Twitter Apologizes for ‘Pain’ Caused by Trump’s Tweets Falsely Implying Joe Scarborough Committed Murder

Doesn't Trump ever smile? He always seems to look so nasty and humorless.

"Hey you kids, get off my lawn. And take your damn dog with you!"

They're too chicken shit to actually DO anything about it, because they know psycho brings lots of traffic to twitter with his moronic tweets.

R1 I think he'd add - "Unless you're a cute little girl in puberty, then you can stay."

Don't apologize. Ban him.

Trump MADE Twitter. His psycho tweets lead to thousands of people creating accounts, and news outlets report about what happens on Twitter constantly nowadays. They won't get rid of him, ever.

The app is losing popularity though, and went from being #21 in Forbes Top 100 Digital Companies in 2018 to not even making the top 100 in 2019. And they won't release any user stats anymore, the last time was the first quarter of 2019.

This would have been a great excuse for Twitter to step up and take a stand against the Orange Menace and his abuse but they didn't have the balls to delete his account. A golden opportunity squandered.

What would the Orange Jagoff DO all day without Twitter?

Why should they ban him? Last I checked we still had a first amendment. I hate him as much as anyone but attempting to censor the president is just ridiculous and hysterical. Besides, he hangs himself every day on twitter. You want him on there continuing to say stupid stuff that can be used against him in November.

Why is Twitter apologizing for Trump's tweet? They should just delete his account.

If any other person slandered people, incited his followers and encouraged conspiracy theories like Trump, he/she would have been banned from Twitter long ago.

This gave me a good laugh.

"F" off twitter! you should have delete his account and others years ago!!!!!!! and yes, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE (nuance?context? anyone?) between someone expressing their "first amendment rights" and others doing what trump does! end of story!

twitter and it's creators and leaders are just media attention money whores, the list of this is very long!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

It would save the world a lot of time and energy if they just shutdown his bully Twitter feed. What would the journalists talk about then? His administration's corruption, his destructive policies, his failures as a leader...you know, the important stuff.

[quote] Why should they ban him? Last I checked we still had a first amendment.

🙄 Nice red herring. The First Amendment does not apply in this situation. It only prevents the government from impinging on free speech rights. It does NOT cover private entities. He has absolutely no right to have a Twitter account. It is why Twitter has banned thousands of people and not a single one has successfully sued under the First Amendment to have their status restored.

Jack Dorsey had committed high treason at this point by allowing so much misinformation to be spread on Twitter.

Biden should shut down Twitter and Dorsey should be tried and face a firing squad if found guilty.

(Though I'd go after the Murdochs first)

Theoretically, shouldn't an individual then be allowed to post anything about anyone without repercussion. Say I tweet an obvious lie about Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey - would Jack be okay with it and not have it removed and/or my account banned?

If he's accusing someone of murder, then I would think Twitter could held accountable in a nice lawsuit.

Has the tweet even been taken down?

Lotta people calling for everyone's death on Datalounge this morning.

R5 is correct.

The assumption is that at least half of the monthly users Twitter claims are bots and then of the remaining 50%, that number can be divided by three or four as many are multiple accounts from the same person (e.g., a business account and a personal account.)

Yep, delete his account or delete the tweet(s). Of course Twitter can do these things, but they'll go with the apology instead.

[quote] Why should they ban him? Last I checked we still had a first amendment.

Poor thing. You don't understand the BIll of Rights at all, do you?

Why are the apologizing. He’s the one who made the claim.

On DL we used to site the dead intern story constantly when referring to Joe and Mika. Should Muriel apologize?

I hope Trump DOESNT get banned from Twitter. It's a running documents of how utterly juvenile and insane he is.

[Quote} Why are the apologizing. He’s the one who made the claim. On DL we used to site the dead intern story constantly when referring to Joe and Mika. Should Muriel apologize?

My guess is Twitter is afraid it's going to get sued for providing a platform for false accusations.

Twitter has milions of users; DL has five.

Sometime I think they should shut the whole thing down. They made their money. Cool, well that didn't work out. Sorry guys. BYE!

Twitter has obviously carefully weighed its options and decided that the cost of leaving Trump unchecked on their platform is smaller than any benefit they might get by censoring him. I'm sure it's completely a business decision for Twitter, not an ethical or moral one.

Gotta love social media!

[quote] Last I checked we still had a first amendment

Maybe you should re-read it. It limits what the GOVERNMENT can do. It doesn’t apply to Twitter (or Datalounge).

[quote] The app is losing popularity though, and went from being #21 in Forbes Top 100 Digital Companies in 2018 to not even making the top 100 in 2019.

I find it hard to believe that Twitter is losing popularity. Trump drives an enormous amount of traffic to Twitter in the US alone. Moreover, Twitter is used in many parts of the world for political protest and discourse. Forbes has zero credibility.

R20. It seems the first person to call out amendments never really understands the amendment.

The Forbes list is not about how "popular" digital companies are, it's about "sales, profits and asset figures as well as market capitalizations."

Why would they apologize for something that someone else has done. How are they responsible?

It’s like a grocery store chain apologizing because a fellow shopper cut ahead of you in the checkout line.

Every nasty thing he’s posted has been archived. Kick him off! Can’t a billionaire just buy up the company and kick him off for us?

As a practical matter, no, Twitter really can't take down the President of the United States' account, because he's made it a channel of official communication to the public. That would be like a major network refusing to cover his speeches and press conferences because he also uses those to spread slander. However, Trump can and will be removed from office, in which case he should be banned for life from all social media.

Correct R29, but social media makes more money the more users it has. If Twitter is losing so much money that it went from being #21 out of 100 to not even in the top 100 just a year later, that's an indicator that it's losing money, in part due to fewer users.

[quote] If Twitter is losing so much money that it went from being #21 out of 100 to not even in the top 100 just a year later, that's an indicator that it's losing money, in part due to fewer users.

All the Forbes lists indicate is who is willing to buy a spot. Their rankings used to be legitimate but not anymore. Twitter's drop probably has more to do with Twitter being so firmly established it no longer needs the reputational boost from buying a spot.

It would be kinda fun if Trump was allowed to continue contributing to the volumes of archived evidence of his unbridled unprofessionalism, ineptitude, insanity, and criminality AND if someone sued twitter.

It would actually be nothing at all like that R32

There is nothing other than the money they can make from selling advertising during a heavily watched show that compels the networks to cover anything Trump says or does.

In fact, they have taken to cutting away from his press briefings.

Twitter is under less obligation because it is not even considered a news outlet and thus the 1A does not apply to them.

R33 you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and should stop digging the hole deeper.

They were losing millions of users in early 2019.

Twitter keeps losing monthly users, so it's going to stop sharing how many.

Twitter added users in third quarter 2019 after changing the metrics from users to "monetizable daily active users" but lost revenue due to botching their advertising tools.

I'm guessing you didn't actually read those articles.

[quote]To be fair, one of the reasons for the decline in its monthly users is a conscience choice the company made to clean bots and spam accounts from its platform. After one of the service’s biggest purges of these types of accounts last year, Twitter saw its biggest drop in monthly active users. Yet, during this time it also saw its daily active user metric rise.

[quote] Doesn't Trump ever smile?

A "conscience choice"?

I already mentioned that Twitter doesn't report users anymore, it reports monetizable daily users. Despite the increase per their new metric, they're still saying they are going to lose money in 2020.

And don't tell me they get rid of spammers because of their "conscience choice," they haven't gotten rid of a single spammer I've reported in a year and half. I went for months without seeing a spam tweet until recently, now I'm barely on there and I see spam on every single verified user's threads.

Twitter makes money off of advertising--those "promoted tweets"

Because there is an assumption that Twitter reaches "influencers"-- not InstaHos, but people who influence their friends and families--as well as almost every journo in the world--brands will pay for it.

Most in the media--digital and mainstream--are of the opinion that Twitter would have gone under were it not for Trump, as he gives them billions of free advertising every year (everu time someone reports that "President Plump tweeted that..." --that is free advertising for Twitter.)

And R41, people in media assume Twitter's numbers include a very large number of bots. Wall Street investors don't really understand how most social media companies work, so they don't question Twitter's numbers.

This would have been a great excuse for Twitter to step up and take a stand against the Orange Menace and his abuse but they didn't have the balls to delete his account. A golden opportunity squandered.

Agreed; I think there are some good points about 1. let Dump hang himself 2. social media is now considered an official form of communication and therefore you can't really ban the President even if he is a crazy asshat. 3. Twitter has obviously made some sort of deal with the devil that it's worth it to keep Dump around

That said, this would be a fine opportunity for them to take a stand & say "he's gone over the line; it's one thing to criticize Nancy Pelosi, Hilary or some other public figure, but Twitter will not tolerate this conduct from any individual, regardless of their position" and delete his account. Yes, the MAGAs would be in an uproar & no doubt Dump would threaten lawsuits, etc., but it gives Twitter the opportunity to take the high road in a way Zuck never did & have Dump & his toxic followers go elsewhere, which given Twitter's downward spiral would not be a bad thing.

Also lazy journos love Twitter because it's public and so they can pull in a bunch of random tweets as proof of what "people are saying about X", X being anything from the weather to Morbidly Obese Impeached President Plump--which further creates the impression that Twitter has many users.

Facebook and Instagram both have many multiples more users than Twitter

[quote]!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

My math skills are somewhat rusty, but I believe the correct answer is 278.

Twitter is responsible how its platform is being used and yet can enforce its own terms of service agreement at its own convenience.

Trump is in a unique position as he's the supposed leader of a country, but shows himself in the most undignified and unbecoming light on social media.

Twitter tries to play both sides by keeping Trump active and trying to ban his bot followers which are trying to make him, and his bigotry, look popular.

IMO Trump should be allowed to remain on Twitter and it should be highlighted how many real (no bots!) social media users disapprove of his tweets.

Sorry,

MO Trump should be allowed to remain on Twitter and it should be highlighted how many social media users disapprove of his tweets compared to how many (no bots!) approve of them.

[quote] His psycho tweets lead to thousands of people creating accounts

And tens of millions of fake Bot accounts.

[quote] Doesn't Trump ever smile?

Can an anus really ever smile?

A while ago Twitter was toying with the idea of getting rid of engagement metrics such as likes, or at least hiding them, so unfortunately I don't see them implementing dislikes. Twitter seems to have a problem with bluechecked accounts getting ratioed when they say something dumb or controversial and it's been speculated they want to get rid of that to protect their verified users.

An anus can wink.

[quote]Can an anus really ever smile?

Mine certainly has. On numerous occasions.

Shit like this by social media platforms like Twitter, Facbook etc is why I never joined, along with obvious privacy concerns.

Hitler would have a verified twitter account and Jack Dorsey would do absolutely nothing to stop him from using it. Twitter only cares about traffic, attention and the bottom line. They are not a moral compass so stop living in some fantasy land where they're going to swoop in and ban him. They don't give a shit what he says.

Twitter really needs to just die already. It's old and stale, like weeks-old fish, and smells just as aromatic. The internet was better before it.

R42 - In that photo, Trump looks like (1) a rabid dog; (2) a senior with dementia who is overly excited to be on a rare outing from his care facility OR (3) a man exhibiting the effects of drugs.

POLITICO's Meridith McGraw:

As always during these conversations about the president's Twitter use, I want to turn the mic over to FLOTUS, whose platform centers around positive social media use: "whether verbally or online—they must choose their words wisely and speak with respect and compassion"

[quote]it's been speculated they want to get rid of that to protect their verified users.

🙄🙄🙄🙄

It's been speculated by idiots on Twitter.

Try Newsweek, R59.

God, it's been non-stop dipshits on Datalounge today.

Reuters:

Twitter says it is not removing Trump tweets on deceased Scarborough staff member

[quote] Last I checked we still had a first amendment. I hate him as much as anyone but attempting to censor the president is just ridiculous and hysterical.

You've been raked over the coals for the benightedness of the first sentence, so I'll address the second. It's not censorship to establish limits of conduct in public fora. You cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, for instance, and you should not yell "Murder!" when you know that doing so will cause chaos and possible provoke a dangerous response. The fact that you hate him doesn't excuse you mislabelling censoring as ridiculous and hysterical. This echoes what Twitter has done here -- allowing this president to do, say, act, carry on, or misbehave in any way devised by man or God and the aggrieved apologize for his actions. He has completely perverted the dialogue between the president and the people. Now, instead of fireside chats, we get firebomb tweets.

[quote] Can an anus really ever smile?

Mine will smile three times tonight

And this is exactly why I’m not on Twitter and won’t be in the future. More people should quit Twitter.

They don’t need a “policy” adjustment.

R60 did you read the article? I'm guessing not.

I notice the people first to decry "idiots" are, in fact, the fools themselves. Don't you have someone to bully on Twitter?

It's astonishing how far Trump has single-handedly lowered the bar. It's almost impressive, in a way.

One does not need to be "on" Twitter to read Plump's tweets

In fact, that's been one of the platform's biggest problems--tweets are viewed in browsers by people who are not signed in or are copied to news stories or even sites like Datalounge where people can read them without seeing Twitter's advertising.

[quote]tweets are viewed in browsers by people who ... can read them without seeing Twitter's advertising.

There's advertising on Twitter?

[quote]Trump MADE Twitter. His psycho tweets lead to millions of sock puppet accounts,

FIFY.

New: Twitter has added a "get the facts" link to a false Trump tweet about mail-in voting, which links to a page refuting his claim.

Now Twitter should do this for every one of his tweets.

Reuters:

Twitter places fact-check notification on Trump tweet about mail-in ballots

So Joe and Mika aren't yukking it up now with the orange fool?

Serves that prick right. HE helped elect that shitstain. Thought it was all a big joke.

Who's laughing now, asshole?

Is Jack Dorsey allowed to go in a Trump establishment and start trashing the place? Of course not. So why does Trump feel he can use Twitter in whatever manner he sees fit? It ain't his company, just like Trump's hotels aren't Dorsey's properties.

This was such stupid thinking on their part. Twitter stock would have quadrupled if they had put their foot down and said “no more lying, bots, or nazis. We’re drawing the line”. They could have been the one social media company that said “we’re picking truth over damaging society”, but no. Jack Dorsey is too much of an aspie shithead to ever think about anything beyond “numbers and engagement”.

Hypothetically if they did shut him down, where could this orange afterbirth go? TikTok ?

Dorsey knows that if he pisses Trump off, Trump will take his incoherent rants to Facebook or Instagram. He can't afford to lose him or his twitter's ad revenue.

[quote]The First Amendment does not apply in this situation. It only prevents the government from impinging on free speech rights. It does NOT cover private entities.

Plus, in this case Trump is posting things about Joe Scarborough and a murder investigation which may constitute slander/libel.

It's not just the usual insults & personal attacks.

[quote] Hypothetically if they did shut him down, where could this orange afterbirth go? TikTok ?

There is a right wing social platform called Gab that allegedly makes OANN look like Daily Kos

He'd probably go there and preach to the masses.

Or get Junior to tweet for him

Priceless: Morbidly Obese Impeached President Plump is furious that Twitter flagged is posts.

He tweeted " ....Twitter is completely stifling FREE SPEECH, and I, as President, will not allow it to happen!"

Of course he has no power to do anything of the sort by even the wildest stretch of the imagination.

And check out #JusticeForCarolyn

[quote]Why should they ban him? Last I checked we still had a first amendment.

R8. No one has freedom of speech when interacting or doing business with a private company--and Twitter is a private company.

Trump should be banned for continually lying and implicating Joe Scarborough in murder while also implying the woman who died had an affair with Scarborough. BAN Trump!

" ....Twitter is completely stifling FREE SPEECH, and I, as President, will not allow it to happen!"

Can you imagine the hysterical 2:00 AM phone call to Bill Barr, Dump weeping inconsolably & demanding that Barr investigate & imprison Jack Dorsey for...SOMETHING!!!

WTF is this B.S. about twitter using "misleading" about trump's 100% wrong mail fraud lie! misleading?? IT'S A OUTRIGHT LIE!....

off topic, but i'm on a facebook war with someone who claims that trump has helped the black population more then, way more then Biden has and that trump has actually paid off black people's mortgages and black students school loans? when? where???? i don't know if this person thinks he has done so VAGUELY OVERALL because of national policies? OR that he trump has LITERALLY individually paid off black student's loans and black person's mortgages before or since his presidency?

R82 did you know he personally sent us all $1,200???

R83... lol! i know what your saying, but seriously i want to be able to reply back to this person in this matter of trump helping the black population more then biden ever has and LITERALLY paying off black mortgages and black student loans?! literally and personally?!...

His followers have been posting/tweeting "Why ask to see tax returns from a billionaire who has selflessly chosen public service when you should be asking for tax returns from people who used public service to become billionaires"

Sort of genius in its way as it negates the point that the whole reason to see Plump's tax returns is that he is far from a billionaire.

R84 you’re wasting your time with those people. They are cult members. They are living in a warped version of reality.