Twitter refused to remove child porn because it didn’t ‘violate policies’: lawsuit
-
-
Oddly, a liberal nutjob keeps fighting me in another thread over this.
He claims that I lied when I said that Twitter told the family in this article that they won't remove the kiddie porn because it doesn't violate their TOS.
Apparently, it's a lie because saying what Twitter told the family is a lie because they wrote something different in their TOS.
-
@raphjd
... and you moved this conversation here because?????So I followed the link, and yeah! Twitter totally fucked this up! Not just in the policy enforcement, but also in the public relations part! I would assume they'll have their asses handed to them in court, and they'll start re-training some of their content evaluators....
If Twitter was a single person, this would be OUTRAGEOUS!!!
But Twitter is a rather large corporation... so this ain't that...If Twitter went to court to allow this shit, it would be OUTRAGEOUS!!!
But Twitter didn't - once "higher ups" in Twitter were alerted, the shit got cleaned up... pronto! ... so this ain't that, either...Corporations are made up of people. People (all people - even you and me) make mistakes. We (sometimes corporations, but always individual people) have to pay for their mistakes. Not fair that corporations often get "let off the hook", but hey: life ain't fair (Did ya catch the hyperbole in there? did ya? really? it's in there!)
The issue in the other forum, @raphjd, is that you EXTENDED Twitter's mistake to assert that their Terms of Service did not outlaw what you termed kiddie porn. And Twitter's own statements - in the article you linked us to - makes it clear that this is a false assertion.
A) It seems this was an error made by an employee, and not (at any time) someone in any leadership position in the company, and
B) You cannot claim that selective enforcement invalidates the entire ToS (or even that little part of the ToS)! Even if they chose to only enforce the "kiddie porn" rules on female victims, it wouldn't invalidate the ToS! Neither would it stop them from re-evaluating those "enforcement" decisions.Honestly, I think the idiot who reviewed the case initially had a gender bias and didn't think guys could be victims in "kiddie porn"... I'd venture to say, if they still have that job at Twitter, they're better informed now!
That is, admittedly, my own pure and unadulterated conjecture!
-
Ok, let's try something.
Did Twitter tell the family that the kiddie porn of their son does not violate their TOS?
YES!!!
So how am I wrong or as your buddy claims, a liar?
It amazes me how the pair of you need to use such extreme mental gymnastics in hopes of proving me wrong.
-
Twitter's response is shite since they didn't do any of that in at least this case.
It's like that Tx police department with all the dirty and violent cops who refused to fire the bad cops until the feds got involved and only 2 cops out more than 10 weren't fired and/or charged with crimes.
-
NO ONE...
NOT EVEN TWITTER!
Thinks this was OK, or that they "Got it right". Their employee was WRONG.
AGAIN: EVEN TWITTER ADMITS THEY WERE INITIALLY WRONG.!
But mistakes are NOT changes in policy!
The only wrong thing here is your hyperbole!
Have you ever peed and, at least for a fraction of a second, missed the bowl? (You know you have! That's why there are urine droplets around the bowl!)....
THAT DOES NOT MEAN that you don't believe in urinating into the toilet! It just means you made a mistake.
Now look at a public toilet... more people, more mistakes!
Let's move on...
-
Jack Dorsey has a long history of saying "we made a mistake" after the fact, but Twitter keeps doing the same crap over and over.
It's like how they banned the New York Post for reporting on the Hunter Biden laptop. They also banned anyone who tried to repost the article.
They also listed the official US House website as a hacker site because they posted about the incident.
All of this was a mistake too, but only after being called in front of the Senate, again.
The excuse was that they thought Hunter's laptop was "leaked", which is against the rules. Jack didn't have an answer to why they allowed anti-Trump leaks to be discussed, including Trump's leaked taxes.
Jack couldn't explain why NJ Women for Trump and all 36k of its members were banned, except that it was a mistake and they would unban them.
Diamond & Silk (the black sisters who support Trump) also got banned by Twitter (and Facebook). When asked in the Senate hearing at the time, Jack said it was a mistake and they were already unbanned. Zuckerberg said a similar thing. Both lied as they were still banned on both platforms.
I, and many others, got community strikes for uploading or reTweeting videos of blacks being critical of BLM. Posting a video of Candace Owens, Larry Elder, Thomas Sowell, Terrence Williams, etc, etc, etc being against BLM is deemed racism. Oddly enough, they don't have a problem with whites posting that they hate whites.
-
Let's try this one more time and try to be honest.
Did Twitter say to this family that kiddie porn does not violate their TOS?
If you say NO, you are a liar.
If you say YES, then you proved me right.
Twitter even fought the kid and his parents over removing the kiddie porn.
Twitter only did the morally (and legally) right thing because the mom got Homeland Security involved.
If the mom didn't have a contact who knew someone in HS, then Twitter would still be refusing to remove the kiddie porn.
Hell, kiddie porn isn't even legal, EVER, but Twitter didn't care at least in this case.
I have to wonder how many other cases there are that we haven't heard of.
-
@raphjd said in Twitter refused to remove child porn because it didn’t ‘violate policies’: lawsuit:
Did Twitter say to this family that kiddie porn does not violate their TOS?
If you say NO, you are a liar.Sorry, but no
- each individual Twitter employee does not speak for Twitter. The company admits their employee was in error. The company has never said or claimed, in a blanket way, that kiddie porn is acceptable on their platform.
- The twitter employee never said that "kiddie porn was OK," either. The employee DID say that particular post was not a violation of the ToS. (An example of ONE does not prove the general case!) [NOTE: I honestly don't know if this posting was close to "borderline" or not - there certainly are 15 y/o kids who look 25 - just as there are 25 y/o adults who look 15 Austin Young, for example... but I don't buy that as an excuse - the "petitioner" provided proof of under-age status... so, maybe it was "soft-core"? - again, I don't know. What I do know is that Twitter acknowledged their error.]
- For your assertion that Twitter doesn't think kiddie porn is a violation of its ToS, you'd have to have MANY MORE examples - or have a statement from the company (not just an employee - although a whistle-blower who claimed it was a secret company policy would suffice, I would think.
I don't know about you, but it looks like I said NO and didn't lie... oops!
Twitter even fought the kid and his parents over removing the kiddie porn.
Twitter only did the morally (and legally) right thing because the mom got Homeland Security involved.Look, I'm the father to NINE children, and am a former foster parent (yes, that's how I wound up with NINE!) -- If I had a NICKEL for every company or government agency that had employees that didn't follow the well published rules properly, I'd already be retired! Hell, my younger kids got a disciplinary free ride through Middle School because much of the faculty was afraid of me (I documented and then reported on an Assistant Principal's violations of School Board Policy towards a special needs child of mine - and she was invited to retire -- or be fired. My younger ones reported that teachers would warn each other: "leave that one alone - her dad's a nightmare!")
The point is: employees do DUMB THINGS all the time. Corporations (and Governments) are constantly having to correct mistakes like this. That doesn't mean its excusable, but it also doesn't mean the entire organization can be demonized over every little incident.
If the mom didn't have a contact who knew someone in HS, then Twitter would still be refusing to remove the kiddie porn.
Hell, kiddie porn isn't even legal, EVER, but Twitter didn't care at least in this case.Again, you're jumping to conclusions here. A picture of a topless 14 y/o girl may or may-not be kiddie-porn, depending on the context. (One of a 14 y/o inserting something into their genitalia is less of a grey area!)... the point is, we don't know how "black and white" the determination of this being "kiddie porn" was... and without knowing that (from someone knowledgeable), I'm not ready to shut down Twitter over it!
I have to wonder how many other cases there are that we haven't heard of.
Now THAT is a legitimate question - and if more people come forward and it creates a pattern, I'll be happy to join your anti-Twitter campaign.
For now, we wait and see...
-
Please prove that only a single employee dealt with this situation.
I guess I'm not surprised that you are willing to defend kiddie porn and mental gymnastics it away to make twitter sound good.
The kid was 13 -14 at the time the pictures and videos were taken, but maybe he looked 35.
-
I have said this before: I am not a Twitter subscriber (nor, do I have a Facebook page).
I am a computer consultant. I know the amount of personal information data mining these companies do!
I also don't search on Google without a VPN and "incognito" mode-browser.
YES! I get blocked on a LOT of sites because I won't give up access to my personal data... so be it!But that's another target.
What makes me defend Twitter against your out-sized and overblown (truly hyperbolic) accusations is that I am a small business owner - and a computer professional - and I know first hand how damaging your rhetoric would to the stability and usefulness of the Internet as a whole were your ideas to be made into policy and applied in a wide-spread fashion.
-
