Twitter has promised to improve and expand its policies after Robin Williams' daughter is bullied off of the social network. REUTERS/Eric Thayer 
 
 Internet trolls bullied Robin Williams' daughter off of Twitter and Instagram just days after her father's death. A handful of Twitter users sent Zelda Williams messages on Twitter that blamed her for Robin Williams' suicide by hanging, as well as pictures of the comedian altered to show bruises around his neck. 
 
 As my Washington Post colleague Caitlin Dewey reported, Zelda Williams, 25, said she could not bear the messages and would stay off of Twitter and Instagram for a "good long time." She also asked her social network followers to petition the company to block two particular accounts that were responsible for the bulk of the abuse. Those accounts have since been removed by Twitter. In a statement, the company said that it will be updating its policies in light of the incident. 
 
 “We will not tolerate abuse of this nature on Twitter," Del Harvey, Twitter's vice president of trust and safety, said in a statement. "We have suspended a number of accounts related to this issue for violating our rules and we are in the process of evaluating how we can further improve our policies to better handle tragic situations like this one. This includes expanding our policies regarding self-harm and private information, and improving support for family members of deceased users.” 
 
 But the messages that forced Zelda Williams offline are just a sliver of the types of abuse many face on Twitter. Imani Gandy, senior legal analyst at the reproductive health publication RH Reality Check, wrote Tuesday about abuse she said she faces on the service every day -- in general and from one man, in particular, whom she has been unable to stop. 
 
 This is more than a few mean comments, according to her account. She wrote that the abuse leveled at her has been constant because of her race, gender and even her medical condition -- she said she has a brain tumor which this man has accused her of faking. 
 
 She's ignored him, and taken other steps as well. "I’ve blocked at least a thousand of his accounts over the past two years," she wrote. "I’ve reported him using Twitter’s 'Report Abuse' form. I briefly considered calling the police, but, really, what would be the point? I’ve seen how police treat stalking victims and victims of online harassment far more severe than mine." 
 
 Gandy has also collected other instances of harassment similar to hers. In one case, she said, Twitter reviewed a tweet threatening to rape a woman and decided it did not violate its community rules against "abusive behavior." 
 
 "Got that?" Gandy wrote. "It is not a violation of Twitter’s rules to threaten to rape another Twitter user." 
 
 Twitter does have a system that lets users report abuse, document harassment and -- in some cases -- get bad accounts taken down. The company also last year introduced a "Report Abuse" button, after Caroline Criado-Perez, a British woman leading a campaign to put Jane Austen's image on the 10-pound note, was subjected to a flood of abuse. She said she faced at least one rape threat per minute. 
 
 As even Twitter's own statement on Wednesday indicates, many still find its tools don't address the problem. For example, Twitter allows users to block accounts that target them. But sadly, these measures don't even begin to stop persistent attackers, who often create new accounts to continue their actions almost without pause. 
 
 "While I am truly sorry for what the Williams family is experiencing during this time, I am concerned that it takes an event like this to bring heightened attention to a problem that so many face every day," said Soraya Chemaly, a media critic and feminist activist who has worked with Facebook to make more robust protections for those targeted by abuse online. 
 
 Gandy, in her post, recommends that Twitter take a leaf from a third-party software called "Block Together." The program, which is free for download, lets users automatically block the accounts of new Twitter users who send them direct "@" replies, and share their list of blocked accounts with friends. It was created by Electronic Frontier Foundation technologist Jacob Hoffman-Andrews after he read a blog post by iOS developer Danilo Campos calling on Twitter to add many of those features. 
 
 Chemaly said that Twitter's fierce commitment to free expression may be clouding its judgment on this issue. That attitude is "all well and good, except it seems to strongly suggest that they don't fundamentally care about the effects of harassment on certain members of their customer base - namely, the ones most likely to need additional protections built into the system," she said. 
 
 But if Twitter doesn't take steps to protect the character of its community, Chemaly added, everyone loses. "As is often the case, it is Williams, the target of abuse, and not her abusers, who's left Twitter," she said. 
 
 Have more to say about this topic? We take your questions every week in our weekly livechat, Switchback, Fridays at 11 a.m. ET. The comment box is open, so submit your questions now. ||||| Leaked policies guiding moderators on what content to allow are likely to fuel debate about social media giant’s ethics 
 
 Facebook’s secret rules and guidelines for deciding what its 2 billion users can post on the site are revealed for the first time in a Guardian investigation that will fuel the global debate about the role and ethics of the social media giant. 
 
 The Guardian has seen more than 100 internal training manuals, spreadsheets and flowcharts that give unprecedented insight into the blueprints Facebook has used to moderate issues such as violence, hate speech, terrorism, pornography, racism and self-harm. 
 
 
 
 Facebook will let users livestream self-harm, leaked documents show Read more 
 
 There are even guidelines on match-fixing and cannibalism. 
 
 
 
 The Facebook Files give the first view of the codes and rules formulated by the site, which is under huge political pressure in Europe and the US. 
 
 They illustrate difficulties faced by executives scrabbling to react to new challenges such as “revenge porn�? – and the challenges for moderators, who say they are overwhelmed by the volume of work, which means they often have “just 10 seconds�? to make a decision. 
 
 “Facebook cannot keep control of its content,�? said one source. “It has grown too big, too quickly.�? 
 
 Many moderators are said to have concerns about the inconsistency and peculiar nature of some of the policies. Those on sexual content, for example, are said to be the most complex and confusing. 
 
 Facebook Twitter Pinterest A slide on Facebook’s revenge porn policy. Photograph: Guardian 
 
 One document says Facebook reviews more than 6.5m reports a week relating to potentially fake accounts – known as FNRP (fake, not real person). 
 
 Using thousands of slides and pictures, Facebook sets out guidelines that may worry critics who say the service is now a publisher and must do more to remove hateful, hurtful and violent content. 
 
 Yet these blueprints may also alarm free speech advocates concerned about Facebook’s de facto role as the world’s largest censor. Both sides are likely to demand greater transparency. 
 
 The Guardian has seen documents supplied to Facebook moderators within the last year. The files tell them: 
 
 Facebook's internal manual on non-sexual child abuse content Read more 
 
 Remarks such as “Someone shoot Trump�? should be deleted, because as a head of state he is in a protected category. But it can be permissible to say: “To snap a bitch’s neck, make sure to apply all your pressure to the middle of her throat�?, or “fuck off and die�? because they are not regarded as credible threats. 
 
 Videos of violent deaths, while marked as disturbing, do not always have to be deleted because they can help create awareness of issues such as mental illness. 
 
 Some photos of non-sexual physical abuse and bullying of children do not have to be deleted or “actioned�? unless there is a sadistic or celebratory element. 
 
 Photos of animal abuse can be shared, with only extremely upsetting imagery to be marked as “disturbing�?. 
 
 All “handmade�? art showing nudity and sexual activity is allowed but digitally made art showing sexual activity is not. 
 
 Videos of abortions are allowed, as long as there is no nudity. 
 
 Facebook will allow people to livestream attempts to self-harm because it “doesn’t want to censor or punish people in distress�?. 
 
 Anyone with more than 100,000 followers on a social media platform is designated as a public figure – which denies them the full protections given to private individuals. 
 
 Facebook's manual on credible threats of violence Read more 
 
 Other types of remarks that can be permitted by the documents include: “Little girl needs to keep to herself before daddy breaks her face,�? and “I hope someone kills you.�? The threats are regarded as either generic or not credible. 
 
 In one of the leaked documents, Facebook acknowledges “people use violent language to express frustration online�? and feel “safe to do so�? on the site. 
 
 It says: “They feel that the issue won’t come back to them and they feel indifferent towards the person they are making the threats about because of the lack of empathy created by communication via devices as opposed to face to face. 
 
 Facebook Twitter Pinterest Facebook’s policy on threats of violence. A tick means something can stay on the site; a cross means it should be deleted. Photograph: Guardian 
 
 “We should say that violent language is most often not credible until specificity of language gives us a reasonable ground to accept that there is no longer simply an expression of emotion but a transition to a plot or design. From this perspective language such as ‘I’m going to kill you’ or ‘Fuck off and die’ is not credible and is a violent expression of dislike and frustration.�? 
 
 It adds: “People commonly express disdain or disagreement by threatening or calling for violence in generally facetious and unserious ways.�? 
 
 Facebook conceded that “not all disagreeable or disturbing content violates our community standards�?. 
 
 Monika Bickert, �?Facebook’s head of global policy management, said the service had almost 2 billion users and that it was difficult to reach a consensus on what to allow. 
 
 Facebook Twitter Pinterest A Facebook slide on threats of violence. The ticks mean these statements need not be deleted. Photograph: Guardian 
 
 “We have a really diverse global community and people are going to have very different ideas about what is OK to share. No matter where you draw the line there are always going to be some grey areas. For instance, the line between satire and humour and inappropriate content is sometimes very grey. It is very difficult to decide whether some things belong on the site or not,�? she said. 
 
 The Guardian's moderation policy The Guardian's moderation approach is bound by guidelines, which we have published here, and our moderators are all directly employed by the Guardian and work within our editorial team. The moderation team regularly receives training on issues such as race, gender or religious issues, and applies that training in service of those public guidelines. When making decisions, our moderators consider the community standards, wider context and purpose of discussions, as well as their relationship to the article on which they appear. We post-moderate most discussions, and rely on a mixture of targeted reading, community reports and tools to identify comments that go against our standards. We have an appeals process and anyone wanting to discuss specific moderation decisions can email moderation@theguardian.com. When requested, reasons for removal may be shared with those affected by the decision. All discussions on the Guardian site relate to articles we have published; this means we have specific responsibilities as a publisher, and also that we aim to take responsibility for the conversations we host. We make decisions about where to open and close comments based on topic, reader interest, resources and other factors. 
 
 “We feel responsible to our community to keep them safe and we feel very accountable. It’s absolutely our responsibility to keep on top of it. It’s a company commitment. We will continue to invest in proactively keeping the site safe, but we also want to empower people to report to us any content that breaches our standards.�? 
 
 She said some offensive comments may violate Facebook policies in some contexts, but not in others. 
 
 Facebook’s leaked policies on subjects including violent death, images of non-sexual physical child abuse and animal cruelty show how the site tries to navigate a minefield. 
 
 The files say: “Videos of violent deaths are disturbing but can help create awareness. For videos, we think minors need protection and adults need a choice. We mark as ‘disturbing’ videos of the violent deaths of humans.�? 
 
 Such footage should be “hidden from minors�? but not automatically deleted because it can “be valuable in creating awareness for self-harm afflictions and mental illness or war crimes and other important issues�?. 
 
 Facebook Twitter Pinterest A slide on animal cruelty. Photograph: Guardian 
 
 Regarding non-sexual child abuse, Facebook says: “We do not action photos of child abuse. We mark as disturbing videos of child abuse. We remove imagery of child abuse if shared with sadism and celebration.�? 
 
 
 
 One slide explains Facebook does not automatically delete evidence of non-sexual child abuse to allow the material to be shared so “the child [can] be identified and rescued, but we add protections to shield the audience�?. This might be a warning on the video that the content is disturbing. 
 
 Facebook confirmed there are “some situations where we do allow images of non-sexual abuse of a child for the purpose of helping the child�?. 
 
 Facebook's rules on showing cruelty to animals Read more 
 
 Its policies on animal abuse are also explained, with one slide saying: “We allow photos and videos documenting animal abuse for awareness, but may add viewer protections to some content that is perceived as extremely disturbing by the audience. 
 
 “Generally, imagery of animal abuse can be shared on the site. Some extremely disturbing imagery may be marked as disturbing.�? 
 
 Photos of animal mutilation, including those showing torture, can be marked as disturbing rather than deleted. Moderators can also leave photos of abuse where a human kicks or beats an animal. 
 
 Facebook Twitter Pinterest The documents include guidance on non-sexual child abuse. Composite: alamy 
 
 Facebook said: “We allow people to share images of animal abuse to raise awareness and condemn the abuse but remove content that celebrates cruelty against animals.�? 
 
 The files show Facebook has issued new guidelines on nudity after last year’s outcry when it removed an iconic Vietnam war photo because the girl in the picture was naked. 
 
 It now allows for “newsworthy exceptions�? under its “terror of war�? guidelines but draws the line at images of “child nudity in the context of the Holocaust�?. 
 
 Facebook told the Guardian it was using software to intercept some graphic content before it got on the site, but that “we want people to be able to discuss global and current events … so the context in which a violent image is shared sometimes matters�?. 
 
 Some critics in the US and Europe have demanded that the company be regulated in the same way as mainstream broadcasters and publishers. 
 
 Facebook Twitter Pinterest A Facebook slide on its Holocaust policy. Photograph: Guardian 
 
 But Bickert said Facebook was “a new kind of company. It’s not a traditional technology company. It’s not a traditional media company. We build technology, and we feel responsible for how it’s used. We don’t write the news that people read on the platform.�? 
 
 A report by British MPs published on 1 May said “the biggest and richest social media companies are shamefully far from taking sufficient action to tackle illegal or dangerous content, to implement proper community standards or to keep their users safe�?. 
 
 Sarah T Roberts, an expert on content moderation, said: “It’s one thing when you’re a small online community with a group of people who share principles and values, but when you have a large percentage of the world’s population and say ‘share yourself’, you are going to be in quite a muddle. 
 
 “Then when you monetise that practice you are entering a disaster situation.�? 
 
 Facebook's internal guidance on showing graphic violence Read more 
 
 Facebook has consistently struggled to assess the news or “awareness�? value of violent imagery. While the company recently faced harsh criticism for failing to remove videos of Robert Godwin being killed in the US and of a father killing his child in Thailand, the platform has also played an important role in disseminating videos of police killings and other government abuses. 
 
 In 2016, Facebook removed a video showing the immediate aftermath of the fatal police shooting of Philando Castile but subsequently reinstated the footage, saying the deletion was a “mistake�?. ||||| We believe that everyone should have the power to create and share ideas and information instantly, without barriers. In order to protect the experience and safety of people who use Twitter, there are some limitations on the type of content and behavior that we allow. These limitations are set forth in the Twitter Rules below. 
 
 The Twitter Rules (along with all incorporated policies), Privacy Policy, and Terms of Service collectively make up the "Twitter User Agreement" that governs a user's access to and use of Twitter's services. 
 
 All individuals accessing or using Twitter’s services must adhere to the policies set forth in the Twitter Rules. Failure to do so may result in Twitter taking one or more of the following enforcement actions: 
 
 requiring you to remove prohibited content before you can again create new posts and interact with other Twitter users; 
 
 temporarily limiting your ability to create posts or interact with other Twitter users; 
 
 asking you to verify account ownership with a phone number or email address; or 
 
 permanently suspending your account(s). 
 
 If you attempt to evade a permanent suspension by creating new accounts, we will suspend your new accounts. 
 
 Please note that we may need to change these Rules from time to time and reserve the right to do so. The most current version is always available at: https://twitter.com/rules. 
 
 The policies set forth in these Twitter Rules govern organic content on our platform. To learn more about the rules which govern ads and promoted content, please review our Ads policies. 
 
 Content Boundaries and Use of Twitter 
 
 Intellectual property 
 
 Trademark: We reserve the right to suspend accounts or take other appropriate action when someone’s brand or trademark, including business name and/or logo, is used in a manner that may mislead or confuse others about your brand affiliation. Read more about our trademark policy and how to report a violation. 
 
 Copyright: We will respond to clear and complete notices of alleged copyright infringement. Our copyright procedures are set forth in our Terms of Service. Read more about our copyright policy. 
 
 
 
 Graphic violence and adult content 
 
 We consider graphic violence to be any form of gory media related to death, serious injury, violence, or surgical procedures. We consider adult content to be any media that is pornographic and/or may be intended to cause sexual arousal. 
 
 Twitter allows some forms of graphic violence and/or adult content in Tweets marked as containing sensitive media. However, you may not use such content in live video, your profile, or header images. Additionally, Twitter may sometimes require you to remove excessively graphic violence. Read more about how we define graphic violence and adult content and how to mark your media as sensitive. 
 
 Media depicting deceased individuals: We may require you to remove media that depicts the death of an identifiable individual if we receive a request from their family or an authorized representative. Learn more about how to make such a request. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Unlawful use 
 
 You may not use our service for any unlawful purposes or in furtherance of illegal activities. By using Twitter, you agree to comply with all applicable laws governing your online conduct and content. 
 
 
 
 Distribution of hacked materials 
 
 We do not permit the use of our services to directly distribute content obtained through hacking that contains personally identifiable information, may put people in imminent harm or danger, or contains trade secrets. Direct distribution of hacked materials includes posting hacked content on Twitter (for instance, in the text of a Tweet, or in an image), or directly linking to hacked content hosted on other websites. 
 
 We may suspend accounts which directly distribute hacked materials where the account has made a claim of responsibility for a hack, or where Twitter is able to reliably attribute a hack to the account distributing that content. 
 
 
 
 Trends 
 
 At times, we may prevent certain content from trending. This includes content that violates the Twitter Rules, as well as content that may attempt to manipulate trends. Read more about what we allow and do not allow to trend. 
 
 
 
 Third-party advertising in video content 
 
 You may not submit, post, or display any video content on or through our services that includes third-party advertising, such as pre-roll video ads or sponsorship graphics, without our prior consent. 
 
 
 
 Misuse of Twitter badges 
 
 You may not use badges, including but not limited to the “promoted” or “verified” Twitter badges, unless provided by Twitter. Accounts using unauthorized badges as part of their profile photos, header photos, display names, or in any way that falsely implies affiliation with Twitter or authorization from Twitter to display these badges, may be suspended. 
 
 
 
 Misuse of usernames 
 
 Selling usernames: You may not buy or sell Twitter usernames. 
 
 Username squatting: You may not engage in username squatting. Some of the factors we take into consideration when determining whether conduct is username squatting include: 
 
 the number of accounts created; 
 
 the creation of accounts for the purpose of preventing others from using those account names; 
 
 the creation of accounts for the purpose of selling those accounts; and 
 
 the use of third-party content feeds to update and maintain accounts under the names of those third parties. 
 
 Please note that Twitter may also remove accounts that are inactive for more than six months. Learn more about username squatting. 
 
 Abusive Behavior 
 
 We believe in freedom of expression and open dialogue, but that means little as an underlying philosophy if voices are silenced because people are afraid to speak up. In order to ensure that people feel safe expressing diverse opinions and beliefs, we prohibit behavior that crosses the line into abuse, including behavior that harasses, intimidates, or uses fear to silence another user’s voice. 
 
 Context matters when evaluating for abusive behavior and determining appropriate enforcement actions. Factors we may take into consideration include, but are not limited to whether: 
 
 the behavior is targeted at an individual or group of people; 
 
 the report has been filed by the target of the abuse or a bystander; 
 
 the behavior is newsworthy and in the legitimate public interest. 
 
 
 
 Violence and physical harm 
 
 Violence: You may not make specific threats of violence or wish for the serious physical harm, death, or disease of an individual or group of people. This includes, but is not limited to, threatening or promoting terrorism. You also may not affiliate with organizations that — whether by their own statements or activity both on and off the platform — use or promote violence against civilians to further their causes. 
 
 
 
 Suicide or self-harm: You may not promote or encourage suicide or self-harm. When we receive reports that a person is threatening suicide or self-harm, we may take a number of steps to assist them, such as reaching out to that person and providing resources such as contact information for our mental health partners. 
 
 Child sexual exploitation: You may not promote child sexual exploitation. Learn more about our zero-tolerance child sexual exploitation policy. 
 
 
 
 Abuse and hateful conduct 
 
 Abuse: You may not engage in the targeted harassment of someone, or incite other people to do so. We consider abusive behavior an attempt to harass, intimidate, or silence someone else’s voice. 
 
 Unwanted sexual advances: You may not direct abuse at someone by sending unwanted sexual content, objectifying them in a sexually explicit manner, or otherwise engaging in sexual misconduct. 
 
 Hateful conduct: You may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease. Read more about our hateful conduct policy. 
 
 Hateful imagery and display names: You may not use hateful images or symbols in your profile image or profile header. You also may not use your username, display name, or profile bio to engage in abusive behavior, such as targeted harassment or expressing hate towards a person, group, or protected category. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Private information and intimate media 
 
 Private information: You may not publish or post other people's private information without their express authorization and permission. Definitions of private information may vary depending on local laws. Read more about our private information policy. 
 
 Intimate media: You may not post or share intimate photos or videos of someone that were produced or distributed without their consent. Media depicting sexual violence and/or assault is also not permitted. Note: limited exceptions may apply if there is clear context that the interaction is consensual. Read more about intimate media on Twitter. 
 
 Threats to expose / hack: You may not threaten to expose someone’s private information or intimate media. You also may not threaten to hack or break into someone’s digital information or attempt to incentivize others to do so (e.g., through setting a bounty or reward on such actions). 
 
 
 
 
 
 Impersonation 
 
 You may not impersonate individuals, groups, or organizations in a manner that is intended to or does mislead, confuse, or deceive others. While you may maintain parody, fan, commentary, or newsfeed accounts, you may not do so if the intent of the account is to engage in spamming or abusive behavior. Read more about our impersonation policy. 
 
 Spam and Security 
 
 We strive to protect people on Twitter from technical abuse and spam. 
 
 To promote a stable and secure environment on Twitter, you may not do, or attempt to do, any of the following while accessing or using Twitter: 
 
 Access, tamper with, or use non-public areas of Twitter, Twitter’s computer systems, or the technical delivery systems of Twitter’s providers (except as expressly permitted by the Twitter Bug Bounty program). 
 
 Probe, scan, or test the vulnerability of any system or network, or breach or circumvent any security or authentication measures (except as expressly permitted by the Twitter Bug Bounty program). 
 
 Access or search, or attempt to access or search, Twitter by any means (automated or otherwise) other than through our currently available, published interfaces that are provided by Twitter (and only pursuant to the applicable terms and conditions), unless you have been specifically allowed to do so in a separate agreement with Twitter. Note that crawling Twitter is permissible if done in accordance with the provisions of the robots.txt file; however, scraping Twitter without our prior consent is expressly prohibited. 
 
 Forge any TCP/IP packet header or any part of the header information in any email or posting, or in any way use Twitter to send altered, deceptive, or false source-identifying information. 
 
 Interfere with or disrupt the access of any user, host or network, including, without limitation, sending a virus, overloading, flooding, spamming, mail-bombing Twitter’s services, or by scripting the creation of content in such a manner as to interfere with or create an undue burden on Twitter. 
 
 Any accounts engaging in the following activities may be temporarily locked or subject to permanent suspension: 
 
 Malware/Phishing: You may not publish or link to malicious content intended to damage or disrupt another person’s browser or computer or to compromise a person’s privacy. 
 
 You may not publish or link to malicious content intended to damage or disrupt another person’s browser or computer or to compromise a person’s privacy. Fake accounts: You may not register or create fake and misleading accounts. While you may use Twitter pseudonymously or as a parody, commentary, or fan account, you may not use misleading account information in order to engage in spamming, abusive, or disruptive behavior, including attempts to manipulate the conversations on Twitter. Some of the factors that we take into account when determining whether an account is fake include: Use of stock or stolen avatar photos Use of stolen or copied profile bios Use of intentionally misleading profile information, including profile location 
 
 You may not register or create fake and misleading accounts. While you may use Twitter pseudonymously or as a parody, commentary, or fan account, you may not use misleading account information in order to engage in spamming, abusive, or disruptive behavior, including attempts to manipulate the conversations on Twitter. Some of the factors that we take into account when determining whether an account is fake include: Spam: You may not use Twitter’s services for the purpose of spamming anyone. Spam is generally defined on Twitter as bulk or aggressive activity that attempts to manipulate or disrupt Twitter or the experience of users on Twitter to drive traffic or attention to unrelated accounts, products, services, or initiatives. Some of the factors that we take into account when determining what conduct is considered to be spamming include: if you have followed and/or unfollowed a large number of of accounts in a short time period, particularly by automated means (aggressive following or follower churn); if your Tweets or Direct Messages consist mainly of links shared without commentary; if a large number of people have blocked you in response to high volumes of untargeted, unsolicited, or duplicative content or engagements from your account; if a large number of spam complaints have been filed against you; if you post duplicative or substantially similar content, replies, or mentions over multiple accounts or multiple duplicate updates on one account, or create duplicate or substantially similar accounts; if you post multiple updates to a trending or popular topic with an intent to subvert or manipulate the topic to drive traffic or attention to unrelated accounts, products, services, or initiatives; if you send large numbers of unsolicited replies or mentions; if you add users to lists in a bulk or aggressive manner; if you are randomly or aggressively engaging with Tweets (e.g., likes, Retweets, etc.) or users (e.g., following, adding to lists or Moments, etc.) to drive traffic or attention to unrelated accounts, products, services, or initiatives; if you repeatedly post other people’s account information as your own (e.g., bio, Tweets, profile URL, etc.); if you post misleading, deceptive, or malicious links (e.g., affiliate links, links to malware/clickjacking pages, etc.); if you sell, purchase, or attempt to artificially inflate account interactions (such as followers, Retweets, likes, etc.); and if you use or promote third-party services or apps that claim to get you more followers, Retweets, or likes (such as follower trains, sites promising "more followers fast", or any other site that offers to automatically add followers or engagements to your account or Tweets). 
 
 You may not use Twitter’s services for the purpose of spamming anyone. Spam is generally defined on Twitter as bulk or aggressive activity that attempts to manipulate or disrupt Twitter or the experience of users on Twitter to drive traffic or attention to unrelated accounts, products, services, or initiatives. Some of the factors that we take into account when determining what conduct is considered to be spamming include: 
 
 Please see our support articles on following rules and best practices and automation rules and best practices for more detailed information about how the Rules apply to those particular account behaviors. 
 
 Accounts created to replace or mimic suspended accounts may be permanently suspended. We may also remove accounts which Twitter is able to reliably attribute to entities known to violate the Twitter Rules. 
 
 
 
 Content Visibility 
 
 Accounts under investigation or which have been detected as sharing content in violation of these Rules may have their account or Tweet visibility limited in various parts of Twitter, including search. To learn more about situations in which content may be restricted on Twitter, please see our support article on search rules and restrictions.
– Twitter has promised to take a look at its policies after some sickening abuse over her father's death forced Zelda Williams off the site. After she tweeted a touching tribute to her father, the grieving daughter received messages on Twitter and Instagram blaming her for her father's death, as well as images of her father Photoshopped to show bruises around his neck, Forbes reports. "We will not tolerate abuse of this nature on Twitter," a Twitter exec said in a statement. "We have suspended a number of accounts related to this issue for violating our rules and we are in the process of evaluating how we can further improve our policies to better handle tragic situations like this one." Twitter says the changes will include "expanding our policies regarding self-harm and private information, and improving support for family members of deceased users." An activist who has worked with Facebook to help protect people facing online abuse says the site needs to do more to tackle persistent abusers. "While I am truly sorry for what the Williams family is experiencing during this time, I am concerned that it takes an event like this to bring heightened attention to a problem that so many face every day," she tells the Washington Post. "As is often the case, it is Williams, the target of abuse, and not her abusers, who's left Twitter," she adds.