not someone like Louis Farrakhan it makes one wonder if their rules around what’s allowed and what’s not need to be revisited.
[doublepost=1543253666][/doublepost]
Why should I assume he’s lying or not telling the whole truth? Especially when IF Twitter did give him warnings in the past they could easily produce them?
How many have they produced for any banned members in the past? Please share.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scepticalscribe

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,947
Criminal Mexi Midget
Really so if MacRumors perma-banned you and didn’t say why you’d be perfectly fine with it? I know a Twitter is a private company but when they ban random people like this and not someone like Louis Farrakhan it makes one wonder if their rules around what’s allowed and what’s not need to be revisited.
[doublepost=1543253666][/doublepost]
Why should I assume he’s lying or not telling the whole truth? Especially when IF Twitter did give him warnings in the past they could easily produce them?
I am not owed an explanation if banned from a private forum, we are all guest here .
 

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,609
34,821
USA
Really so if MacRumors perma-banned you and didn’t say why you’d be perfectly fine with it? I know a Twitter is a private company but when they ban random people like this and not someone like Louis Farrakhan it makes one wonder if their rules around what’s allowed and what’s not need to be revisited.
[doublepost=1543253666][/doublepost]
Why should I assume he’s lying or not telling the whole truth? Especially when IF Twitter did give him warnings in the past they could easily produce them?
[doublepost=1543253815][/doublepost]
Apparently those aren’t the rules though. It all seems very arbitrary. Some random right of center blue check mark gets booted but Louis Farrakhan is a-ok.
As long as Trump is allowed his personal account - you cannot argue any logic as to who is banned and who is not. And I don't mean to deflect to Trump - but it's clear that as a private company, Twitter has guidelines - but they are not black and white.
 

Rogifan

macrumors Core
Original poster
Nov 14, 2011
20,649
22,295
As long as Trump is allowed his personal account - you cannot argue any logic as to who is banned and who is not. And I don't mean to deflect to Trump - but it's clear that as a private company, Twitter has guidelines - but they are not black and white.
But that is problem, is it not? It seems very arbitrary with no transparency.
 

ericgtr12

macrumors 65816
Mar 19, 2015
1,237
7,278
As long as Trump is allowed his personal account - you cannot argue any logic as to who is banned and who is not. And I don't mean to deflect to Trump - but it's clear that as a private company, Twitter has guidelines - but they are not black and white.
IMO this is a direct result of Jack Dorsey not having a clear message, it's as if he enjoys welding the wand of power instead of having a set policy and standard for all, just listen to him in interviews, he's as pretentious as it gets. By any measure, Trump would've been banned long ago. Whether Liberal or Conservative, both of which I've seen banned in droves, the policy should be the same for all regardless.
 

Rogifan

macrumors Core
Original poster
Nov 14, 2011
20,649
22,295
I am not owed an explanation if banned from a private forum, we are all guest here .
What private entities can do and should do are two different things. Any time my account here has been temporarily suspended I was given a reason why, usually the specific offending post included. I might not like it or agree but at least I knew why. If Twitter and Facebook want people to believe they’re non partisan and aren’t deplatforming people because they disagree with their ideology then it’s in their interest to have clear non-ideological rules and be as transparent as possible when suspending or banning someone. Otherwise the assumption will be it’s a bunch of liberal do-gooders in Silicon Valley censoring their platform of non-liberal thought.
[doublepost=1543257210][/doublepost]
IMO this is a direct result of Jack Dorsey not having a clear message, it's as if he enjoys welding the wand of power instead of having a set policy and standard for all, just listen to him in interviews, he's as pretentious as it gets. By any measure, Trump would've been banned long ago. Whether Liberal or Conservative, both of which I've seen banned in droves, the policy should be the same for all regardless.
Everybody who says ban Trump knows that’s never going to happen in a million years. Really Twitter’s guidelines should be you only get kicked off if you’re threatening violence or abuse towards someone else or you’re a fake bot account. Otherwise the mute and block features are there for everyone, use them.
 

ericgtr12

macrumors 65816
Mar 19, 2015
1,237
7,278
What private entities can do and should do are two different things. Any time my account here has been temporarily suspended I was given a reason why, usually the specific offending post included. I might not like it or agree but at least I knew why. If Twitter and Facebook want people to believe they’re non partisan and aren’t deplatforming people because they disagree with their ideology then it’s in their interest to have clear non-ideological rules and be as transparent as possible when suspending or banning someone. Otherwise the assumption will be it’s a bunch of liberal do-gooders in Silicon Valley censoring their platform of non-liberal thought.
My Twitter stats:
Joined: October 2010
9,972 followers

Thousands of tweets, many of which are divisive, and not a single warning. I don't know about others' experiences but I can say I have never personally seen that side of Twitter so my guess is it takes a lot to finally get warned or booted.

Facebook and MR however, I have been warned several times. YMMV
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scepticalscribe

CLS727

macrumors regular
Feb 5, 2018
244
368
Of course. It's a private company. They can do whatever they want.

Nobody is forcing anybody to use Twitter.
 

ericgtr12

macrumors 65816
Mar 19, 2015
1,237
7,278
Everybody who says ban Trump knows that’s never going to happen in a million years. Really Twitter’s guidelines should be you only get kicked off if you’re threatening violence or abuse towards someone else or you’re a fake bot account. Otherwise the mute and block features are there for everyone, use them.
True, this is what I see when I look at Trump's feed... Yes, he is THAT think skinned.
 

Attachments

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,609
34,821
USA
What private entities can do and should do are two different things. Any time my account here has been temporarily suspended I was given a reason why, usually the specific offending post included. I might not like it or agree but at least I knew why. If Twitter and Facebook want people to believe they’re non partisan and aren’t deplatforming people because they disagree with their ideology then it’s in their interest to have clear non-ideological rules and be as transparent as possible when suspending or banning someone. Otherwise the assumption will be it’s a bunch of liberal do-gooders in Silicon Valley censoring their platform of non-liberal thought.
[doublepost=1543257210][/doublepost]
Everybody who says ban Trump knows that’s never going to happen in a million years. Really Twitter’s guidelines should be you only get kicked off if you’re threatening violence or abuse towards someone else or you’re a fake bot account. Otherwise the mute and block features are there for everyone, use them.
If you accept that Trump will never be banned, then you have to accept the gray area that exists. Because if there's a black and white determination - NO ONE - not even Trump, should be exempt. No?
 

Rogifan

macrumors Core
Original poster
Nov 14, 2011
20,649
22,295
If you accept that Trump will never be banned, then you have to accept the gray area that exists. Because if there's a black and white determination - NO ONE - not even Trump, should be exempt. No?
Whether he should and whether he would be are two different things. I don’t like what he says but he’s not threatening violence or harassment so mute or block him.
 

Rogifan

macrumors Core
Original poster
Nov 14, 2011
20,649
22,295
The implication is, of course, he was banned because of his politics. A rather unlikely event, as there are millions upon millions of Conservatives on Twitter.

Twitter is not a public utility, it's a for profit enterprise.
Well then perhaps Twitter can share why he was banned. Since he doesn’t seem to know and a lot of people think it was for ideological reasons.
 

DearthnVader

macrumors 6502a
Dec 17, 2015
890
4,859
Red Springs, NC
Well then perhaps Twitter can share why he was banned. Since he doesn’t seem to know and a lot of people think it was for ideological reasons.
Twitter wants as many people using the network as they can, it doesn't fallow that they would just cut someone off because they were a conservative. More likely the dude went over the top and they started receiving complaints about offensive content.

That's between him and Twitter, Twitter doesn't owe anyone an explanation, it's their network and they set and enforce rules anyway they like.
 

ThisBougieLife

macrumors 68020
Jan 21, 2016
2,007
6,335
SF Bay Area, California
Until we start regulating social media as a public utility, then yes, they should be allowed to do it. This would be a question for debate among Twitter's leadership, but not a legal matter. Not yet.