<story><title>Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”</title><url>https://twitter.com/bjoewolf/status/1266268435647852553</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>Animats</author><text>Twitter policy:&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;&amp;quot;We start from a position of assuming that people do not intend to violate our Rules. Unless a violation is so egregious that we must immediately suspend an account, we first try to educate people about our Rules and give them a chance to correct their behavior. We show the violator the offending Tweet(s), explain which Rule was broken, and require them to remove the content before they can Tweet again. If someone repeatedly violates our Rules then our enforcement actions become stronger. This includes requiring violators to remove the Tweet(s) and taking additional actions like verifying account ownership and&amp;#x2F;or temporarily limiting their ability to Tweet for a set period of time. If someone continues to violate Rules beyond that point then their account may be permanently suspended.&amp;quot;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;Somewhere a counter was just incremented. It&amp;#x27;s going to be amusing if Twitter management simply lets the automated system do its thing. At some point, after warnings, the standard 48-hour suspension will trigger. Twitter management can simply simply say &amp;quot;it is our policy not to comment on enforcement actions&amp;quot;.&lt;p&gt;They&amp;#x27;ve suspended the accounts of prominent people many times before.[1]&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Twitter_suspensions&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Twitter_suspensions&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>seesawtron</author><text>I would imagine that accounts of &amp;quot;important&amp;quot; people are handled personally rather than by automated algorithm. As Jack Dorsey points out in this[0] Joe Rogan podcast, the reported tweets by public or algorithm are manually checked at some point.&lt;p&gt;Approx. 4000 employees of Twitter all around the world. Every day 100k (edit: 100M) tweets are sent. The reports of tweets that violate the platform policy are (reported by public) enter a queue. These are then inspected by personnel hired by Twitter (number varies proportionally to the scale reports in the queue).&lt;p&gt;The personnel then go through a series of steps to take an action such as making you verify again, delete those tweets, suspending the account, or in the last resort ban the user permanently.&lt;p&gt;[0] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.youtube.com&amp;#x2F;watch?v=DZCBRHOg3PQ&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.youtube.com&amp;#x2F;watch?v=DZCBRHOg3PQ&lt;/a&gt;</text></comment>
<story><title>Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”</title><url>https://twitter.com/bjoewolf/status/1266268435647852553</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>Animats</author><text>Twitter policy:&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;&amp;quot;We start from a position of assuming that people do not intend to violate our Rules. Unless a violation is so egregious that we must immediately suspend an account, we first try to educate people about our Rules and give them a chance to correct their behavior. We show the violator the offending Tweet(s), explain which Rule was broken, and require them to remove the content before they can Tweet again. If someone repeatedly violates our Rules then our enforcement actions become stronger. This includes requiring violators to remove the Tweet(s) and taking additional actions like verifying account ownership and&amp;#x2F;or temporarily limiting their ability to Tweet for a set period of time. If someone continues to violate Rules beyond that point then their account may be permanently suspended.&amp;quot;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;Somewhere a counter was just incremented. It&amp;#x27;s going to be amusing if Twitter management simply lets the automated system do its thing. At some point, after warnings, the standard 48-hour suspension will trigger. Twitter management can simply simply say &amp;quot;it is our policy not to comment on enforcement actions&amp;quot;.&lt;p&gt;They&amp;#x27;ve suspended the accounts of prominent people many times before.[1]&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Twitter_suspensions&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Twitter_suspensions&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>bryanmgreen</author><text>Better leveraging Twitter&amp;#x27;s reporting feature is probably the most neutral way to solve this.&lt;p&gt;When a tweet is deemed response-worthy, they should post the report numbers. Value in numbers shields them in many ways and could legitimize their actions as a neutral party. Then, if they miss something, they can simply say there weren&amp;#x27;t enough reports. This will then empower the feature in the future.&lt;p&gt;I suggest this as active Reddit moderator with a community of 40,000+ subscribers who regularly has to enforce rules and uses auto-mod to help manage reports and shares that with the community.&lt;p&gt;-----------------------&lt;p&gt;You can report tweets for:&lt;p&gt;(1) Being not interested in it (you just get redirected to a mute or block button)&lt;p&gt;(2)It&amp;#x27;s suspicious or spam&lt;p&gt;---&amp;gt; The account is fake&lt;p&gt;---&amp;gt; Includes a link to a potentially harmful or phishing site&lt;p&gt;---&amp;gt; Hashtags are unrelated&lt;p&gt;---&amp;gt; Uses the reply function to spam&lt;p&gt;---&amp;gt; Something else&lt;p&gt;(3) It&amp;#x27;s abusive or harmful&lt;p&gt;---&amp;gt; It&amp;#x27;s disrespectful&lt;p&gt;---&amp;gt; Includes private information&lt;p&gt;---&amp;gt; Includes targeted harassment&lt;p&gt;---&amp;gt; It directs hate against a protected category (eg race, religions, gender, orientation, disability)&lt;p&gt;---&amp;gt; Threatening violence&lt;p&gt;---&amp;gt; They&amp;#x27;re encouraging self-harm or suicide&lt;p&gt;(4) It&amp;#x27;s misleading about politics or civic events&lt;p&gt;---&amp;gt; It has false information about how to vote&lt;p&gt;---&amp;gt; It intends to suppress or intimidate someone from voting&lt;p&gt;---&amp;gt; It misrepresents it&amp;#x27;s affiliation or impersonates an official&lt;p&gt;(5) It expresses intentions of self-harm or suicide.&lt;p&gt;-----------------------&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s pretty good but I would suggest the very simple following updates:&lt;p&gt;- Updating the main issue (It&amp;#x27;s abusive or harmful) to (It&amp;#x27;s abusive or encourages violence or destruction of property)&lt;p&gt;- Adding a sub-issue to (It&amp;#x27;s misleading about politics or civic events) with (A political official is supporting false or unsubstantiated information as definitive truth.)&lt;p&gt;- Adding a sub-issue to (It&amp;#x27;s suspicious, spam, or false) with (It&amp;#x27;s supporting false or unsubstantiated information as definitive truth.)&lt;p&gt;- Adding chevron icons (&amp;gt;) as a visual cue that each main reporting issue has many sub-issues</text></comment>