Twitter ‘Preventing Government From Monitoring Terror-Related Content’

In the case of Twitter, this must involve protected accounts whose content can only be viewed by approved followers. Twitter must think it has more to lose from people believing the government can view that content than it has from the possibility that such accounts are being used for terrorist activity.

In its defense, a lot of people protect their Twitter accounts; most are not terrorists.

Ben Reilly wrote:In the case of Twitter, this must involve protected accounts whose content can only be viewed by approved followers. Twitter must think it has more to lose from people believing the government can view that content than it has from the possibility that such accounts are being used for terrorist activity.

In its defense, a lot of people protect their Twitter accounts; most are not terrorists.

And many terrorists and extremists use twitter

The fact we live in an age of heightened terrorism, shows that the stance here by twitter is idiotic

If other social media outlets are able to assist, there is no reason why they should not, as they are then covering up for terrorists and extremists

The fact is what have people to hide?

or it shows the gov't promotes terror threats and fear to be more invasive into peoples privacy. look at airports etc.

they are relying of fools to jump in fear and throw away everyones rights

veya_victaous wrote:or it shows the gov't promotes terror threats and fear to be more invasive into peoples privacy. look at airports etc.

they are relying of fools to jump in fear and throw away everyones rights

Yes. With Trump at the beneficiary end of any government crack-down, I would be opposed.

So I see the two resident regressive give weight to a social media site that harbours terrorists and extremists.

The site is a privilege for people, not a necessity

Thorin wrote:So I see the two resident regressive give weight to a social media site that harbours terrorists and extremists.

The site is a privilege for people, not a necessity

The planet Earth harbors terrorists and extremists. The issue is, how to get them without tearing apart the China shop.

The concept of "the authorities" has been given over to a madman. It can no longer be taken for granted the government is your friend. Do we have to spell it out for the resident intellectual drag?

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:So I see the two resident regressive give weight to a social media site that harbours terrorists and extremists.

The site is a privilege for people, not a necessity

The planet Earth harbors terrorists and extremists.  The issue is, how to get them without tearing apart the China shop.

The concept of "the authorities" has been given over to a madman.  It can no longer be taken for granted the government is your friend.  Do we have to spell it out for the resident intellectual drag?

The planet earth is not a social media site and thus your meaning has about as much sense as Trump as US President.

This is not about the Government but the fact Twitter said it would aid in tackling extremism, to which it has now gone back on.

It is a again a privilege and if it takes more the view of money over that of helping combat extremism. Then it stands in the way of combating terrorism and extremism.

The question I ask again is what have people to hide by hiding their twitter accounts?

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The planet Earth harbors terrorists and extremists.  The issue is, how to get them without tearing apart the China shop.

The concept of "the authorities" has been given over to a madman.  It can no longer be taken for granted the government is your friend.  Do we have to spell it out for the resident intellectual drag?

The planet earth is not a social media site and thus your meaning has about as much sense as Trump as US President.

This is not about the Government but the fact Twitter said it would aid in tackling extremism, to which it has now gone back on.

It is a again a privilege and if it takes more the view of money over that of helping combat extremism. Then it stands in the way of combating terrorism and extremism.

The question I ask again is what have people to hide by hiding their twitter accounts?

Aren't all social media sites on the planet Earth? Perhaps not, now that I think of it.

Parts of Twitter are from outer space.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:


The planet earth is not a social media site and thus your meaning has about as much sense as Trump as US President.

This is not about the Government but the fact Twitter said it would aid in tackling extremism, to which it has now gone back on.

It is a again a privilege and if it takes more the view of money over that of helping combat extremism. Then it stands in the way of combating terrorism and extremism.

The question I ask again is what have people to hide by hiding their twitter accounts?

Aren't all social media sites on the planet Earth?  Perhaps not, now that I think of it.

Parts of Twitter are from outer space.

Well done  

Thorin wrote:So I see the two resident regressive give weight to a social media site that harbours terrorists and extremists.

The site is a privilege for people, not a necessity

ohh mr 'free speech is a privilege"



and it will aide in tackling extremism but it would give over the universal access to private accounts it will do it internally and notify the authorities when necessary.

AND You know the whole IT OWNS it not the government. it is technically Intellectual property, it does not belong to the government in any way shape or form.

veya_victaous wrote:

Thorin wrote:So I see the two resident regressive give weight to a social media site that harbours terrorists and extremists.

The site is a privilege for people, not a necessity

ohh mr 'free speech is a privilege"



and it will aide in tackling extremism but it would give over the universal access to private accounts it will do it internally and notify the authorities when necessary.

AND You know the whole IT OWNS it not the government. it is technically Intellectual property, it does not belong to the government in any way shape or form.

What has this got to do with Free Speech?

How is it Free Speech, when its hidden?

Doh

This is why I find it impossible to debate with at times the crap you come out with

Laters

Thorin wrote:So I see the two resident regressive give weight to a social media site that harbours terrorists and extremists.

The site is a privilege for people, not a necessity

I just love that term, "regressive."

Tell you what -- why don't you reconcile your crying about freedom of speech on university campuses with your insistence that the government be allowed to see everything on Twitter, then we'll talk about hypocritical views.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Thorin wrote:So I see the two resident regressive give weight to a social media site that harbours terrorists and extremists.

The site is a privilege for people, not a necessity

I just love that term, "regressive."

Tell you what -- why don't you reconcile your crying about freedom of speech on university campuses with your insistence that the government be allowed to see everything on Twitter, then we'll talk about hypocritical views.

Well that would then make both comparable if we could then all see the speech from twitter would it not? With then allowing all people to speak on campus.

You really never thought that one through did you Ben?

So how is my view hypocritical

My stance is why is their a need to keep any speech on social media secret, unless people have something to hide. Where people have something to hide they are thus being dishonest, to the more and worst extremists of terrorism and extremism. My view to allow all speakers and to counter any speaker is not even comparable.
What you seem to fail to grasp is that there is a huge problem of extremist and terrorist information being hidden on twitter. What matters more here. The prevention of loss of life, or some privacy privileges lost on a social media website?