Topic: Twitter Censors @realDonaldTrump Posts (Read 195 times)

When you have a 4 year thread claiming a flat earth, you tend to lose all credibility in everything else you post.
Get used to it.

Calm down snowflake.

Nickleback made them take it down.  Can't really blame them for not wanting Trump to use their work to intentionally piss off half the country.

I mean just to add onto this -- which I fully agree with - I don't think twitter is just going to change their algorithm to allow for people who are verified to be allowed to share copyrighted material without it being censored.

This isn't just something that happens on twitter by the way, happens on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, etc. Nothing to do with Trump.

Un-censorable in the sense of community run? I've discussed this a couple time on the section, but I do think that at first small community run social networks can survive like this yes. But you hit a point where people notice they're able to share anything and get away with it -- here comes the kiddie porn and stuff like this, which everyone can agree shouldn't be shared. So now there is a moderator that removes this, but now these people are looking for ad revenue and the only ad partners that are willing to work with them don't like that they have porn on their website.

I think it's a slippery slope of just going back to control.

I don't like or use Twitter, but this isn't a fair criticism against them. If Twitter receives a DMCA takedown, then they have to remove the offending content or else they're sticking their neck out legally. If they say, "this is fair use," then they're liable for copyright infringement if they're wrong. You can't expect a company like Twitter to take risks like that if there's any possibility of them being wrong; nor can you expect them to dedicate resources to having lawyers carefully analyze each case. This is just the natural result of the way the DMCA law works: service providers always take things down after receiving a DMCA takedown unless the takedown is so obviously invalid that any court in the world would immediately throw it out.

Under the DMCA, Trump could in this case theoretically send Twitter a counter-takedown in which he asserts that the DMCA takedown was illegitimate (eg. due to fair use), and then Twitter could restore it without liability. I don't know if Twitter actually has a process for handling counter-takedowns, though. (They should.)

IANAL, but it's not clear to me that it is fair use, mainly since Trump isn't commenting on the work itself (ie. the news piece), but rather the subject of the work. If he was criticizing the handling of the reporting, then that'd more likely be fair use. Probably a lawyer could convincingly argue in court that it isn't copyright infringement (maybe due to the excerpt being insubstantial moreso than fair use), but again, if there's any ambiguity at all, then service providers like Twitter aren't going to stick their necks out.

If people were using a decentralized, uncensorable version of Twitter (which technologically isn't even that difficult), then this wouldn't be an issue...

I've checked the other tweets all of which appear to be ok but this one is showing as disabled for me as well.

I mean what the hell copyright infringement could be going on there? Not sure which news station that's  a screen grab from.

So either Twitter hasn't fixed it, there really is infringement (doubtful), or he really is being censored.

I'd imagine everything he posts gets instantly reported by people.

Streisand effect

I honestly don't know too much about copyright law and how it works, epsically in an age where social media makes it very hard to police infractions. Though I must say that when I viewed the tweet by Trump isn't wasnt under a ban for copyright issues.

I'm assuming  that this is something that happens all the time when he posts a video like this, where tons of people will report it for copyright infractions and then the auto twitter bot will show that until someone manually checks it.

I doubt this is new.

Twitter is censoring the POTUS' over copyright; this clearly a case of fair use under the copyright act.

Here is the currently censored post:



Here is the un-censored post:

"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."



This platform is clearly making false copyright claims to censor conservative voices!