Imposter accounts are disallowed on the service. Perhaps the real guy would have a claim to the name, but not an impersonator.
The terms of service say that you can't impersonate another user or person. Creating an account on TS based on a user on Twitter doesn't violate that.
This looks like a violation of section 10.7. I'm sure he can have his opinion on vaccines. He just can't issue death threats.
"Looks" being the operative word. "These people should be executed" is no more a threat of death than "These people should be arrested" is a threat of incarceration.
So far, these cases are based on objective rules violations, and not political disagreement.
The violations are not objective when no reason has been given, and you made up the violations to suit your argument.
For now, Truth has a superior moderation format.
They're literally doing the same thing other platforms are doing.
If run better than twitter, we could see another monopoly panic like the 2021 parker scare.
You mean the "scare" that started because Parler was too inept to follow the AWS terms of use and didn't have proper moderation policies to the point where Google and Apple didn't want to be associated with it? That scare?
Private companies have a first amendment right to associate with whatever speech or persons they wish. Government telling them to associate(or not associate) with certain speech or persons violates that right.
This can’t possibly be real, right? Well, our own Jimmy Lara who played Diablo 2 Resurrected online before (and haven’t played it in quite a while), tried it just now, and yep, we were greeted by that authentication message you see above.
"Facebook sometimes listens to criticism levied at it by state actors, and therefore should be classified as something it clearly doesn't fulfill the requirements for."
You really ought to keep your stupid thoughts to yourself, Koby.
Klobuchar has all the right to ask questions. As any other citizen would.
Look at the letter, though. She's not asking as a citizen; she's asking as a US senator. And, as Masnick points out, if a senator asked these same questions of a TV network, people would go nuts, for good reason.
Timothy seems to think it has something to do with Japanese copyright law, for unexplained reasons.
The reasons aren't unexplained:
[...]the claims are coming from a company based out of Japan where there is no such provision in the law and, as we've discussed ourselves, copyright law has morphed into an absolute restrictive monster. And Japanese law may be where YouTube's proverbial head is at.
Re: Re: Re:
That wasn't the point. The point was that it's not because of section 230 that they can ban users, as the person I responded to stated.
Re: Clearly
The terms of service say that you can't impersonate another user or person. Creating an account on TS based on a user on Twitter doesn't violate that.
"Looks" being the operative word. "These people should be executed" is no more a threat of death than "These people should be arrested" is a threat of incarceration.
The violations are not objective when no reason has been given, and you made up the violations to suit your argument.
They're literally doing the same thing other platforms are doing.
Re:
Technically, they're allowed to do this because of the first amendment.
Re: Re:
You mean the "scare" that started because Parler was too inept to follow the AWS terms of use and didn't have proper moderation policies to the point where Google and Apple didn't want to be associated with it? That scare?
Re: Malice VS Stupidity 2022
Hanlon's razor.
Re:
Amy Klobuchar: "Say no more."
Re: Uh
Private companies have a first amendment right to associate with whatever speech or persons they wish. Government telling them to associate(or not associate) with certain speech or persons violates that right.
Being a smartass is only allowed if you're right.
Re:
There's probably a big overlap.
Re:
From the linked article:
I know, clicking links and reading them is hard.
Re: It's the Big Things
Feel free to leave if you're not interested in the story.
Re: That's not how the law works.
It's a requirement of the law to comply with takedown notices. Since Google didn't, they no longer have the protection of it.
Re: The strangest of superpowers
These officers must've watched a lot of Gotham, because that's just like the drug, Venom.
Re: Not Taking Orders
"Facebook sometimes listens to criticism levied at it by state actors, and therefore should be classified as something it clearly doesn't fulfill the requirements for."
You really ought to keep your stupid thoughts to yourself, Koby.
Re:
Look at the letter, though. She's not asking as a citizen; she's asking as a US senator. And, as Masnick points out, if a senator asked these same questions of a TV network, people would go nuts, for good reason.
Re:
But given that your own way is stupid, as this case shows, expect to be criticized for it.
Re: Aww, 3 years stealing the work of others, down the Youtubes!
Explain how reviewing anime/manga and giving drawing lessons is theft in any possible way.
Re:
You want TD to not report on a Musk-related story because you feel they're hating on him?
You could just not read it.
Re:
Tell me you're not a regular Techdirt reader without telling me you're not a regular Techdirt reader.
As has been demonstrated many times in the past, even if you follow the rules/law, you can still get copyright-struck.
Re: Re: The problem is Googles "3 strikes and you are out&q
The reasons aren't unexplained:
Re:
No idea, but you sure boosted the case with your nonsense.
More comments from Strawb >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Strawb.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt