Trump's coronavirus tweet hidden and branded 'potentially harmful information' [Post#31]

[MenInG]

US President Donald Trump has signed an executive order aimed at removing some of the legal protections given to social media platforms.

It gives regulators the power to pursue legal actions against firms such as Facebook and Twitter for the way they police content on their platforms.

President Trump accused social media platforms of having "unchecked power" while signing the order.

The order is expected to face legal challenges.

Legal experts says the US Congress or the court system must be involved to change the current legal understanding of protections for these platforms.

Mr Trump has regularly accused social media platforms of stifling or censoring conservative voices.

On Wednesday, Mr Trump accused Twitter of election interference, after it added fact-check links to two of his tweets.

On Thursday, Twitter added "get the facts about Covid-19" tags to two tweets from a Chinese government spokesman who claimed the coronavirus had originated in the US.

What does the executive order say?

The order sets out to clarify the Communications Decency Act, a US law that offers online platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube legal protection in certain situations.

Under Section 230 of the law, social networks are not generally held responsible for content posted by their users, but can engage in "good-Samaritan blocking", such as removing content that is obscene, harassing or violent.

The executive order points out that this legal immunity does not apply if a social network edits content posted by its users, and calls for legislation from Congress to "remove or change" section 230. Mr Trump said Attorney General William Barr will "immediately" begin crafting a law for Congress to later vote on.

It also says "deceptive" blocking of posts, including removing a post for reasons other than those described in a website's terms of service, should not be offered immunity.

Republican senator Marco Rubio is among those arguing that the platforms take on the role of a "publisher" when they add fact-check labels to specific posts.

"The law still protects social media companies like Twitter because they are considered forums not publishers," Mr Rubio said.

"But if they have now decided to exercise an editorial role like a publisher, then they should no longer be shielded from liability and treated as publishers under the law."

The executive order also calls for:

the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to spell out what type of content blocking will be considered deceptive, pretextual or inconsistent with a service provider's terms and conditions
a review of government advertising on social-media sites and whether those platforms impose viewpoint-based restrictions
the re-establishment of the White House "tech bias reporting tool" that lets citizens report unfair treatment by social networks
What effect will the order have?
Donald Trump promised "big action" in response to Twitter's decision to append a fact-check message to two of his posts. While his announcement of an executive order was heavy on rhetoric - accusing social media companies of being monopolies that threaten free speech - it will be a long process before the talk turns into real action, big or otherwise.

Independent government agencies will have to review federal law, promulgate new regulations, vote on them and then - in all likelihood - defend them in court. By the time it's all over, the November presidential election could have come and gone.

That explains why Trump is also pushing for new congressional legislation - a more straightforward way of changing US policy toward social media companies.

The real purpose of the president's order, however, may be symbolic. At the very least, the move will cause Twitter to think twice about attempting to moderate or fact-check his posts on their service.

The president relies on Twitter to get his message out without filtering from the mainstream media. If Twitter itself start blunting one of his favourite communication tools, he is sending a message that he will push back - and make things, at a minimum, uncomfortable for the company.

How have the social networks responded?

Twitter called the order "a reactionary and politicized approach to a landmark law," adding that Section 230 "protects American innovation and freedom of expression, and it's underpinned by democratic values".

Google, which owns YouTube, said changing Section 230 would "hurt America's economy and its global leadership on internet freedom."

"We have clear content policies and we enforce them without regard to political viewpoint. Our platforms have empowered a wide range of people and organizations from across the political spectrum, giving them a voice and new ways to reach their audiences," the firm said in a statement to the BBC.

In an interview with Fox News on Wednesday, Facebook's chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, said censoring a social media platform would not be the "right reflex" for a government concerned about censorship.

"I just believe strongly that Facebook shouldn't be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online," said Mr Zuckerberg.

"I think in general private companies probably shouldn't be - especially these platform companies - shouldn't be in the position of doing that."

One conservative think tank warned the executive order could have unintended consequences.

"In the long run, this conservative campaign against social media companies could have a devastating effect on the freedom of speech," said Matthew Feeney of the Cato Institute.

And changing the Communications Decency Act to "impose political neutrality on social media companies" could see the platforms filled with "legal content they'd otherwise like to remove" such as pornography, violent imagery and racism.

"Or they would screen content to a degree that would kill the free flow of information on social media that we're used to today," he said.

Mr Feeney said the draft of the executive order was a "mess" but could prove politically popular in the run-up to a presidential election.

What sparked the latest row?

The long-running dispute between Mr Trump and social media companies flared up again on Tuesday, when two of his posts were given a fact-check label by Twitter for the first time.

He had tweeted, without providing evidence: "There is no way (zero) that mail-in ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent."

Twitter added a warning label to the post and linked to a page describing the claims as "unsubstantiated".

Then on Wednesday, Mr Trump threatened to "strongly regulate" social-media platforms.

He tweeted to his more than 80 million followers that Republicans felt the platforms "totally silence conservatives", and that he would not allow this to happen.

In an earlier tweet, he said Twitter was "completely stifling free speech".

Twitter's chief executive, Jack Dorsey, responded to criticism of the platform's fact-checking policies in a series of posts, saying: "We'll continue to point out incorrect or disputed information about elections globally."

Mr Trump wrote a similar post about mail-in ballots on Facebook on Tuesday, and no such warnings were applied.

Twitter has tightened its policies in recent years, as it faced criticism that its hands-off approach allowed fake accounts and misinformation to thrive.


https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52843986

 

[MenInG]

Watch some other nations take the same line as well.

Bad days ahead for social media now.

 

[MenInG]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">I can’t stand back & watch this happen to a great American City, Minneapolis. A total lack of leadership. Either the very weak Radical Left Mayor, Jacob Frey, get his act together and bring the City under control, or I will send in the National Guard & get the job done right.....</p>— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1266231100172615680?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 29, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[MenInG]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">This Tweet violates our policies regarding the glorification of violence based on the historical context of the last line, its connection to violence, and the risk it could inspire similar actions today. <a href="https://t.co/sl4wupRfNH">https://t.co/sl4wupRfNH</a></p>— Twitter Comms (@TwitterComms) <a href="https://twitter.com/TwitterComms/status/1266267447838949378?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 29, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Firebat]

I've seen so much outrage from Trump at things like Twitter blocking his lies and violence inciting tweets, and these "THUGS" who are rioting out of anger and desparation. Where's the outrage and executive orders and angry tweets about the racial inequality and police brutality that incited said riots? These rioters and looters are a REACTION. Without the stimulus, they don't riot. How can he not understand this?

 

[MenInG]

For years, Twitter resisted calls to treat President Trump just like any other user. Then this week, everything changed.

On Tech Tent, we examine the conflict between the president and his favourite social media platform.

It began on Wednesday. Twitter had been under fire for allowing tweets in which the president shared a far-fetched conspiracy theory about an alleged crime involving a TV presenter and former Republican congressman.

But instead of taking action on those tweets, it fact-checked two others - about postal voting under a new policy which seeks to deter content which might suppress voting.

Social media expert Chris Stokel-Walker tells Tech Tent that if Twitter thought limiting action to the area of elections was a cautious first step, it was wrong.

"As soon as you start engaging in any sort of moderation or comment on politics, you run the risk of potentially alienating 50% of your audience - and given our very politically fractious times, that is more of a risk than ever," he said.

Having taken that first step, and seeing President Trump immediately go nuclear and threatening to go so far as to shut the social media platform down, Twitter might have been tempted to go quiet for a bit.

Instead, it chose escalation.

In the early hours of Friday morning, in a tweet about the protests in Minneapolis over the death of a black man, Mr Trump warned: "when the looting starts, the shooting starts".

Twitter's moderation team swung into action - after consulting CEO Jack Dorsey - and obscured the tweet with a message saying that rules on glorifying violence had been broken.

Users could still see the tweet by clicking through that message, but sharing it was made harder.

A few hours later, as the president woke up, the official White House account simply repeated the offending tweet. We watched with bated breath to see what would happen and, sure enough, Twitter's moderators slapped the same warning on the tweet.

It is difficult to see either side backing down now.

The White House is busy scouring Twitter to find examples of other world leaders who have glorified violence without any comeback. Others are finding all sorts of old Trump tweets that appear to have broken the rules by, for instance, spreading misinformation about treatments for coronavirus.

Jack Dorsey, who had appeared very reluctant to apply anything but the most light-touch regulation, now finds himself faced with the unappealing prospect of cracking down on world leaders far and wide.

Meanwhile, there is not exactly much solidarity being shown by Facebook.

In general, it has been a more tightly-moderated platform than Twitter, but Mark Zuckerberg has made it clear he has no intention of following Jack Dorsey's lead when it comes to fact checking politicians. Donald Trump's Facebook page has simply replicated the posts which fell foul of Twitter - with no sign of fact-checking or finger-wagging.

"This is the kind of thing that Donald Trump revels in," says Chris Stokel-Walker, "an ex-reality TV star who likes to stir the pot. He's now managed to set Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey against each other."

For all the rage about freedom of speech from the president - and remember Twitter as a private company can do what it likes in that area - he seems unlikely to kill what has become his main platform for getting his message out.

Like the fighting couple in some dodgy romcom, Trump and Twitter need each other - though one suspects Jack Dorsey might be tempted to throw the President out and change the locks.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52853168

 

[MenInG]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Twitter Inc, Reddit and a group representing major internet firms backed two documentary film groups that have challenged the Trump Administration’s 2019 rules requiring nearly all U.S. visitors to disclose social media user information from the prior five years.

In court papers filed on Thursday, the social media sites and the Internet Association, representing Facebook, Amazon.com, Alphabet and others, said the rules force foreign nationals “to surrender their anonymity in order to travel to the United States” and “chill a vast quantity of speech and associational activity.”

The Doc Society and the International Documentary Association filed suit in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., in December. They said they regularly collaborate with non-U.S. filmmakers and warn that visitors must “consider the risk that a U.S. official will misinterpret their speech on social media, impute others’ speech to them, or subject them to additional scrutiny or delayed processing because of the views they or their contacts have expressed.”

The latest filing comes amid an escalating feud between President Donald Trump and tech companies. Twitter on Friday hid a Trump tweet behind a warning for the first time. It came hours after Trump signed an executive order threatening Silicon Valley social media firms with new free speech regulations, after Twitter added a fact-checking tag to two previous tweets.

The State Department rules require disclosure of all social media handles used over the prior five years by U.S. visa applicants, including ones under pseudonyms, on 20 platforms.

Applicants must disclose accounts on Facebook, Instagram, Flickr, Google+, YouTube, LinkedIn, Myspace, Pinterest, Reddit, Tumblr, Twitter, Vine and Chinese sites Douban, QQ, Sina Weibo, Tencent Weibo, and Youku; Russian social network VK; Belgian site Twoo; and Latvian site Ask.fm.

The Justice Department has argued in court papers that “information gleaned from social media profiles can be used to determine activity, ties, or intent that would be grounds for visa denial, including criminal acts.”

The State Department says the rules were prompted by Trump’s 2017 order requiring heightened vetting of visa applications. It previously collected contact information, travel history, family information, and prior addresses.

The department receives more than 14 million applicants annually. The only travelers exempted from the social media rules are diplomatic and official travelers.

 

[MenInG]

OAKLAND, Calif. — Jack Dorsey was up late Thursday at his home in San Francisco talking online with his executives when their conversation was interrupted: President Trump had just posted another inflammatory message on Twitter.

Tensions between Twitter, where Mr. Dorsey is chief executive, and Mr. Trump had been running high for days over the president’s aggressive tweets and the company’s decision to begin labeling some of them. In his latest message, Mr. Trump weighed in on the clashes between the police and protesters in Minneapolis, saying, “when the looting starts, the shooting starts.”

A group of more than 10 Twitter officials, including lawyers and policymakers, quickly gathered virtually to review Mr. Trump’s post and debate over the messaging system Slack and Google Docs whether it pushed people toward violence.

They soon came to a conclusion. And after midnight, Mr. Dorsey gave his go-ahead: Twitter would hide Mr. Trump’s tweet behind a warning label that said the message violated its policy against glorifying violence. It was the first time Twitter applied that specific warning to any public figure’s tweets.

The action has prompted a broad fight over whether and how social media companies should be held responsible for what appears on their sites, and was the culmination of months of debate inside Twitter. For more than a year, the company had been building an infrastructure to limit the impact of objectionable messages from world leaders, creating rules on what would and would not be allowed and designing a plan for when Mr. Trump inevitably broke them.

But the path to that point was not smooth. Inside Twitter, dealing with Mr. Trump’s tweets — which are the equivalent of a presidential megaphone — was a fitful and uneven process. Some executives repeatedly urged Mr. Dorsey to take action on the inflammatory posts while others insisted he hold back, staying hands-off as the company had done for years.

Outside Twitter, the president’s critics urged the company to shut him down as he pushed the limits with insults and untruths, noting ordinary users were sometimes suspended for lesser transgressions. But Twitter argued that posts by Mr. Trump and other world leaders deserved special leeway because of their news value.

The efforts were complicated by Mr. Dorsey, 43, who was sometimes absent on travels and meditative retreats before the coronavirus pandemic. He often delegated policy decisions, watching the debate from the sidelines so he would not dominate with his own views. And he frequently did not weigh in until the last minute.

Now Twitter is at war with Mr. Trump over its treatment of his posts, which has implications for the future of speech on social media. In the past week, the company for the first time added fact-checking and other warning labels to three of Mr. Trump’s messages, refuting their accuracy or marking them as inappropriate.

In response, an irate Mr. Trump issued an executive order designed to limit legal protections that tech companies enjoy and posted more angry messages.

Twitter’s position is precarious. The company is grappling with charges of bias from the right over its labeling of Mr. Trump’s tweets; one of its executives has faced a sustained campaign of online harassment. Yet Twitter’s critics on the left said that by leaving Mr. Trump’s tweets up and not banning him from the site, it was enabling the president.

“It really is about whether or not Twitter blinks,” said James Grimmelmann, a law professor at Cornell University. “You really have to stick to your guns and ensure you do it right.”

Twitter is girding for a protracted battle with Mr. Trump. Some employees have locked down their social media accounts and deleted their professional affiliation to avoid being harassed. Executives, holed up at home, are meeting virtually to discuss next steps while also handling a surge of misinformation related to the pandemic.

This account of how Twitter came to take action on Mr. Trump’s tweets was based on interviews with nine current and former company employees and others who work with Mr. Dorsey outside of Twitter. They declined to be identified because they were not authorized to speak publicly and because they feared being targeted by Mr. Trump’s supporters.

A Twitter spokesman declined to comment. Mr. Dorsey tweeted on Friday that the fact-checking process should be open to the public so that the facts are “verifiable by everyone.”

Mr. Trump said on Twitter that his recent statements were “very simple” and that “nobody should have any problem with this other than the haters, and those looking to cause trouble on social media.” The White House declined to comment.

The confrontation between Mr. Trump and Twitter has raised questions about free speech. Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, social media companies are shielded from most liability for the content posted on their platforms. Republican lawmakers have argued the companies are acting as publishers and not mere distributors of content and should be stripped of those protections.

But a hands-off approach by the companies has allowed harassment and abuse to proliferate online, said Lee Bollinger, the president of Columbia University and a First Amendment scholar. So now the companies, he said, have to grapple with how to moderate content and take more responsibility, without losing their legal protections.

“These platforms have achieved incredible power and influence,” Mr. Bollinger said, adding that moderation was a necessary response. “There’s a greater risk to American democracy in allowing unbridled speech on these private platforms.”

For years, Twitter did not touch Mr. Trump’s messages. But as he continued using Twitter to deride rivals and spread falsehoods, the company faced mounting criticism.

That set off internal debates. Mr. Dorsey observed the discussions, sometimes raising questions about who could be harmed by posts on Twitter or its moderation decisions, executives said.

In 2018, two of the president’s tweets stood out to Twitter officials. In one, Mr. Trump discussed launching nuclear weapons at North Korea, which some employees believed violated company policy against violent threats. In the other, he called a former aide, Omarosa Manigault Newman, “a crazed, crying lowlife” and “that dog.”

At the time, Twitter had rules against harassing messages like the tweet about Ms. Manigault Newman, but left the tweet up.

The company began working on a specific solution to allow it to respond to violent and inaccurate posts from Mr. Trump and other world leaders without removing the messages. Mr. Dorsey had expressed interest in finding a middle ground, executives said. It also rolled out labels to denote that a tweet needed fact-checking or had videos and photos that had been altered to be misleading.

The effort was overseen by Vijaya Gadde, who leads Twitter’s legal, policy, trust and safety teams. The labels for world leaders, unveiled last June, explained how a politician’s message had broken a Twitter policy and took away tools that could amplify it, like retweets and likes.

“We want to elevate healthy conversations on Twitter and that may sometimes mean offering context,” Del Harvey, Twitter’s vice president of trust and safety, said in an interview this year.

By the time the labels were introduced, Mr. Trump was not the only head of state testing Twitter’s boundaries. Shortly before Twitter released them, the president of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, tweeted a sexually explicit video and the Iranian leader Ali Khamenei posted threatening remarks about Israel.

Last month, Twitter used the labels on a tweet from the Brazilian politician Osmar Terra in which he falsely claimed that quarantine increased cases of the coronavirus.

“This Tweet violated the Twitter Rules,” the label read. “However, Twitter has determined that it may be in the public’s interest for the Tweet to remain accessible.”

On Tuesday, Twitter officials began discussing labeling Mr. Trump’s messages after he falsely asserted that mail-in ballots were illegally printed and implied they would lead to fraud in the November election. His tweets were flagged to Twitter through a portal it had opened specifically for nonprofit groups and local officials involved in election integrity to report content that could discourage or interfere with voting.

Twitter quickly concluded that Mr. Trump had posted false information about mail-in ballots. The company then labeled two of his tweets, urging people to “get the facts” about voting by mail. An in-house team of fact checkers also assembled a list of what people should know about mail-in ballots.

Mr. Trump struck back, drafting an executive order designed to chip away at Section 230. He and his allies also singled out a Twitter employee who had publicly criticized him and other Republicans, falsely suggesting that employee was responsible for the labels.

Mr. Dorsey and his executives kept on alert. On Wednesday, Twitter labeled hundreds of other tweets, including those that falsely claimed to include images of Derek Chauvin, the white police officer who was charged with third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter in the death of George Floyd, an African-American man in Minnesota.

Mr. Trump did not let up. Even after Twitter called out his shooting tweet for glorifying violence, he posted the same sentiment again.

“Looting leads to shooting,” Mr. Trump wrote, adding that he did not want violence to occur. “It was spoken as a fact.”

This time, Twitter did not label the tweet.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/30/technology/twitter-trump-dorsey.html?referringSource=articleShare

 

[MenInG]

Twitter is a private company - why should it kow tow to the govt?

 

[MenInG]

Facebook staff have spoken out against the tech giant's decision not to remove or flag a controversial post by US President Donald Trump last week.

Mr Trump took to Facebook to repeat a tweet about the widespread protests in Minneapolis, following the death of George Floyd in police custody.

Twitter had placed a warning over the content, which it said "glorified violence", but Facebook said it did not violate its company policy.

Some staff said they were ‘ashamed’.

The president said he would "send in the National Guard", and warned that "when the looting starts, the shooting starts."

The post remains untouched on Facebook after founder Mark Zuckerberg said it did not violate the company’s policy around incitement of violence.

“People can agree or disagree on where we should draw the line, but I hope they understand our overall philosophy is that it is better to have this discussion out in the open, especially when the stakes are so high,” Mr Zuckerberg wrote in a post on the platform.

“I disagree strongly with how the President spoke about this, but I believe people should be able to see this for themselves because ultimately accountability for those in positions of power can only happen when their speech is scrutinized out in the open.”

"Silence is complicity"
Several employees expressed their frustration at the decision, on social media.

“Facebook's inaction in taking down Trump's post inciting violence makes me ashamed to work here,” Lauren Tan, a software engineer wrote.

Others suggested that Facebook should have made an exception to the policy, given its context.

“We need to strive harder as a company, and industry, to have our Black colleagues’ and fellow citizens’ backs so that they are not having to face down institutionalised societal violence and systemic oppression alone,” added David Gillis, a director in product design at Facebook.

Other employees used the company’s internal messaging system to try to raise their concerns, The Verge reports.

Facebook said it "recognised the pain" many staff were feeling.

"We encourage employees to speak openly when they disagree with leadership. As we face additional difficult decisions around content ahead, we'll continue seeking their honest feedback," a spokesperson said.

Joseph Evans, head of tech at Enders Analysis said that staff at tech firms do speak out against their employers' decisions on occasion; in 2018 Google staff walked out in protest against the firm's treatment of women."Part of the appeal of working for these companies is that the employees feel they're changing the world, and hopefully for the better," he said.

"So the tech giants have to balance avoiding regulatory crackdowns, keeping profits high, and attracting and retaining their highly-skilled workforce."

Donald Trump and Mark Zuckerberg spoke on the phone on Friday.

It’s unknown what was discussed, but both sides called the conversation productive, according to Axios news website.

"We stand against racism"

Today, Facebook announced that it will donate $10m (£8m) to “efforts committed to ending racial injustice.”

“We hear you, we see you and we are with you,” the company said on social media.

"We stand against racism. We stand with our Black community - and all those working toward justice in honour of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery and far too many others whose names will not be forgotten.⁣”

It is unclear where the $10m will go, or how it will be distributed.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52880151

 

[MenInG]

Snapchat says it has stopped promoting President Donald Trump's account.

As a result, it will no longer feature in the app's Discover section. The firm said it would "not amplify voices who incite racial violence and injustice".

The decision follows Mr Trump saying that "vicious dogs" and "ominous weapons" would have been used on protesters if they had breached the White House fence.

It follows Twitter's decision to hide some of the president's posts.

Snapchat's parent company Snap said: "Racial violence and injustice have no place in our society and we stand together with all who seek peace, love, equality, and justice in America."

The move is likely to feed into tensions between the White House and social media, which escalated when Twitter added fact-checking tags to some of the President's tweets last week.

The president subsequently signed an executive order seeking to curb legal protections offered to the industry.

Twitter later hid one of the president's tweets for breaking its rules on "glorifying violence".

Snapchat's action will also put further pressure on Facebook.

Its chief executive Mark Zuckerberg has resisted internal and external calls to intervene in regard to posts on its platform. Mr Zuckerberg has said the firm's free speech principles mean the president's posts should be left up unaltered.

President Trump has more than one million followers on Snapchat, according to the Bloomberg news agency. It said the app is seen as being a "key battleground" by Mr Trump's re-election campaign because it offers a way to reach first-time voters.

The president's account will not be suspended or deleted.

However, the fact it will not feature in Discover means that his posts will only be seen by people who subscribe to or search for his account directly.

Snapchat based its decision on remarks Mr Trump had posted to Twitter rather than its own platform.

On Monday, Snap's chief executive Evan Speigel had sent a memo to staff in which he detailed his views on the civil unrest sparked by the killing of George Floyd.

"Every minute we are silent in the face of evil and wrongdoing we are acting in support of evildoers," Mr Speigel wrote.

"As for Snapchat, we simply cannot promote accounts in America that are linked to people who incite racial violence, whether they do so on or off our platform."

"Our Discover content platform is a curated platform, where we decide what we promote," he added.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52912884

 

[The Viper]

Twitter accuses President Trump of making 'false claims'

Spoiler

Twitter has accused the US president of making false claims, in one of the app's own articles covering the news.

The move - which effectively accuses the leader of lying - refers to a tweet by Donald Trump about his first defence secretary.

Mr Trump had tweeted that he had given James Mattis the nickname "Mad Dog" and later fired him.

But Twitter's article says that the former general resigned, and his nickname preceded Trump's presidency.

It follows last week's explosive confrontation, which saw Twitter fact-check two of President Trump's tweets and label another as glorifying violence.

The latest confrontation was prompted by a strongly-worded statement issued by General Mattis last night, in which he criticised the president's handling of the protests that followed the killing of George Floyd.

Gen Mattis described Donald Trump as "the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people - does not even pretend to try. Instead, he tries to divide us."

The president fired back quickly in a tweet saying that the one thing he and predecessor Barack Obama had in common was "we both had the honour of firing Jim Mattis, the world's most overrated general. I asked for his letter of resignation and felt good about it".

"His nickname was 'Chaos', which I didn't like, and changed it to 'Mad Dog'," he added.

Twitter later published what it calls a Moment, a summary of a news story that you can see when you press the platform's search button. It has also been promoted within the What's Happening box that appears on Twitter's website.

The article says that "Mattis resigned from the position... after the administration decided to withdraw US troops from Syria", and attributes the fact to a report by the Associated Press news agency.

It then refers to journalists at CNN, the National Review, the Washington Post and The Dispatch as having written that the nickname 'Mad Dog' had been used before Trump's presidency, with published references dating back to 2004.

Moments are curated by an internal team at Twitter. They provide a summary of a recent development before presenting some related tweets.

This is not the first time the tool has been used to call out Donald Trump.

In March 2019, it said the president had misidentified a co-founder of Greenpeace, and in April 2020 it said he had falsely claimed he could force states to reopen during the Covid-19 pandemic.

But what is interesting here is that Twitter has chosen to raise the temperature of its clash with the president over what could be seen as a relatively minor issue.

It was on 20 December 2018 that Gen Mattis announced his resignation, effective from 28 February 2019.

A furious Mr Trump then announced his defence secretary was going from 1 January and stated he'd essentially fired him. So you could at least argue that, as in many cases, there is a blurry line between a resignation and a firing.

Perhaps Twitter's chief executive Jack Dorsey is looking on, with a degree of schadenfreude, at what has happened in recent days at Facebook.

There, Mark Zuckerberg's determination not to follow Twitter's lead and take some kind of action over the president's posts has sparked open revolt.

Facebook staff, who previously would only grumble anonymously about the company's practices, have put their names to statements deploring Mr Zuckerberg's failure to act.

This morning, nearly three dozen former employees, including some who had helped write the original guidelines on what can and cannot be posted, published an open letter accusing Mr Zuckerberg of a "betrayal" of Facebook's ideals.

Last week, it felt as though Twitter might be putting its future in danger by taking on the president.

This week, it feels as though Mr Zuckerberg's failure to act might leave him facing an even bigger crisis than the Cambridge Analytica scandal.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52923022

 

[MenInG]

Twitter pulls down Trump video tribute to Floyd over copyright

Twitter has disabled President Donald Trump's campaign tribute video to George Floyd on its platform, citing a copyright complaint.

The clip, which is a collation of photos and videos of protest marches and instances of violence in the aftermath of Floyd's death, has Trump speaking in the background.

"We respond to valid copyright complaints sent to us by a copyright owner or their authorized representatives," a Twitter representative said.

The three-minute 45-second video uploaded on Trump's YouTube channel was tweeted by his campaign on June 3.

The clip, which is still on YouTube, had garnered more than 60,000 views and 13,000 likes.

 

[MenInG]

Twitter pulls down Trump video tribute to Floyd over copyright

Twitter has disabled President Donald Trump's campaign tribute video to George Floyd on its platform, citing a copyright complaint.

The clip, which is a collation of photos and videos of protest marches and instances of violence in the aftermath of Floyd's death, has Trump speaking in the background.

"We respond to valid copyright complaints sent to us by a copyright owner or their authorized representatives," a Twitter representative said.

The three-minute 45-second video uploaded on Trump's YouTube channel was tweeted by his campaign on June 3.

The clip, which is still on YouTube, had garnered more than 60,000 views and 13,000 likes.

[utube]0P40rSPTRKI[/utube]

 

[MenInG]

Zuckerberg promises Facebook policy review

Mark Zuckerberg, chief executive of Facebook, promised to review the social network's policies that led to its decision to not moderate controversial messages posted by the US president that appeared to encourage violence against those protesting police racism.

In a letter to employees, Zuckerberg wrote: "We're going to review our policies allowing discussion and threats of state use of force to see if there are any amendments we should adopt."

This, he said, includes "excessive use of police or state force. Given the sensitive history in the US, this deserves special consideration."

 

[MenInG]

More than 140 scientists funded by Mark Zuckerberg have said Facebook should not be letting Donald Trump use the social media platform to “spread both misinformation and incendiary statements”.

The researchers, who include more than 60 professors at leading US research institutions and one Nobel laureate, sent the Facebook CEO a letter on Saturday asking him to “consider stricter policies on misinformation and incendiary language that harms people”, especially during the current turmoil over racial injustice.

The letter calls the spread of “deliberate misinformation and divisive language” contrary to the researchers’ goals of using technology to prevent and eradicate disease, improve childhood education and reform the criminal justice system.

Their mission “is antithetical to some of the stances that Facebook has been taking, so we’re encouraging them to be more on the side of truth and on the right side of history, as we’ve said in the letter”, said Debora Marks of Harvard Medical School, one of three professors who organized it.

The others are Martin Kampmann of the University of California, San Francisco, and Jason Shepherd of the University of Utah. All have grants from a Chan Zuckerberg Initiative program working to prevent, cure and treat neurodegenerative disorders including Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease.

They said the letter had more than 160 signatories. Shepherd said about 10% were employees of foundations run by Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan.

The letter objects specifically to Zuckerberg’s decision not to act on a post by Trump that stated “when the looting starts, the shooting starts”. The letter’s authors called the post “a clear statement of inciting violence”.

Zuckerberg has faced significant backlash, including from Facebook staff, over the choice not to remove Trump’s post this week amid nationwide protests over police brutality. Twitter had both flagged and demoted a Trump tweet using the same language.

In a statement, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative noted that the philanthropic organization was separate from Facebook and said “we are grateful for our staff, partners and grantees” and “respect their right to voice their opinions, including on Facebook policies”.

Some Facebook employees have publicly objected to Zuckerberg’s refusal to take down or label misleading or incendiary posts by Trump and other politicians. But Zuckerberg has so far refused.

On Friday, Zuckerberg said in a post that he would review “potential options for handling violating or partially-violating content aside from the binary leave-it-up or take-it-down decisions”.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jun/06/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-trump-scientists

 

[MenInG]

Facebook Inc has fired an employee who had criticised Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg's decision not to take action against inflammatory posts by US President Donald Trump earlier this month, citing the software engineer's tweet challenging a colleague's silence on the issue.

Brandon Dail, a user interface engineer in Seattle, said in a tweet on Friday that he was dismissed for publicly scolding a colleague who had refused to include a statement of support for the Black Lives Matter movement on developer documents he was publishing.

 

[MenInG]

Facebook says it has removed adverts for US President Donald Trump's re-election campaign that featured a symbol used in Nazi Germany.

The company said the offending ad contained an inverted red triangle similar to that used by the Nazis to label opponents such as communists.

Mr Trump's campaign team said they were aimed at the far-left activist group antifa, which it said uses the symbol.

Facebook said the ads violated its policy against organised hate.

"We don't allow symbols that represent hateful organisations or hateful ideologies unless they are put up with context or condemnation," the social network's head of security policy, Nathaniel Gleicher, said on Thursday.

He added: "That's what we saw in this case with this ad, and anywhere that that symbol is used we would take the same actions."

The ads, which were posted on the site on pages belonging to President Trump and Vice-President Mike Pence, were online for about 24 hours and had received hundreds of thousands of views before they were taken down.

"The inverted red triangle is a symbol used by antifa, so it was included in an ad about antifa," Tim Murtaugh, a spokesman for the Trump campaign, said in a statement.

"We would note that Facebook still has an inverted red triangle emoji in use, which looks exactly the same," he added.

Mr Trump has recently accused antifa of starting riots at street protests across the US over the death in police custody of African American George Floyd.

Who are Boogaloo Bois, antifa and Proud Boys?

The president said last month that he would designate the anti-fascist group a "domestic terrorist organisation", although legal experts have questioned his authority to do so.

Antifa is a far left protest movement that opposes neo-Nazis, fascism, white supremacists and racism. It is considered to be a loosely organised group of activists with no leaders.

Most members decry what they see as the nationalistic, anti-immigration and anti-Muslim policies of Mr Trump.

A move likely to infuriate the president
By James Clayton, Technology Reporter, BBC North America

This is the latest salvo in an increasingly fraught relationship between the technology giants and the White House.

Last month, Twitter put a warning on one of the president's tweets about rioting in Minneapolis - saying it had "glorified violence".

Mr Trump hit back by talking about the "unchecked power" of big tech. He said that Section 230 - a law that protects social media companies from being legally responsible for the online content of users - should be revoked.

But forget Twitter for now, Facebook is the platform that Mr Trump really cares about. The social network is where a majority of his online political advertising budget goes. The move will likely infuriate the president. It also acts as a warning that Facebook does - and will - moderate some political content.

As the 2020 election draws nearer, it's likely more and more focus will be placed on what it does - and does not - take down.

Earlier this month, Facebook employees spoke out against the tech giant's decision not to remove or flag a controversial post by Mr Trump relating to the protests over Mr Floyd's death.

The president posted a comment on the social network saying that he would "send in the National Guard" and warned that "when the looting starts, the shooting starts". But Facebook said it did not violate its company policy.

Mr Trump had tweeted the same comments, but Twitter placed a warning over the content, which it said "glorified violence".

Some Facebook staff said they were "ashamed".

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53098439

 

[MenInG]

Twitter has flagged a video tweeted by Donald Trump, which contained a fake CNN news segment about a “racist baby”, adding a warning label that the post contained manipulated media.

The video, which had been doctored to make it appear as if were a CNN broadcast, features two toddlers running and includes a fake chyron that reads “Terrified todler (sic) runs from racist baby”. The clip later accuses “fake news” of spreading misinformation.

Twitter added a label to the video, which was tweeted out by Trump late on Thursday evening, marking it as manipulated. Earlier in the day, Facebook removed Trump campaign ads that prominently featured a Nazi symbol.

This latest move from Twitter comes after Trump signed an executive order last month is designed to narrow protections for social media companies over the content posted on their platforms.

Although Twitter had taken a largely hands-off approach to the president’s controversial tweets, in recent weeks the company began adding a label that fact-checked misinformation amplified by the US president, as well as a note cautioning that a post glorified violence.

The company’s policy prohibits sharing videos that have been “deceptively altered”, which is what earned the video sourced from a pro-Trump meme creator a warning label. The platform previously enforced the policy when the White House social media director, Dan Scavino, posted a manipulated video that made it appear as if Joe Biden had endorsed Trump.

Later on Thursday night, the president posted another video, which included another apparently manipulated CNN clip. The video again accuses journalists of amplifying fake news, and misconstruing what happened when a white Trump supporter chased after an Uber driver. It features CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta speaking to the camera, with a fake chyron that reads: “Trumps Fault? White Man in MAGA Hat Attacks Black Uber Driver.”

The manipulated toddler video shared by the president remained unlabelled on Facebook. Earlier this month, Facebook employees staged a virtual “walkout” over CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s decision to leave up a post from Trump that appeared to encourage violence against demonstrators protesting police brutality. Trump invoked the phrase, “when the looting starts, the shooting starts”, which dates back to the civil rights era, when it was used by a segregationist politician and white police chief justifying a crackdown against protestors. Twitter hid the message behind a grey box.

Twitter previously labeled a Trump post about fraudulent mail-in ballots with a message that reads, “Get the facts about mail-in ballots”, and redirected the public to news articles fact-checking Trump’s false claims.

The social network has also removed Trump tweets for copyright infringement after Trump used unlicensed music in an advert featuring music from the film Dark Knight Rises and in a video set to the song Photograph by the band Nickelback.

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...ald-trump-racist-video-flag-manipulated-media

 

[The Viper]

Twitter again slaps warning on Trump tweet threatening force against protesters

Twitter Inc (TWTR.N) on Tuesday placed a warning notice on a tweet by President Donald Trump threatening “serious force” against protesters in the U.S. capital, the second time it has used the label since it began challenging Trump’s tweets in May.

“There will never be an ‘Autonomous Zone’ in Washington, D.C., as long as I’m your President. If they try they will be met with serious force!” the president said in his tweet, which Twitter said violated its policy against abusive behavior.

Trump posted the message after anti-racism protesters on Monday declared a “Black House Autonomous Zone” - referencing a Seattle area taken over by activists known as the Capitol Hill Organized Protest (CHOP) or Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone - in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church near the White House.

Police cleared the White House area on Tuesday and blocked access to the site, where law enforcement had used violence to disperse protesters earlier this month.

Twitter said it hid Trump’s tweet behind its “public interest” notice because it included a threat of harm against an identifiable group. The label restricts distribution of tweets by public officials which violate Twitter’s rules, while leaving them online to allow for scrutiny.

A Twitter spokeswoman said teams within the company’s safety division informed Chief Executive Jack Dorsey of the decision before applying the notice.

Facebook, which has taken a more hands-off approach to speech by political leaders, left the same post untouched.

At least 150,000 people had liked Trump’s tweet and 33,000 retweeted it before Twitter restricted engagement, according to the most recent image captured by the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine. His post on Facebook received 12,000 comments.

The warning escalated Twitter’s challenge to Trump, who has used the platform unimpeded for years to rally supporters and deride opponents.

After the company last month started applying labels to his messages, Trump announced plans to scrap or weaken a law that has protected internet companies in order to regulate social media platforms more aggressively.

Twitter’s first public interest notice against Trump also involved a threat of force against protesters, who have been demonstrating against racial injustice since the May 25 death of George Floyd, a Black man, in police custody.

Trump had used the phrase “when the looting starts, the shooting starts” to threaten deadly force against protesters in Minneapolis, where Floyd died.

Twitter said that message violated its rules against “glorifying violence.” It has also appended fact-checking and manipulated media labels to Trump’s tweets in the last month.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-u...g-force-against-protesters-idUKKBN23U33V?il=0

 

[MenInG]

Facebook has said it will start to label potentially harmful posts that it leaves up because of their news value.

The more hands-on approach comes as the social media firm is under pressure to improve how it moderates the content on its platform, including posts by US President Donald Trump.

More than 90 advertisers have joined a boycott of the site.

Consumer goods giant Unilever on Friday added its name to the list, citing a "polarized election period" in the US.

The maker of Dove soap and Ben & Jerry's ice cream said it would halt Twitter, Facebook and Instagram advertising in the US "at least" through 2020.

"Continuing to advertise on these platforms at this time would not add value to people and society," it said. "We will revisit our current position if necessary."

In a speech on Friday, Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg defended the firm's record of taking down hate speech.

He pointed to a European Commission report this month that found Facebook removed 86% of hate speech last year, up from 82.6%.

What did Mark Zuckerberg say?

But he said the firm was tightening its policies to "address the reality of the challenges our country is facing and how they're showing up across our community".

He said the firm would ban ads that describe different groups, based on descriptors such as race or immigration status, as a threat. It will also remove content - even from a politician - if it determines that it incites violence or suppresses voting.

Mr Zuckerberg also said the firm will attach a label to "problematic" content that falls outside of those categories.

"A handful of times a year, we leave up content that would otherwise violate our policies if the public interest value outweighs the risk of harm," he said. "Often, seeing speech from politicians is in the public interest, and in the same way that news outlets will report what a politician says, we think people should generally be able to see it for themselves on our platforms.

"We will soon start labelling some of the content we leave up because it is deemed newsworthy, so people can know when this is the case," he said.

Twitter has already taken some similar steps, including banning advertisements from politicians and adding labels and warnings to some kinds of content,including tweets by Mr Trump.

"We have developed policies and platform capabilities designed to protect and serve the public conversation, and as always, are committed to amplifying voices from under-represented communities and marginalized groups," said Twitter executive Sarah Personette.

Shares of Facebook and Twitter both fell more than 7% on Friday.

Some boycott organisers said Mr Zuckerberg's promises did not go far enough.

"What we've seen in today's address from Mark Zuckerberg is a failure to wrestle with the harms [Facebook] has caused on our democracy & civil rights" said Color of Change president Rashad Robinson said.

"If this is the response he's giving to major advertisers withdrawing millions of dollars from the company, we can't trust his leadership," he wrote on Twitter.

Why are companies boycotting Facebook?

The "Stop Hate for Profit" campaign was started by US civil rights groups after the death of George Floyd in May while in police custody. It has focused on Facebook, which also owns Instagram; and WhatsApp and last year attracted advertising revenue of almost $70bn (£56.7bn).

The organisers, which include Color of Change and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, have said Facebook allows "racist, violent and verifiably false content to run rampant on its platform".

Nicole Perrin, analyst at eMarketer, said it will be difficult to determine the financial impact of the boycott on Facebook, given the significant changes in advertising amid the pandemic.

But she said Unilever's announcement was significant, noting that the firm was dropping the ads for longer than called for, and on more platforms.

"That suggests a deeper problem with user-generated content platforms, as divisiveness is to be expected on any such platform that allows political expression," she said.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-53196487

 

[MenInG]

Coca-Cola will suspend advertising on social media globally for at least 30 days, as pressure builds on platforms to crack down on hate speech.

"There is no place for racism in the world and there is no place for racism on social media," the drinks maker's chairman and CEO James Quincey said.

He demanded "greater accountability and transparency" from social media firms.

It came after Facebook said it would label potentially harmful or misleading posts left up for their news value.

Founder Mark Zuckerberg said Facebook would also ban advertising containing claims "that people of a specific race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, caste, sexual orientation, gender identity or immigration status" are a threat to others.

The organisers of the #StopHateforProfit campaign, which accuses Facebook of not doing enough to stop hate speech and disinformation, said the "small number of small changes" would not "make a dent in the problem".

More than 90 companies have paused advertising in support of #StopHateforProfit.

As a result of the boycott, shares in Facebook fell 8.3% on Friday, eliminating $56bn (£45bn) from the company's market value and knocking $7.2bn off Mr Zuckerberg's personal net worth, Bloomberg reported. As a result of the loss, Louis Vuitton boss Bernard Arnault replaced the Facebook founder as the world's third richest individual.

Coca-Cola told CNBC its advertising suspension did not mean it was joining the campaign, despite being listed as a "participating business".

Mr Quincey said the company would use the global "social media platform pause" to "reassess our advertising policies to determine whether revisions are needed".

Clothes maker Levi Strauss & Co also said it would be pausing advertising on Facebook following Mr Zuckerberg's announcement. Unlike Coca-Cola, it accused the social media firm of not going far enough.

"We are asking Facebook to commit to decisive change," CMO Jen Say said.

"We want to see meaningful progress towards ending the amplification of misinformation and hate speech and better addressing of political advertisements and content that contributes to voter suppression. While we appreciate that Facebook announced some steps in this direction today - it's simply not enough."

The #StopHateforProfit coalition - which includes the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) - said none of the changes would be vetted or verified.

"We have been down this road before with Facebook. They have made apologies in the past. They have taken meagre steps after each catastrophe where their platform played a part. But this has to end now," it added.

The campaign called on Mr Zuckerberg to take further steps, including establishing permanent civil rights infrastructure within his company; submitting to independent audits of identity-based hate and misinformation; finding and removing public and private groups publishing such content; and creating expert teams to review complaints.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-53204072

 

[MenInG]

Starbucks has announced it will suspend advertising on some social media platforms in response to hate speech.

The coffee giant joins global brands including Coca-Cola, Diageo and Unilever which have recently removed advertising from social platforms.

A Starbucks spokesperson told the BBC the social media "pause" would not include YouTube, owned by Google.

"We believe in bringing communities together, both in person and online," Starbucks said in a statement.

The brand said it would "have discussions internally and with media partners and civil rights organizations to stop the spread of hate speech". But it will continue to post on social media without paid promotion, it said.

The announcement came after Coca-Cola called for "greater accountability" from social media firms.

Coca Cola said it would pause advertising on all social media platforms globally, while Unilever, owner of Ben & Jerry's ice cream, said it would halt Twitter, Facebook and Instagram advertising in the US "at least" through 2020.

The announcements follow controversy over Facebook's approach to moderating content on its platform - seen by many as too hands off. It came after Facebook said on Friday it would begin to label potentially harmful or misleading posts which have been left up for their news value.

Founder Mark Zuckerberg said Facebook would also ban advertising containing claims "that people of a specific race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, caste, sexual orientation, gender identity or immigration status" are a threat to others.

The organisers of the #StopHateforProfit campaign, which has accused Facebook of not doing enough to stop hate speech and disinformation, said the "small number of small changes" would not "make a dent in the problem".

Starbucks said that while it was suspending advertising on some social platforms, it would not join the #StopHateForProfit campaign. More than 90 companies have paused advertising in support of #StopHateforProfit.

Coca-Cola also told CNBC its advertising suspension did not mean it was joining the campaign, despite being listed as a "participating business".

The campaign has called on Mr Zuckerberg to take further steps, including establishing permanent civil rights "infrastructure" within Facebook; submitting to independent audits of identity-based hate and misinformation; finding and removing public and private groups publishing such content; and creating expert teams to review complaints.

Last year, Facebook's saw a 27% increase in advertising revenue on the previous year.

 

[The Viper]

Facebook takes down accounts and pages of Trump ally Roger Stone

Spoiler

Facebook Inc (FB.O) on Wednesday removed 50 personal and professional pages connected to U.S. President Donald Trump’s longtime adviser Roger Stone, who is due to report to prison next week.

The social media platform said Stone and his associates, including a prominent supporter of the right-wing Proud Boys group in Stone’s home state of Florida, had used fake accounts and followers to promote Stone’s books and posts.

Facebook moved against Stone on the same day it took down accounts tied to employees of the family of Brazilian leader Jair Bolsonaro and two other networks connected to domestic political operations in Ecuador and Ukraine.

Nathaniel Gleicher, Facebook’s head of cybersecurity policy, said the removals were meant to show that artificially inflating engagement for political impact would be stopped, no matter how well connected the practitioners.

“It doesn’t matter what they’re saying, and it doesn’t matter who they are,” Gleicher told Reuters before the announcement on the company's blog bit.ly/2Z7QSzc. “We expect we’re going to see more political actors cross this line and use coordinated inauthentic behaviour to try to influence public debate.”

Facebook officials said they took down Stone’s personal Facebook and Instagram pages and his Stone Cold Truth Facebook page, which had 141,000 followers. A total of 54 Facebook accounts and 50 pages were removed for misbehaviour, including the creation of fake accounts. The accounts spent more than $300,000 on advertisements over the past few years, Facebook said.

Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg was briefed on the actions beforehand, officials said.

The removals risk further angering Trump and other conservatives who accuse Facebook of suppressing right-wing voices. Facebook last month took down a Trump re-election ad that included a Nazi symbol, and it pledged to steer users to facts on voting when Trump, or anyone else, touches on the topic.

Facebook is under pressure from civil rights advocates and allied groups as well, and hundreds of advertisers have joined a boycott demanding the company crack down on hateful and divisive messages.

Stone was convicted last year for witness tampering and lying to Congress as it and former Special Counsel Robert Mueller investigated Russian interference in the 2016 election.

In a lengthy email, Stone said he did not control fake accounts and that his accounts had no connection to the Proud Boys.

“I am being censored by Facebook and Twitter because my social media postings expose the truth regarding the now discredited Mueller investigation and the Russian Collusion hoax as well as the unfairness of my trial in 2020 to the extent possible without violating the protective seal left in place by the court and because I am an outspoken supporter of President Trump,” Stone wrote.

In search warrant documents released this April, the FBI said a Stone assistant told interviewers in 2018 “that he purchased a couple hundred fake Facebook accounts as part of this work.”

Facebook said its probe was influenced by the April search documents. But the company said that its unit guarding against coordinated inauthentic behaviour had already been looking into Stone’s pages after a referral from a separate Facebook team monitoring dangerous organizations, which was tracking the Proud Boys.

Facebook marked the Proud Boys as dangerous and banned their content in 2018. Members have been charged with violence in multiple instances and recently clashed with anti-racism protesters.

One of the accounts connected to the Proud Boys was operated by Jacob Engels, Facebook said. Stone testified last year that Engels could post on Instagram on his behalf and had access to his phone.

Engels, who writes for far-right sites, told Reuters he is not a member of the Proud Boys but has “embedded” with them to research the group.

Graphika analyst Ben Nimmo, a disinformation specialist, said the Stone network had been most active in 2016 and 2017, among other things promoting stories about the Democratic emails published by WikiLeaks as part of the Russian interference effort.

Many of the accounts were later deleted, and in recent weeks they have mostly reflected Stone’s quest to receive a pardon from Trump for his crimes, according to Nimmo.

“The inauthentic accounts were amplifying various Stone assets, like his page, or advertising one of his books,” Nimmo said.

Stone has been stepping up his efforts to get a pardon from Trump before he reports to prison, where his family fears the spread of COVID-19. Trump has said that Stone was treated unfairly, and his attorney general intervened to seek a lesser sentence, prompting four career prosecutors to resign from the case.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-f...-of-trump-ally-roger-stone-idUKKBN24931C?il=0

 

[MenInG]

Twitter has banned the US president's eldest son from tweeting for 12 hours.

The punishment followed a post by Donald Trump Jr containing a video discussing the benefits of Hydroxychloroquine.

Some, including President Trump, have suggested the drug works as a preventative measure against coronavirus, despite medical studies that indicate the contrary.

Twitter said the post had violated its Covid-19 misinformation rules.

Donald Trump Jr will still be able to browse Twitter and send direct messages in the interim.

Twitter told the BBC: "We are taking action in line with our policy."

The main US social media sites have all taken measures to crack down on misinformation about the coronavirus.

Andy Surabian, a spokesman for Donald Trump Jr told the BBC the decision had been "beyond the pale".

"Twitter suspending Don Jr for sharing a viral video of medical professionals discussing their views on Hydroxychloroquine is further proof that big tech is intent on killing free expression online, and is another instance of them committing election interference to stifle Republican voices," he said.

"While there is indeed much disagreement in the medical community about the efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine in treating coronavirus, there have been studies reported by mainstream outlets like CNN, suggesting that it may in fact by an effective treatment.

"Those pretending otherwise are lying for political reasons."

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-53567681

 

[The Viper]

Trump says looking at options on TikTok, including possible ban

U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday said he was looking at lot of alternatives regarding Chinese firm ByteDance’s TikTok video app, including the possibility of a ban.

“We’re looking at TikTok. We may be banning TikTok. We may be doing some others things,” Trump told reporters as he left the White House on a trip to Florida.

“There are a couple of options. But a lot of things are happening. So, we’ll see what happens,” he said.

People familiar with the matter have said the United States is preparing to take action on TikTok amid concerns over the security of the personal data collected by the popular short video app.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-u...tok-including-possible-ban-idUKKCN24W2U9?il=0

 

[coy0607]

doubt Trump can do anything meaningful here

 

[Firebat]

Facebook and Twitter restrict Trump accounts over 'harmful' virus claim

Facebook and Twitter have penalised Donald Trump and his campaign for posts in which the president claimed children were "almost immune" to coronavirus.

Facebook deleted the post - a clip from an interview Mr Trump gave to Fox News - saying it contained "harmful Covid misinformation".

Twitter followed by saying it had frozen a Trump campaign account until a tweet of the same clip was removed.

US public health advice makes clear children have no immunity to Covid-19.

Spoiler

What did Facebook and Twitter say?

A Facebook spokesperson said on Wednesday evening: "This video includes false claims that a group of people is immune from COVID-19 which is a violation of our policies around harmful COVID misinformation."

It was the first time the social giant had taken action to remove content posted by the president based on its coronavirus-misinformation policy, but not the first time it has penalised Mr Trump over content on his page.

Later on Wednesday, Twitter said it had frozen the @TeamTrump account because it posted the same interview excerpt, which President Trump's account shared.

A Twitter spokesman said the @TeamTrump tweet "is in violation of the Twitter Rules on COVID-19 misinformation".

"The account owner will be required to remove the Tweet before they can Tweet again."

It later appeared to have been deleted.

Twitter last month temporarily suspended Mr Trump's son, Donald Jr, for sharing a clip it said promoted "misinformation" about coronavirus and hydroxychloroquine.

But in March, Twitter said a tweet by entrepreneur Elon Musk suggesting children are "essentially immune" to coronavirus did not break its rules.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-53673797

 

[Firebat]

Twitter attaches disclaimer on Trump's 'mail drop boxes' tweet

(Reuters) - Twitter Inc on Sunday placed a disclaimer on U.S. President Donald Trump’s tweet criticizing the promotion of drop boxes by Democrats as an option for voters, saying the tweet violated the company’s “civic and election integrity” rules.

“So now the Democrats are using Mail Drop Boxes, which are a voter security disaster. Among other things, they make it possible for a person to vote multiple times. Also, who controls them, are they placed in Republican or Democrat areas? They are not Covid sanitized. A big fraud!” Trump said in a tweet posted on Sunday morning.

Twitter, in a disclaimer attached to the tweet, said: “Twitter has determined that it may be in the public’s interest for the tweet to remain accessible.”

Democrats across the country are promoting drop boxes as a convenient and reliable option for voters who do not want to entrust their ballots to the U.S. Postal Service. Republican officials in other states have prevented their use.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...on-trumps-mail-drop-boxes-tweet-idUSKBN25J0OX

 

[Firebat]

Twitter expands misinformation rules ahead of U.S. election

(Reuters) - Twitter Inc said on Thursday it would label or remove misinformation aiming to undermine confidence in the U.S. election, including posts claiming victory before results have been certified or inciting unlawful conduct to prevent a peaceful transfer of power.

Twitter said in a blog post it was updating its rules to recognize the changes in how people will vote in the Nov. 3 election and try to protect against voter suppression and misleading content on its platform.

The widespread use of mail ballots in the U.S. election due to the coronavirus pandemic will likely cause significant delays in tallying results, which some experts fear could allow misinformation to gain traction.

U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed, without evidence, that voting by mail is susceptible to large-scale fraud.

Twitter also said it would label or remove misinformation creating confusion about the laws, regulations and officials involved in civic processes, as well as disputed claims that could undermine faith in the process, such as unverified information about vote tallying or election rigging.

A Twitter spokesman said whether content had specific falsehoods or could cause greater harm would determine if it would be removed, or labeled and have its reach reduced.

Social media companies have long been under pressure to combat misinformation after U.S. intelligence agencies determined Russia used their platforms to meddle in the 2016 presidential election, allegations Moscow has denied.

The companies have also been under scrutiny over their responses to inflammatory content posted by Trump. Since May, Twitter has attached warnings and fact-checking labels to Trump’s tweets about mail-in ballots.

Twitter said its rules would be “applied equally and judiciously for everyone.” The new policy, which is global, will take effect on Sept. 17.

Alphabet Inc’s Google also said on Thursday it would remove the function that attempts to predict and complete search terms when people look up the status of voting locations, voting requirements or methods - for example, “you can vote by phone” or “you can’t vote by phone” - though users will still be able to search for this information.

It will also remove those autocomplete predictions in searches about the integrity of the election, and claims for or against any candidate or political party.

Google staff told reporters on a call that incorrect information about election results, including reports claiming an early victory, would not show up on Google Search and that it would enforce its ads policy against demonstrably false claims that could undermine trust or participation in an election, including in the post-election period.

Facebook Inc last week said it was creating a label for posts by candidates or campaigns that made premature claims of victory. It also said it would stop accepting new political ads in the week before Election Day.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ules-ahead-of-u-s-election-idUSKBN2612XS?il=0

 

[MenInG]

Twitter has flagged a tweet written by Donald Trump for "spreading misleading and potentially harmful information related to COVID-19".

In one post, the US president falsely claimed that coronavirus is less deadly than the seasonal flu "in most populations".

The tweet - which can still be viewed but has been hidden on Mr Trump's page - said: "We have learned to live with it (the flu) just like we are learning to live with Covid, in most populations far less lethal!!!"

The post has also been removed from Facebook, according to CNN.

Experts agree that COVID, which has killed more than 200,000 people in America and more than one million worldwide, is more lethal than the seasonal flu.

In other tweets, Mr Trump wrote that he was "feeling great" as he continues to recover from coronavirus.

He added that he was "looking forward" to the next presidential debate against his Democratic rival Joe Biden on 15 October in Miami.

There have been concerns the remaining debates might not be able to go ahead if Mr Trump is still suffering from coronavirus.

Mr Trump returned to the White House on Monday after he was treated in hospital for COVID-19 for three nights.

Shortly after his return, the US president released two videos - one with footage of his journey accompanied by sweeping orchestral music, the other of him speaking on a balcony flanked by US flags.

In the videos, he told Americans to "get out there" and "don't be afraid" of COVID-19 - despite the 210,000 coronavirus-related deaths recorded so far in the US.

"We're going back to work, we're going to be out front... I know there is a risk, there is a danger, but that's ok," he said.

He also suggested he could now be "immune" to the virus after feeling "better".

But some experts, including America's top infectious disease expert Dr Anthony Fauci, have warned the president could face a relapse in symptoms.

Lung specialist Professor Stephen Holgate told Sky News Mr Trump could become seriously ill with a "second wave" of COVID-19 within days.

"He is still in the first wave. The second is yet to come, when the immune system goes into overdrive. It will probably hit him in two to three days' time," he said.

Mr Trump appeared breathless as he returned to the White House after his hospital stay.

His illness has come just weeks ahead of Election Day, when Americans will choose either Mr Trump or Joe Biden for their next president.

https://news.sky.com/story/us-elect...ward-to-the-next-presidential-debate-12091774

 

[MenInG]

Facebook has removed one of President Trump’s posts for breaching its rules on coronavirus misinformation.

In the post, President Trump falsely claimed that Covid-19 is less deadly than the seasonal flu.

“We remove incorrect information about the severity of Covid-19, and have now removed this post,” a Facebook spokesperson told CNBC.

Trump has routinely played down the threat of the virus, telling Americans on Monday they had nothing to fear, after he spent time in hospital with Covid-19.

The president shared a similar post about the flu to his Twitter account on Tuesday. The tweet remains accessible, but Twitter has flagged it for violating its rules about “spreading misleading and potentially harmful information related to Covid-19”.

Experts say the mortality rate of Covid-19 it is thought to be far higher than that of most strains of the flu.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 22,000 people in the US died from the flu during the last flu season from late 2019 into 2020. By comparison, the coronavirus outbreak in the US has killed more than 210,000 people so far this year alone, data from Johns Hopkins University shows.

 

[Firebat]

Twitter suspends accounts claiming to be black Trump supporters

Twitter has suspended a number of fake accounts purporting to be owned by black supporters of US President Donald Trump.

The social media giant said the accounts broke its rules on spam and platform manipulation.

Many of the accounts used identical language, including the phrase: "YES IM BLACK AND IM VOTING FOR TRUMP!!!"

Twitter has not specified the number of accounts suspended so far or the source of them.

It said it was continuing to investigate the activity and may suspend additional accounts if they were found to be violating its policies.

The investigation was first reported by the Washington Post newspaper.

Darren Linvill, a social media disinformation researcher at Clemson University, found more than two dozen such accounts, which had generated some 265,000 retweets or Twitter mentions.

Some of the accounts used photos of black men that had appeared in news articles. Several had tens of thousands of followers.

Mr Linvill told Reuters news agency that most of the accounts were created in 2017, but had become more active in the past two months.

He said all of the accounts he had been monitoring had now been suspended but that they had "already had their impact".

Twitter forbids using the platform "to artificially amplify or suppress information or engage in behaviour that manipulates or disrupts people's experience" on the site.

Its action comes weeks ahead of the 3 November US presidential election.

Polls suggest about 10% of black voters are supporting Mr Trump, according to polling website FiveThirtyEight.

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54533488

 

[Firebat]

Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

The way Twitter communicated its handling of a controversial article about US presidential hopeful Joe Biden was "unacceptable", its chief has said.

On Wednesday, Twitter prevented people from posting links to a New York Post story, warning those trying to click it that the link was "potentially unsafe".

It only later explained it had limited sharing because the story contained "hacked materials".

Facebook also took action, limiting the report's distribution in its news feed.

It said it had done this as part of a "standard process" to give third-party fact-checkers time to review the content and decide if it should be treated as misinformation.

However, it is highly unusual for an article published by one of the mainstream popular newspapers to be treated in this way.

It is now less than three weeks until Mr Biden, the Democratic candidate, faces the Republican incumbent Donald Trump in the presidential election on 3 November.

The moves by Twitter and Facebook have renewed accusations of social media censorship and bias.

Jack Dorsey, Twitter's chief executive, acknowledged that it should have informed users as to why it had intervened sooner.

"Our communication around our actions on the @nypost article was not great. And blocking URL [website link] sharing via tweet or DM [direct message] with zero context as to why we're blocking: unacceptable," he tweeted.

The New York Post article contained screenshots of emails allegedly sent and received by Hunter Biden, Joe Biden's son.

It also contained personal, intimate photos of Hunter Biden, allegedly taken from a laptop computer that was given to a repair shop.

Twitter said discussing the claims in the New York Post article was not against its rules, but it had imposed restrictions on the article because it exposed private information such as email addresses and exposed material obtained by "hacking".

What was the article about?

The article focused on an email from April 2015, in which an adviser from a Ukrainian energy company apparently thanked Hunter Biden for inviting him to meet Joe Biden in Washington.

It did not provide evidence that the meeting ever took place, and the Biden election campaign says it did not.

Hunter Biden served on the board of directors of the energy company while his father was US secretary of state.

"We have reviewed Joe Biden's official schedules from the time and no meeting, as alleged by the New York Post, ever took place," it said.

"Investigations by the press, during impeachment, and even by two Republican-led Senate committees whose work was decried as 'not legitimate' and political by a GOP colleague, have all reached the same conclusion: that Joe Biden carried out official US policy toward Ukraine and engaged in no wrongdoing," said Andrew Bates, a spokesman for Mr Biden.

"Trump administration officials have attested to these facts under oath."

The emails and photos of Hunter Biden were allegedly obtained from a MacBook Pro that was taken to a repair shop in April 2019.

The device was never collected by its owner, but the store owner made a copy of the hard drive.

Read more: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54552101

 

[MenInG]

Facebook's Oversight Board has delayed its decision regarding former US President Donald Trump's possible return to Facebook and Instagram.

Mr Trump was banned from Facebook in January after the Capitol Hill riots.

The Board said the delay was due to the time it has taken to review over 9,000 public responses to cases.

A decision was originally due by 21 April. In a statement on Twitter, the Board said it would make a decision "in the coming weeks".

The ruling will be the biggest decision the Oversight Board has had to make since it started taking on cases last year.

The Board was set up to rule on difficult or controversial moderation decisions made by Facebook.

The 20-member committee, established by Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg, is often referred to as "Facebook's Supreme Court".

The committee is made up of journalists, human rights activists, lawyers and academics.

The group has already ruled on nine cases including:

a comment that seemed derogatory to Muslims - in a post from a user in Myanmar, removed for breaking hate-speech rules - was found not to be Islamophobic, when taken in context

an alleged quote from Joseph Goebbels - in an old post reshared by a US user, removed for violating polices on dangerous individuals and organisations - did not support Nazi ideology, again when taken in context

a video about Covid-19 "cures" - referred to the board by Facebook - was a comment about French government health policy and would not lead people to self-medicate

an Instagram post of eight photographs of breast-cancer symptoms should not have been removed - by Facebook's automated moderation system, only to be restored before the board's decision - for breaking adult-nudity rules

Big Tech bans Trump

It's not just Mr Trump's account that is banned. Earlier this month Facebook extended their ban to include the "voice of Trump" after his daughter-in-law and Fox News contributor Laura Trump posted a video of her interviewing the former president.

Several Big Tech platforms took action after the Capitol Hill riots that left five people dead and more than 100 police officers injured. The former president was accused of inciting violence and repeatedly spreading disinformation.

He is suspended on YouTube, but chief executive Susan Wojcicki has said they may lift the ban when the threat of "real-world violence" decreases.

He is permanently banned on Twitter.

According to data from CrowdTangle, some of Mr Trump's Facebook posts were among the most popular in the US.

It has been a few months without Mr Trump on social media and with the threat of that being permanent, he has been considering creating a platform of his own.

Trump adviser Jason Miller told Fox News in March that he expects the former Republican president will return with his "own platform".

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56781104

 

[LongHorn]

It is hillarious to permanently ban Trump on FB and other media

Big tech has decided that the left is correct and as such only their positions must be supported

 

[MenInG]

Donald Trump's ban from Facebook and Instagram has been upheld by Facebook's Oversight Board.

But it criticised the permanent nature of the ban as beyond the scope of Facebook's normal penalties.

It has ordered Facebook to review the decision and "justify a proportionate response" that is applied to everyone, including ordinary users.

The former president was banned from both sites in January following the Capitol Hill riots.

The Oversight Board said the initial decision to permanently suspend Mr Trump was "indeterminate and standardless", and that the correct response should be "consistent with the rules that are applied to other users of its platform".

Facebook must respond within six months, it said.

At a press conference, co-chair Helle Thorning-Schmidt admitted: "We did not have an easy answer."

She added that she felt Facebook would "appreciate the decision".

"We are telling Facebook to go back and be more transparent about how it assesses these things. Treat all users the same and don't give arbitrary penalties."

In response, Facebook said it would "consider the board's decision and determine an action that is clear and proportionate".

The board also made a number of recommendations about how Facebook should improve its policies and the social network promised to "carefully review" these.

The Board was due to announce its decision last month but delayed the ruling in order to review more than 9,000 public responses to cases, it said.

In the meantime, Mr Trump, who is also banned from Twitter, launched a new website on Tuesday to update supporters with his thoughts.

In a post published following the Facebook ruling, he once again claimed there had been fraud in the 2020 Presidential Election, and encouraged his supporters to "never give up".

What did the Board say?
The ruling means that Mr Trump's suspension remains in place for now.

The Oversight Board decided that Mr Trump had broken Facebook's community standards, and upheld the ban.

But it is the "indefinite" part of the ban that it took issue with because that is not within its own rules.

"It is not permissible for Facebook to keep a user off the platform for an undefined period, with no criteria for when or whether the account will be restored," it said in a statement.

Applying that type of ban to Mr Trump was not following any clear procedure, it said.

Facebook cannot make up the rules as it goes, and anyone concerned about its power should be concerned about allowing this. Having clear rules that apply to all users and Facebook is essential for ensuring the company treats users fairly. This is what the Board stands for.
The Board argued that Facebook had essentially issued "a vague, standardless penalty and then [referred] this case to the Board to resolve".

It said doing so meant "Facebook seeks to avoid its responsibilities" - and sent the decision back to Facebook.

Co-chair Michael McConnell justified the timeframe saying that it was a decision "not to be rushed" and admitted that the firm may decide to throw it back to the Oversight Board yet again.

BBC

 

[Robert]

It is hillarious to permanently ban Trump on FB and other media

Big tech has decided that the left is correct and as such only their positions must be supported

Nothing to do with the right and left, and all to do with someone with a massive platform who printed lie after lie and used big tech to foment an insurrection again the US Government.

 

[MenInG]

Twitter has suspended an account sharing posts from former US president Donald Trump's new communications platform.

The account claimed to be tweeting "on behalf" of Mr Trump.

A spokesperson for the company said the account, @DJTDesk, violated the ban evasion policy by sharing content "affiliated with a suspended account."

But the BBC found similar accounts still active on the social media platform.

Mr Trump was permanently banned from Twitter in January after he voiced support for rioters who stormed the US Capitol.

He launched his own communications platform - titled "From the Desk of Donald J Trump" - on Tuesday.

According to NBC News, the bio for the @DJTDesk account read: "Posts copied from Save America on behalf of the 45th POTUS; Originally composed via DonaldJTrump/Desk".

Twitter says that although it does allow accounts to share content from Mr Trump's new website, it won't allow an individual to "circumvent" a ban.

Those "evasion" rules can include "having someone else operate on your behalf, an account which represents your identity, persona, brand or business persona for a different purpose."

The BBC flagged four accounts with similar bios that were also sharing content from Mr Trump's new platform.

Twitter did not respond when asked what would happen to these accounts.

At the time of publishing, the four accounts were still active.

One had also recently tweeted about ban evasion.

It is unclear who is behind the accounts, but most of them claim to be independent of the former president.

Trump spokesman Jason Miller told NBC News the @DJTDesk account was not set up by, or with the permission of, anyone affiliated with the former president.

Mr Trump's new communication platform, The Desk of Donald J Trump, will host statements and press releases from the former president.

Visitors are able to like posts and share them on their Twitter and Facebook accounts - provided the posts themselves don't break the sites' rules.

Mr Trump's new platform was announced the day before Facebook's independent Oversight Board ruled in favour of the social media company's decision to suspend him - but also ruled Facebook should reconsider the length of the suspension within six months.

BBC

 

[MenInG]

Former US President Donald Trump has announced plans to launch a new social media network, called TRUTH Social.

He said the platform would "stand up to the tyranny of big tech", accusing them of silencing opposing voices in the US.

Social media played a pivotal role in Mr Trump's bid for the White House and was his favourite means of communication as president.

But Mr Trump was banned from Twitter and suspended from Facebook after his supporters stormed the US Capitol.

Social media firms were under pressure throughout Mr Trump's presidency to ban him, with his posts criticised as insulting, inflammatory or peddling outright falsehoods.

Last year Twitter and Facebook began deleting some of his posts or labelling them as misleading, such as one in which he said Covid was "less lethal" than the flu.

They took the decision to ban or suspend Mr Trump after the January riots, which followed a speech in which he made baseless claims of electoral fraud.

Responding to the riots, Mr Trump called those at the Capitol "patriots" and showed no sign of accepting the result of the election, prompting Twitter and Facebook to rule that it was too risky to allow him to continue to use their sites.

'Your favourite president has been silenced'
Since then he and his advisers have hinted that they were planning to create a rival social media site.

Earlier this year, he launched From the Desk of Donald J Trump, which was often referred to as a blog.

The website was permanently shut down less than a month after it launched after attracting only a fraction of the audience he would have expected through established sites.

His senior aide Jason Miller said it was "just auxiliary to the broader efforts we have and are working on".

An early version of his latest venture, TRUTH Social, will be open to invited guests next month, and will have a "nationwide rollout" within the first three months of 2022, according to a statement by Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG).

"We live in a world where the Taliban has a huge presence on Twitter, yet your favourite American President has been silenced," wrote Mr Trump.

"Everyone asks me why doesn't someone stand up to Big Tech? Well, we will be soon!" he added.

 

[MenInG]

A US judge has dismissed a lawsuit brought by Donald Trump challenging his Twitter ban after his account was permanently suspended in the wake of the Capitol riots last year.

The former US president had filed a request for a preliminary injunction against the social media company, and attempted to argue Twitter was "coerced" by members of the US Congress to suspend the account, which had tens of millions of followers.

In a written ruling, US District Judge James Donato in San Francisco rejected Mr Trump's argument that Twitter violated his right to freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Twitter was among several social media platforms that removed Mr Trump from their services after a mob attacked the US parliament building in the 6 January riot that left several people dead.

Following the assault, Mr Trump made a speech in which he reiterated false claims that his election loss was due to widespread fraud - something that has been repeatedly debunked by courts and state election officials.

In a court filing last year, Mr Trump's lawyers claimed the social media site "exercises a degree of power and control over political discourse in this country that is immeasurable, historically unprecedented, and profoundly dangerous to open democratic debate."

The filing added that Twitter allowed the Taliban to tweet frequently about its military victories in Afghanistan, but censored the president during his term in office by labelling his posts as "misleading information".

Sky's Beth Rigby speaks to Fiona Hill, once a working-class girl from County Durham, who became the top Russia expert in Donald Trump's White House

In July, Mr Trump launched a legal action against Twitter, Facebook Inc and Alphabet Inc's Google, along with their chief executives, alleging they unlawfully silence conservative points of view.

At the time of his suspension, Twitter argued his tweets had violated the platform's policy barring "glorification of violence".

The company said the tweets that led to Mr Trump's removal were "highly likely" to encourage people to replicate what happened in the Capitol riots.

During his time in office, Mr Trump was often accused of governing by Twitter, with announcements made via his social media megaphone before official channels - at the time, a single tweet could spark a frenzy.

For example, in July 2017 he announced his decision to ban transgender troops in three tweets. In March 2018, he fired Rex Tillerson, his then-secretary of state, via the platform.

These days, after being cast into the social media wilderness he is forced to make announcements via emailed press releases and his own "Truth Social" startup.

However, it may not be the last time the former Apprentice star is seen online.

Following Elon Musk's takeover, there has been speculation he - as a "free speech absolutist" - could force the restoration of Mr Trump's account.

However, Mr Musk may find he is constrained by reality, as under US law the right to free speech ends where harm, or incitement to harm, begins.

And, in typical petulant style, Mr Trump has said he does not want to go back to the platform that rejected him, rather sticking to his own alternative "Truth Social" network.

sky