Where does Twitter stand on privacy?

Photo: Portrait in gold tones. the beauty in a mask outdoors Credit: Belovodchenko Anton

Twitter wants to have it both ways. This week, they met near-unanimous laud for fighting a court order to produce tweets written by an Occupy Wall Street protester charged with disorderly conduct. In its “motion to quash” the 2703(d) order, Twitter makes the following argument:

“Twitter’s Terms of Service unequivocally state that its users ‘retain [their] rights to any Content [they] submit, post or display on or through’ Twitter”

In other words, Twitter doesn’t want to be responsible for this person’s content (and implicitly the legal costs associated with defending that content). After all, Twitter is simply a platform and has no editorial input for a person’s tweets. A reasonable point of view….

….and an evolved point of view. Just last month, Twitter filed suit against five platforms that allowed users to spam the Twitter network. In its argument against TweetAdder it stated the following:

“Nothing on the TweetAdder website informs prospective licensees that the intended use of the software to send spam violates Twitter’s Terms of Service.”

In other words, the people who agreed to the Terms of Service aren’t responsible for them – the platform is. Twitter’s viewpoint in this case is that Tweetadder is responsible for the content.

Also consider the actual Twitter Terms of Service, which define spam with deliberate ambiguity. Among things considered spam: ”If you have a small number of followers compared to the amount of people you are following,” “If a large number of people are blocking you,” and “If you have followed a large amount of users in a short amount of time.” Depending upon the how those terms of service are interpreted nearly anyone could be defined as a spammer. Twitter wants to be the judge, jury and executioner – but who doesn’t?

Point being, Twitter isn’t the benevolent defender of free speech that some people are portraying it to be. It’s a business that acts in its own self-interest. Though Twitter (and inexplicably the ACLU) are lauding this as a defense of user’s First Amendment rights, it’s a legal maneuver to try and set a favorable precedent and minimize their future legal costs.

Considering the other case on the docket, for Twitter to spin themselves as freedom fighters is a bit disingenuous.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Did you enjoy this post? Consider sharing future posts with a Facebook task or Twitter task through ifttt

Not into long-term commitments? Please consider sharing via the share buttons above.

Thanks for your support – please shoot me a note and tell me what I can do for you (can I like you on Facebook, follow you on Twitter, share your blog, do your dishes?)! ***disclaimer – I hate doing dishes***

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

memoinsupportofnon-partytwittermotion_to_quash
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Twitter lawsuit to counter spam

Photo Credit

Please consider supporting the photographers and artists that contribute to the site by sharing their pictures on Pinterest!

Bio
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Latest Posts

Jim Dougherty

Writer and chief of miscellany at leaderswest.com

I aspire to give people something to think about rather than tell them what to do. My favorite Google Alert is “social media research,” I am increasingly compelled by Gen Z, and I appreciate good writers agnostic of where they write. At one time I was Kred’s 12th most influential social media blogger and Klout’s most influential person on the topic of David Hasselhoff. Transplant from Seattle living in Cincinnati. Haven’t entirely adopted the local sports teams yet.