Twitter

Twitter's New 'Privacy' Policy Could Destroy Its Value for Decentralized Citizen Journalism

Why give legacy media a stranglehold over information that Twitter at its best is great for sharing?

|

In the halcyon days when people were still optimistic about social media's power to do good in the world, they would point to moments like the "Arab Spring"—a time when private citizens regularly used Twitter as a tool to report accurately on what was happening under tyrannical regimes. Even in less geopolitically fraught situations, many incidents of police abuse and other crimes, both official and unofficial, have been recorded by citizen-journalists on their phones' cameras. That, for example, was how we saw the murder of George Floyd: from bystander video, not carefully vetted professional media.

Twitter seemed tailor made for that sort of journalism. It lets us see events almost in real time, events involving identifiable, not-yet-famous human beings caught in the act of being themselves. Yet the site just announced a new policy, in the name of "privacy," that if consistently applied would destroy this value —and if inconsistently applied, as it will of course be, would make Twitter's power to shape what information reaches its users more pernicious.

The details—announced, perhaps coincidentally, right after Jack Dorsey stepped down as  CEO seat—start off with the kind of framing that Twitter knows will ring the bell of the currently dominant media professionals:

Sharing personal media, such as images or videos, can potentially violate a person's privacy, and may lead to emotional or physical harm. The misuse of private media can affect everyone, but can have a disproportionate effect on women, activists, dissidents, and members of minority communities. When we receive a report that a Tweet contains unauthorized private media, we will now take action…

While our existing policies and Twitter Rules cover explicit instances of abusive behavior, this update will allow us to take action on media that is shared without any explicit abusive content, provided it's posted without the consent of the person depicted. This is a part of our ongoing work to align our safety policies with human rights standards, and it will be enforced globally starting today.

The company then claims that it has always been quashing tweets that expose private individuals' home addresses or identity documents. But now, it says, you can also be in violation merely by sharing "media of private individuals without the permission of the person(s) depicted."

If someone doesn't want to be in a photo or video circulating on Twitter—perhaps someone committing a crime or otherwise participating in a public action of obvious newsworthiness—then Twitter says now that "When we are notified by individuals depicted, or by an authorized representative, that they did not consent to having their private image or video shared, we will remove it."

The company leaves a vague and judgment-riddled exception for "when media and accompanying Tweet text are shared in the public interest or add value to public discourse." Thus, they hedge, "We recognize that there are instances where account holders may share images or videos of private individuals in an effort to help someone involved in a crisis situation, such as in the aftermath of a violent event, or as part of a newsworthy event due to public interest value, and this might outweigh the safety risks to a person."

It might. Twitter continues: "we would take into consideration whether the image is publicly available and/or is being covered by mainstream/traditional media (newspapers, TV channels, online news sites), or if a particular image and the accompanying tweet text adds value to the public discourse, is being shared in public interest, or is relevant to the community."

This policy will thus add more strength to the hold conventional media businesses have on the public mind, the very thing decentalized communication tools like Twitter at their best were supposed to circumvent. But Twitter seems less interested now in disrupting the legacy media's hold on our information flow, and more interested in aggressively ensuring its corporate judgments overwhelm its users' desire to spread or receive information they might not be able to get elsewhere. (Twitter isn't the only effective social network, of course, but we have reason to fear collusion from tech companies when they decide to crack down on practices, ideas, or methods they find objectionable.)

We are already seeing various ideological sides trying to weaponize this policy against their enemies.

Will this policy lead to the death of the "private individual being an asshole in public and being dragged all across the planet because someone shoved a camera in their face," which probably amounts to at least a third of some users' love of Twitter? Sounds like it should, though that will likely depend on Twitter's opinions about the particular awfulness of the particular behavior and the expressions or attitudes that Twitter wants to discourage.

Twitter has already been a machine of often clumsy and little-explained attempts to carefully manage and vet what it lets its users communicate. But by taking the trouble to enshrine this policy, it seems to be sending a signal that the legacy media are the rightful jealous powers defining the public discourse.

NEXT: The Michigan School Shooter Can Be a Murderer Without Also Being a Terrorist

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

117 responses to “Twitter's New 'Privacy' Policy Could Destroy Its Value for Decentralized Citizen Journalism

  1. Feature, not bug.

    1. Twitter; information, value, JOURNALISM?

      Get the fuck outa here!

      1. I am making $165 an hour working from home. i was greatly surprised at the same time as my neighbour advised me she changed into averaging $ninety five however I see the way it works now. I experience masses freedom now that i'm my non-public boss.
        that is what I do...... Visit Here

  2. The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more Star systems will slip through your fingers.

    1. Make money online from home extra cash more than $18k to $21k. Start getting paid every VNj month Thousands Dollars online. I have received $26K in this month by just working online from home in my part time. Every person easily do this job by

      just visit.............BizProfit

  3. Its value of what now?

    1. Source material for endless media articles? As a bonus, a single quote takes up a couple of column inches.

    2. Its value of sharing an information stranglehold with legacy media. It's right there in the subheading.

    3. Find USA Online Jobs (800$-95000$ Weekly) safe and secure! Easy Acces To Information.Jhg Simple in use. All the Answers. Multiple sources combined. Fast and trusted. Discover us now! Easy & Fast, 99% Match. ..
      GOOD LUCK......VISIT HERE

  4. Twitter's New 'Privacy' Policy Could Destroy Its Value for Decentralized Citizen Journalism

    Isn't that the point?

    1. It's hard to weave a narrative if you let people just pull at the threads to see how true they are.

  5. "If someone doesn't want to be in a photo or video circulating on Twitter—perhaps someone committing a crime or otherwise participating in a public action of obvious newsworthiness—then Twitter says now that "When we are notified by individuals depicted, or by an authorized representative, that they did not consent to having their private image or video shared, we will remove it."

    Seems like a great chance to finally nail down that pesky Andy Ngo and his constant posting of raw footage of rio-...err...peaceful protests.

    1. And those terrible photos/videos of Democrat politicians violating their own Covid mask mandates.

    2. its official now...they are rioters. The Judge said so. Precedence is set.

      1. He BAD Racist Judge allowing Racist verdict in Racist Trial.

        Ergo, no precedent.

        Because Racism.

    3. Probably more oriented to his highlighting their mug shots when they get pulled in and released by the local Soros DA.

    4. finally nail down that pesky Andy Ngo

      Yep. That's exactly what this is about. Twitter's management are 100% lefturds. They were horrified when their site became useful to anyone to the right of Mao Tse Tung.

      -jcr

  6. Arab Spring? How did that turn out?

    1. As intended.

    2. Alleged Arab Spring.

    3. Fall eventually showed up - - - - - -

    4. Arab spring-loaded, more like.

  7. >>Twitter seemed tailor made for that sort of journalism.

    in Pleasantville maybe. we're psychotic apes.

  8. Twitter's New 'Privacy' Policy Could Destroy Its Value for Decentralized Citizen Journalism

    *looks around nervously*

    Is there a different reality going on that I'm unaware of?

    1. Probably more than one.

    2. A more sophisticated one.

  9. "we would take into consideration whether the image is publicly available and/or is being covered by mainstream/traditional media (newspapers, TV channels, online news sites), or if a particular image and the accompanying tweet text adds value to the public discourse, is being shared in public interest, or is relevant to the community."

    And of course, the primary consideration will be the prior political views of the account.

    1. " the community" is a euphanism for the homosexual community."

      More Fire and Brimstone, please.

      1. Be fair, it's the marxists regardless of sexual orientation.

  10. Umm, the new CEO if twitter said... explicitly, that Twitter is NOT a free speech platform. Citizen Journalism (as we're calling it here) requires a platform that is committed to the ideals of free speech. And none of that requires that the corporation be somehow bound by Constitutional requirements-- but the corporation should follow a set of ideals that can reasonably mimic them.

    The purpose of Twitter, according to the new CEO is about a public conversation that stays within a very specific set of guidelines and agreed-upon narrative. One may agree with those guidelines and/or narratives, and that's fine. But that's not anything that's going to be conducive to "citizen journalism". It's time we take off our rose-colored classes on "the power of social media to liberate humanity and save democracy".

    1. "a very specific set of guidelines and agreed-upon narrative."

      Clintonista censorship.

    2. It's more like a tool to gang-tackle and stomp out any opinions not approved of by the majority of Twits.

      1. "gang-tackle "

        So are we talking about Harris or Buttigeg now?

    3. This is where the Web3 is supposed to take us- a place where the decentralized nature of any service- whether it be social media or just content hosting- allows any conversation to be had without the enforcement of large companies.

      The question is whether the Big Tech Corporations can get government to snuff it out with regulation. Google absolutely knows it is in trouble if a distributed index of the web allows anyone to easily write and distribute their own search algorithm. Facebook knows the same for much of their services. And so they are lobbying hard for the government to regulate them to keep things as they are.

      1. I have yet to see how Web3 will solve this universal problem. The 'single point of failure' problem as I see it.

        1. Web3 is a highly over-engineered solution for solving the single point of failure problem. The entire design and purpose is to ensure that every operation is replicated and verified a multitude of times, such that an attempt at censorship by any single point is discarded.

          Personally, I think they are solving the wrong problem. The Internet has plenty of examples of applications without the single point of failure problem. Email has no single point of failure. Podcasts have no single point of failure. Blogs have no single point of failure. Yes, your host can knock you down, but unless you are Parler sized, it is usually trivial to find alternate hosting.

          We should go back to the old ways. RSS over Twitter/FB timelines. IRC over Slack/Discord. Personal webpages over social media etc. The issue...the siren song of Big Tech, is that Big Tech can solve the discoverability problem, which every federated/decentralized protocol suffers from. Big Tech sees what I am interested in and can pull in more of the same content, even though I have never heard of the creator before and have never followed them. This gives me an endless supply of relevant content and gives small creators the opportunity to get bigger without a big marketing budget.

          Rather than solve the content hosting problem, as Web3 tries to do, I think we should focus on solving the discoverability problem for old school federated protocols like email, RSS, etc.

          My solution is to layer in a pluggable recommendation engine. I get caught up with Welcome to Nighvale, and the recommendation engine suggests another conspiracy fiction podcast. I read an article at Reason and get recommend an article on Cato's take on a similar topic. I hang out in a chat room about board games and get recommend to join a Settlers of Catan chat room. Heck, it doesn't even have to be like for like, my visit to a board game chat room could just as easily result in a podcast recommendation.

          The architecture would be that my clients would produce a standardized blob of information on my Internet history to provide to the recommendation engine (websites visited, podcasts listened to, suggestions visited, suggestions ignored, etc.; obviously, all of this would be under my control, so I can suppress or change any history I want), and I would configure my client to send that interest information to any recommendation engines I want to hear from. Those recommendation engines can then provide suggestions which would then be displayed in a sidebar in the client.

          The key is that which recommendation engines I use are totally up to me and completely disjoint from whoever is hosting the content. If one recommendation engine decides to try to suppress information, not only can I always bypass such suppression by navigating to the content directly, if it becomes a pattern, I can with a couple clicks replace then with a different recommendation engine, which, given the interest file, would immediately be able to provide relevant suggestions. If a host manages to knock a site offline in a manner that updating DNS settings won't fix, a new site with similar content would very quickly start dropping into people's recommendation feeds.

          1. Web3 is a highly over-engineered solution for solving the single point of failure problem. The entire design and purpose is to ensure that every operation is replicated and verified a multitude of times, such that an attempt at censorship by any single point is discarded.

            Single point of what?

            If a corporation creates a great social app that lets people communicate, and it becomes distributed and replicated across a multitude of platforms, CDNs, cloud services, DNS providers etc., the corporation itself is the single point of failure.

            We should go back to the old ways. RSS over Twitter/FB timelines. IRC over Slack/Discord. Personal webpages over social media etc.

            This I agree with... but one will constantly be frustrated by the reality of fractured market places. The old web (web 1.0) where I came up, FidoNet, ALT discussion groups, Gopher, Pine etc., as great as it was, it was a nerd's domain. Most people want a centralized walled garden that presents them with a reliable platform/interface etc.

            The corporations have done a pretty good job of creating apps and destinations on the web that attract large numbers of people, are easy to understand. Places to host comments, pictures, short videos, long videos etc. I just don't see how Web3 fixes any of this.

            Rather than solve the content hosting problem, as Web3 tries to do, I think we should focus on solving the discoverability problem for old school federated protocols like email, RSS, etc.

            I like where you're going with this, but I'd have to do more research to see how something like this would even work.

          2. "My solution is to layer in a pluggable recommendation engine."

            Except I like my privacy...?

    4. Twitter makes money by selling ads. It has no obligation to protect anyone's rights.

    5. the new CEO if twitter said... explicitly, that Twitter is NOT a free speech platform.

      Racist scumbag hates free speech, film at 11.

      -jcr

  11. "used Twitter as a tool to report accurately "

    Well THAT went down the Crapper, didnt it
    The Soviet style Media made sure of that.

    STORY TIME.

    I just drove thru a small town in Central FL and stopped at a Trump tent.

    I asked the old timer tending it " so is this a Trump tent?"

    He said , are you kidding me?"

    We had a good laugh.

    Then he said hed had a military background in classified matters and didnt have clearance now, but still had friends that did.

    That passed the sniff test. Biden knows about sniffing...

    He he was told there had been a meeting between 5 top Generals and Piglousy, Schumer etc where they were warned theyd be arrested and tried for Treason if they attempted to undermine the Constitution and the Second and Third Amendments.

    I dont know why he mentioned only 2nd and 3rd.

    He was NOT in a joking mood at that point.

    1. ..Id thought it odd that the rat bastards ( Piglousi, KKKlinton, Waters etc) have been fairly quiet lately....

      1. They have, haven't they?

        Guess at their ages and stations and the electoral disaster [for them] on the very near horizon, they don't see much point looking beyond this year.

    2. Then he said hed had a military background in classified matters and didnt have clearance now, but still had friends that did.

      That passed the sniff test.

      [so far so good]

      He he was told there had been a meeting between 5 top Generals and Piglousy, Schumer etc where they were warned theyd be arrested and tried for Treason if they attempted to undermine the Constitution and the Second and Third Amendments.

      [yeah, no, I'm sniffing and this gets a big fat F]

    3. Q is reporting similar developments, and has the highest level possible security clearance (what is called omega clearance.)

    4. You all need serious psychological help.

  12. long live The Big Ragu.

    1. Him and the Squig are probably drinking a ice cold Shotz right now.

  13. It’s OK. We have TRUTH Social.

    1. Not yet, dummy.

  14. LOOK AT DRUDGE...THE HEADLINE PIX IS PRICELESS!

    " masks"... wow she has a set of them!

    1. Rated a 7.8

    2. looks like parts of England are starting 4th doses of vaccine from that site too. Wow.

    3. I won't click drudge but I will guess huge ... tracts of land?

  15. Posted this on another thread but seems appropriate here.
    https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/twitter-slaps-unsafe-label-american-heart-association-mrna-vaccine-warning

    Twitter Slaps 'Unsafe' Label On American Heart Association mRNA Vaccine Warning
    Twitter has slapped an "unsafe link" warning on a study from the American Heart Association which found that mRNA vaccines dramatically increase risk of developing heart diseases from 11% to 25%.

    1. It is how they censor damning information. They aren't quiet ready to label reality 'misinformation,' yet.

    2. Boring fact check from local skeptic.

      The unsafe label may be the result of twitter users reporting the link.

      The link is not to a study from the American Heart Association. It did not appear to be a study nor did it appear to find anything. It is a non-peer-reviewed poster abstract posted by an individual known/infamous for pseudo-scientific books claiming that weight gain and disease are caused by common plant proteins, problems remedied by the supplements sold through his online food supplement business.

      Scientists with relevant expertise have shared copies of the slides supposedly supporting the claims, described as "rubbish" and noting that even the data listed contradicts statements in the abstract. The shared slides conclude with the author recommending quercetin supplements after vaccination as sold on the author's website.

      The AHA was alerted and commented: “Soon after the publication of the above abstract in Circulation, it was brought to the American Heart Association Committee on Scientific Sessions Program’s attention that there are potential errors in the abstract. Specifically, there are several typographical errors, there is no data in the abstract regarding myocardial T-cell infiltration, there are no statistical analyses for significance provided, and the author is not clear that only anecdotal data was used. We are publishing this Expression of Concern until a suitable correction is published to indicate that the abstract in its current version may not be reliable.”

  16. https://apnews.com/article/US-military-explosives-stolen-discovered-in-homes-9e72a922bfe34fa5d13e642bd12cdc35

    (COUGHspecial forcesCOUGH)

    WA State . A bunch disappeared from a Gummit site. I asked...J got a half smile and a change in topic...

    Note to DC. DONT train killers expert in warfare and demolition then FUCK THEM OVER.

    Its really not wise policy.

    1. dave out here flogging horsesh*t claims to rile up the next Tim McVeigh again...

      1. You can say shit here.

  17. "Why give legacy media a stranglehold over information that Twitter at its best is great for sharing?"

    Is this a serious question?

    1. Can't respond, I'm still holding my sides in.

      1. *wheeze*

    1. "Still, Rothschild noted, the group so far doesn’t appear to be committing any crimes."

      But he's wears, literally, an honest to God tinfoil hat!

      1. Guilty of precrime. Or at least maybe thoughtcrime.

        1. Is that... Profiling? It could be racist if they're not oppressor race.

  18. Re: Twitter's New 'Privacy' Policy Could Destroy Its Value for Decentralized Citizen Journalism:
    How about we also add scare quotes around "citizen journalism." You ain't got a degree in the field and practiced your craft for some time, you ain't no "journalist." But of course there is no longer any objective truth and all by-the-book, inverted-pyramid reporting is dismissed as FAKE NEWS!

  19. Why give legacy media a stranglehold over information that Twitter at its best is great for sharing?

    "Twitter at its best when sharing information stranglehold with legacy media"

  20. "When we are notified by individuals depicted, or by an authorized representative, that they did not consent to having their private image or video shared, we will remove it."

    I don't see a problem with this. "Private images or videos" would be copyrightable material, right? If the photography or filming is done in public, well, you don't have a right to privacy while you're in public so you can't stop somebody from filming you or photographing you unless it is for commercial purposes or for purposes of harassing you. Public images or videos are, by definition, not private images or videos.

    Unless, of course, Fuckhead here has just stolen a base by re-defining "private" to include "public" and what are the chances Fuckhead would do something so evil and slimy and dishonest?

    1. I think the policy is supposed to apply to images that the subject did not take the picture (hence, not copyright), but also had an expectation of privacy.

      Revenge porn is probably the most blatant example of this. Perhaps "private image" isn't the best way to put it, but they are trying to distinguish from images taken in public places with no expectation of privacy.

      The difficulty is where Twitter draws the line for expecting privacy.

      1. No, this is intended to give people veto power over publicly available information in a consolidated form. Andy Ngo summarizing antifa members being arrested and distributing their public mug shots would be a prime example.

    2. There are weird circumstances that are quite blurred.

      I film my girlfriend in my room on my phone who voluntarily danced naked for the camera.

      Is that not my own private property? I should be able to do with that whatever I wish. But this new rule seems to make something like that a no-can-do. Even in cases which aren’t so morally egregious.

      1. I think with the naked girlfriend it's implied she's just for you. Or so you usually hope.

  21. but we have reason to fear collusion from tech companies when they decide to crack down on practices, ideas, or methods they find objectionable.

    I'm completely blown away that this appeared at all on Reason. Does this mean that they are learning, or is this the good old CYA so they can claim "BoWF SiDeS1!"?

    1. What about "MUH PRIVATE COMPANIES?"

      1. Or build your own?

  22. This is to stop all that pesky video going against the lefty narratives.

    Covington, Kyle Rittenhouse, the riots last year, etc.

    Can't allow the truth to be shown if it goes against what the corporate press and activist class want you to see

  23. Getting rid of memes is the end goal.
    Because the left can’t meme.

  24. Why do you guys keep fixating on Twitter? They are defining themselves out of the market. Let them fail. Stop giving them free publicity.

    1. Not as long as it’s continuously massaged further and further in to a liberal jerkathon. As long as liberals and their corporate media institutions use it as a main source of news, they’re fine.

  25. Why give legacy media a stranglehold over information that Twitter at its best is great for sharing?

    Is that a real question? Are you really this effing stupid?

    1. Yup, now donate so they don't have to go on welfare 'cause they can't do anything else.

      1. I saw George Soros on the list in passing. Good laugh.

  26. I come here for libertarian content. I can't think of another time this magazine scrutinized and criticized the business decisions of private companies so much.

    The ability to shit your opinion to the entire world is a new thing. The internet is the public square, and it has fewer rules than any other public square.

    Twitter is not a public square. It's a company that sells a product. You are bitching that Applebee's changed the recipe of its riblet sauce.

    Thanks for sharing, but I don't recognize your right to have unfettered free access to a private company's resources when it just wants to cram advertisements into people's eyeballs in pace.

    1. … fewer rules than any other public square.
      We don’t have public square rules.

    2. unfettered free access to a private company's resources …
      Isn’t that what they offered to get people to use it?

      1. I doubt it, but I didn't realize that it was the libertarian position that companies may never change their TOS.

        Whom would you like the government to shoot to enforce this rule?

    3. The issue here isn't shitting "your opinion to the entire world..", nor did they claim Twitter shouldn't be able to do it, just that is a bad policy; or are they not allowed to have an opinion about any private businesses period?

      It is about them kneecapping one of the unique abilities Twitter allowed citizen journalists to utilize. This will also obviously be selectively enforced, aka silencing anyone who is to the right of AOC

      1. Every time I have brought up a private industry ruining the habitable environment of planet earth, you people have said "Tough shit, the market is God."

        1. Note to foreign readers: American communists use "the market" as a demonizing reference to "uncoerced interaction" a.k.a. freedom. Theirs is also an altruist religion, but one in which the initiation of deadly force is even more reverently espoused than by its christian national socialist competing version. Both are anti-libertarian.

          1. I'm a capitalist who believes people should have to pay for the damage they cause to other people's property.

            You apparently want the people to subsidize the destruction of their own property for the sake of industry profits?

    4. So? Aren't we allowed to criticize private companies for their decisions anymore?

      Don't bother answering, Tony. It's obvious what fascists like you think about that.

      1. Yes, but not while being a libertarian.

        1. Idiot. As usual.

        2. Well, Tony, I'm sure you truly believe that.

    5. "I come here for the libertarian content all the time and am, just now, shocked, I say shocked, to learn that libertarians are sticklers about contract law. Like, it's not against their precepts to scrutinize contracts privately, publicly, or even legally really at all."

      Liar, retarded, or both; your choice.

    6. I come here for libertarian content.

      Bullshit.

      -jcr

    7. You’re absolutely right.

      Meanwhile, Antifa claims Twitter’s new policies are helping white supremacists by preventing them from doxxing “fascists”.

      Boo hoo.

      https://twitter.com/drewharwell/status/1466531439801946113?s=21

  27. The whole thing wreaks of the Rittenhouse case and them wanting to suppress possible video evidence, but only of course if the "wrong" kind of people are using Twitter to document video or audio evidence; namely those "wrong" people would constitute anyone to the right of AOC. This will 100% be selectively enforced and Twitter wont have to answer to anyone when they are called on it.

  28. Does this mean ENB will stop using Twitter for half the roundup sources?

    1. LOL, no. This will mean she won't have to back up her opinion with anything but Marxist twitter and Vox.

  29. "Why give legacy media a stranglehold over information that Twitter at its best is great for sharing?"

    See Humpty Dumpty for an explanation.

    1. The artillery piece or the poem?

      1. First one, then the other.

  30. Doherty does understand that the political pressure from the Left on Twitter and the other platforms has rather pointedly been to shut decentralized, non-legacy journalism? It is not an accident, they do not want journalism that is not controlled by friendlies.

  31. I can only hope for a good spot solar flare...

    So let's give a cheer for the progressive march towards human dignity and freedom, yeah? And diversity, inclusion and safety... It's like Dems have been lying about their actual policies since they lost their slaves or something.

  32. Throughout the 1990s Globalization stalked the land and the looter press shivered in terror as an entire generation quit buying newsprint. Even National Lampoon morphed into SNL. Today's moaning and gnashing of gums is the senile Kleptocracy's last attempt to make media a monopoly. The GOP wants DEA Televangelists in charge, and the Dems want Communist Communist People's leader She Gin-peeing to control all content. Both halves want LP voters deported to reeducation camps.

  33. Twitter: "The misuse of private media can affect everyone, but can have a disproportionate effect on women"

    Taliban: Damn straight!

  34. This article is a real head scratcher.

  35. If this policy were evenly enforced, the greatest beneficiaries would be cops whose misbehavior is caught on video.

    1. Exactly. It sounds like the "powers that be" have gotten to Twitter and neutralized it. If this policy had been enforced in 2020, no one would know who George Floyd and Derek Chauvin were.

  36. Floyd wasn't murdered. He died of his drug addiction.

  37. According to the Democrat-Media Complex, Kyle Rittenhouse was a "white supremacist domestic terrorist whose mommy drove him and his weapon of war across state lines with the express purpose of murdering black people who were peacefully marching in silent candlelit vigil seeking justice for an innocent black man murdered by the police for the crime of being black in AmeriKKKa."

    Thanks to tons of video from citizen and alternative media journalists, the truth that Kyle was repeatedly attacked by WHITE violent felons and only fired in self-defense against pedophiles, domestic abusers, etc. who were trying to murder him because they viewed him as an impediment to their fiery violent riots and vandalism.

    Twitter doesn't want another Kyle Rittenhouse or Nicolas Sandman to escape being lynched by the Democrat-Media Complex and the corrupt two-tier JUST US system where a violent Democrat voter with a handgun he shouldn't have possessed does NOT get charged while the innocent kid he intended to murder gets multiple murder cases thrown at him in an attempted government-sponsored lynching.

    Don't forget that NBC was trying to dox the jurors to ensure they complied with the will of the mob. "Sure, you can acquit that terrorist, but where are you going to live after we burn your house down and kill your family?"

    And Reason is all, "Hey, private companies can do what they want! /shrug emoji LOL"

Comments are closed.