Twitter Employee Shuts Down President Trump's Twitter Account On His Last Day Of Work

[handymanshandle]

3 minutes ago, TheCherryKing said:

If you don't like to see his tweets then don't look at his tweets. Nobody is forcing to see them.

I know... It's almost as if these two buttons don't exist if you don't wanna see someone's tweets.

[Okjoek]

Hope this is just be a beta for the real thing.

 

Half joking, but the dude is really obnoxious.

[TheCherryKing]

42 minutes ago, Eduard the weeb said:

funny tbh they should have just deleted it for the lol's he is crazy. 

Would you like them to delete the account of whoever you support?

[MoonSpot]

It is refreshing to see someone take a stand every now and again, and a non-violent one at that.  I suspect that had the former employee wanted to be more malicious, they could have been.

Too bad all that they managed to accomplish was give something else to talk about to the very person they wanted "shut-up".

[TheCherryKing]

1 minute ago, MoonSpot said:

It is refreshing to see someone take a stand every now and again, and a non-violent one at that.  I suspect that had the former employee wanted to be more malicious, they could have been.

Too bad all that they managed to accomplish was give something else to talk about to the very person they wanted "shut-up".

They're not taking a stand on anything except supporting censorship. They know that they were losing the information war so they resulted in censorship. 

[Sauron]

16 minutes ago, VegetableStu said:

that would be HILARIOUS

I guess it's only funny if it's a politician you disagree with  not that I have any simpathy for Clinton but I think we can agree it's pretty stupid regardless of who the target is... there are so many better ways of dissing Trump than this. All this is saying is, "I can't make a coherent argument on why you're a bad president, so I guess I'll delete your twitter account".

3 minutes ago, MoonSpot said:

It is refreshing to see someone take a stand every now and again, and a non-violent one at that.  I suspect that had the former employee wanted to be more malicious, they could have been.

Too bad all that they managed to accomplish was give something else to talk about to the very person they wanted "shut-up".

What sort of "stand" is it? Were Trump's tweets truly so offensive and damaging to this guy that he needed to "take a stand"? Violent or not this is still abuse of his position at Twitter. Of course, Twitter as a company have a right to kick anyone from their service, but it can't be a single salty employee doing it.

[MoonSpot]

1 hour ago, TheCherryKing said:

They're not taking a stand on anything except supporting censorship. They know that they were losing the information war so they resulted in censorship. 

You're assuming that the former employee is part of some conspiracy, or elaborate censorship effort by the "evil-doers".  I find it a bit more likely that this person was just sick of what they see as crap and hit the red button.

[Sauron]

12 minutes ago, TheCherryKing said:

They're not taking a stand on anything except supporting censorship. They know that they were losing the information war so they resulted in censorship. 

Honestly I think every word Trump says weakens his position and hurts his credibility... there is already talk of empeachment, which goes to show how stable his position is in the current government - even if nothing comes of it he'll have a hard time getting anything done in the next 3 years. I think letting him go wild is the best chance the opposition is going to get to see him shoot himself in the foot. All the insults and aggression towards him have only managed to make him more popular and damage the opposition's image... I say just let him make a fool of himself in silence.

[TheCherryKing]

2 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Honestly I think every word Trump says weakens his position and hurts his credibility... there is already talk of empeachment, which goes to show how stable his position is in the current government - even if nothing comes of it he'll have a hard time getting anything done in the next 3 years. I think letting him go wild is the best chance the opposition is going to get to see him shoot himself in the foot. All the insults and aggression towards him has only managed to make him more popular and damage the opposition's image... I say just let him make a fool of himself in silence.

He won't get much done in the next three years. People have voted for promise but I haven't seen many results. 

[MoonSpot]

12 minutes ago, Sauron said:

What sort of "stand" is it? Were Trump's tweets truly so offensive and damaging to this guy that he needed to "take a stand"? Violent or not this is still abuse of his position at Twitter. Of course, Twitter as a company have a right to kick anyone from their service, but it can't be a single salty employee doing it.

I agree, but we can't deny they "took action" and did something instead of just bitching and moaning about whatever.  Though in those whole 11mins I find it quite unlikely that Trump was actually going to use the service during that laps to express his inner most thoughts and/or reveal pearls of wisdom to the masses.

I view the whole affair as little more than the little guy getting his jab in.  Too bad for something that is otherwise a non-story, its going to become some huge talking point and spun into some something far larger than the bag of poo on the porch it was meant to be.  Or so it seems to me.

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, TheCherryKing said:

He won't get much done in the next three years. People have voted for promise but I haven't seen many results. 

Given what some of those promises are, in my opinion it's better that way. Better yet, breaking his promises would lower the chances of a second term, so from my point of view it's a win/win.

[Sauron]

Just now, MoonSpot said:

I agree, but we can't deny they "took action" and did something instead of just bitching and moaning about whatever.  Though in those whole 11mins I find it quite likely that Trump was actually going to use the service during that laps to express his inner most thoughts and/or reveal pearls of wisdom to the masses.

I view the whole affair as little more than the little guy getting his jab in.  Too bad for something that is otherwise a non-story, its going to become some huge talking point and spun into some something far larger than the bag of poo on the porch it was meant to be.  Or so it seems to me.

Voting is the only action one should take. Imagine if every side went and blocked the other side's candidate at every chance... it's out of the people's hands now, either trust the government to do their job somewhat competently or hope they empeach him and run early elections.

[TheCherryKing]

1 minute ago, Sauron said:

Given what some of those promises are, in my opinion it's better that way. Better yet, breaking his promises would lower the chances of a second term, so from my point of view it's a win/win.

Nobody cares what you think! Even is Trump doesn't get much done he will win a second term. That is assuming the DNC continues to use nominate weak candidates. 

[Sauron]

2 minutes ago, TheCherryKing said:

Nobody cares what you think! Even is Trump doesn't get much done he will win a second term. That is assuming the DNC continues to use nominate weak candidates. 

Well, nobody should care what I think about this since I don't live in the US anyway  but I've seen some politics in my lifetime and from what I can see right now I wouldn't rate Trump's reelection as likely, unless something changes drastically. Sure, running with Clinton again would be the worst mistake possible, but I doubt they'll make it this time.

[MoonSpot]

4 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Voting is the only action one should take.

Don't tell me.  Tell that to the lobbyists.

[Taf the Ghost]

While trying to avoid this being political... that's not really doable, but I'll try to stay on point.

 

Firstly, I don't believe it was an employees last day. It might have been after this stunt, but unless Twitter's systems are as stupidly open inside their network, no random employee should have had that ability. This was either a much higher level employee, some internal attack or Twitter really is that incompetent. (I wouldn't put it beyond Twitter to be that stupid.)

 

The important detail was the action was against "realDonaldTrump" and not also the "POTUS" account. That's not a minor detail. The main twitter account is a private citizen's, even if he is President. "POTUS" account would be under the control of the Federal Government and interference with their activities can easily run into federal crimes. So someone at least avoided a very long session with the FBI.

 

But it's also prelude to what happens the next go around. Silicon Valley was going to profit massively from a Hillary Presidency; the Trump Administration may file Anti-Trust suits against Google, Apple or Facebook. Twitter's congressional testimony showed they've been actively censoring the pro-Trump side (which if you have to use the platform, you'd already know). It's definitely a media war and it's only going to get uglier.

[strat guy]

6 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

The important detail was the action was against "realDonaldTrump" and not also the "POTUS" account. That's not a minor detail. The main twitter account is a private citizen's, even if he is President. "POTUS" account would be under the control of the Federal Government and interference with their activities can easily run into federal crimes. So someone at least avoided a very long session with the FBI.

Wrong.

 

The whole world knows that the POTUS prefers to use his realdonald.. handle on the twitterz.

 

This is no less of an attack on the President than it would have been had the "POTUS" account been hacked/suspended instead.

 

The 'last day employee' story also stinks to high heaven, very likely some higher ups in the company did this. This needs to be investigated and the guilty parties tried in a court and convicted just the same as they would be if they'd hacked the oval office phone and disconnected it or something.

 

 

[Taf the Ghost]

1 minute ago, strat guy said:

Wrong.

 

The whole world knows that the POTUS prefers to use his realdonald.. handle on the twitterz.

 

This is no less of an attack on the President than it would have been had the "POTUS" account been hacked/suspended instead.

 

The 'last day employee' story also stinks to high heaven, very likely some higher ups in the company did this. This needs to be investigated and the guilty parties tried in a court and convicted just the same as they would be if they'd hacked the oval office phone and disconnected it or something.

 

"realDonaldTrump" is where most of the information Trump will give out, but it's still "his" account. POTUS is controlled by the Federal government. That's the one covered under the Records Act and is treated as such.  These aren't minor details. One is a company doing something stupid; the other is potentially a federal crime if you piss off the local FBI agents.

 

It's definitely an attack and Twitter's story, while possibly true, is pretty close to "the dog ate my homework". While at the same time Twitter is so shoddy in how it does everything, it's more than possible that a low-level employee could do that much damage. Damage which has very real legal implications, as Trump is a candidate for President in 2020. (Not joking, he filed the day of the Inauguration.) There's a whole host of FEC communication regulations that Twitter has to abide by, which is the excuse of 'employee's last day' is simply a story they're selling. It might not be far from the truth, but what part of Twitter suggests taking anything they say at face value?

[Haaselh0ff]

Sense this is going to get taken down by the mods, I'd like to point out that just because you disagree with someone, doesn't mean you should "rejoice" at the fact that they get silenced because you don't like what they're saying. Sets a bad precedent.

[strat guy]

8 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

"realDonaldTrump" is where most of the information Trump will give out, but it's still "his" account. POTUS is controlled by the Federal government. That's the one covered under the Records Act and is treated as such.  These aren't minor details. One is a company doing something stupid; the other is potentially a federal crime if you piss off the local FBI agents.

 

It's definitely an attack and Twitter's story, while possibly true, is pretty close to "the dog ate my homework". While at the same time Twitter is so shoddy in how it does everything, it's more than possible that a low-level employee could do that much damage. Damage which has very real legal implications, as Trump is a candidate for President in 2020. (Not joking, he filed the day of the Inauguration.) There's a whole host of FEC communication regulations that Twitter has to abide by, which is the excuse of 'employee's last day' is simply a story they're selling. It might not be far from the truth, but what part of Twitter suggests taking anything they say at face value?

Ok, not sure about this "Records Act" but when when you say:

 

it's still "his" account

The "he" in question is still the President of the USA. That account should be covered/archived/protected/surveilled/whatever etc by this statute too, it makes no sense if they treat the official POTUS twitter and realDonald.. differently.

 

Btw, I understand how this presidency is unique in how polarizing it is for people, spl for US citizens and that they have free speech and private companies can do as they wish etc etc, not making a case against any of that but this is more insider trading (or worse) than it is 'dog ate homework'

 

Imagine the tables flipped and someone or some company were to do this to someone like an Obama or something, we wouldn't hear the last of it. It just sets a very bad and dangerous precedent if they let this slip

 

[Eduard the weeb]

3 hours ago, TheCherryKing said:

Would you like them to delete the account of whoever you support?

I hated everyone in the US election in 2016 they we're all cringy with things like " Pokemon go to the polls." personally his polices are fine him attack people on twitter isn't cool. 

[Tech_Dreamer]

Could've shutdown an active terrorist account , pedo , actual racist groups , drug criminals etc, But Nein...." Must go to where there's more applause for me for doing a heroic thing & my legacy is secured before i'm fired "

 

[Egg-Roll]

3 hours ago, huilun02 said:

Should have just zeroed the entire server database

Now that would be fun

That would of been likely impossible too, not to mention destruction of private property (twitters)

 

10 minutes ago, Tech_Dreamer said:

Could've shutdown an active terrorist account

I'd personally wouldn't take down a terrorist group's account, simply fearing what kind of retaliation they could do to innocent people because of my actions. I wouldn't want that blood on my hands.

[Prysin]

you guys are so fucking naive and childish. This isnt funny, it is outright terrifying. The consequences of a rouge inside these companies with the ability to subvert or misrepresent a world leader is extremely dangerous.

Business Insider has a damn good article one this;

Quote

Just think, what if the rogue support staffer on his last day decided to do something different. What if, instead of taking Trump's account offline, the staffer decided to fire off a tweet on Trump's account? Perhaps the staffer might have had Trump say something idiotic or embarrassing. Perhaps the staffer might have had Trump bash a company's stock, in hopes of trading ahead of it and make a quick buck.

Or perhaps the departing Twitter employee might have composed a tweet declaring that missiles had been fired at an enemy regime like North Korea.

 

http://nordic.businessinsider.com/heres-whats-terrifying-about-the-twitter-employee-who-temporarily-disabled-trumps-account-2017-11?r=US&IR=T

 

We do not know for sure that these people cannot do this.

 

There is also a defense aspect. it takes 40 minutes for a ICBM with a nuke warhead to go from North Korea to the US.... Trump is followed by millions, his account is REALLY valuable in spreading a message in a emergency situation.

 

11 / 40... that is over 25% of the time you got to warn people....

 

 

[Prysin]

1 hour ago, Taf the Ghost said:

"realDonaldTrump" is where most of the information Trump will give out, but it's still "his" account. POTUS is controlled by the Federal government. That's the one covered under the Records Act and is treated as such.  These aren't minor details. One is a company doing something stupid; the other is potentially a federal crime if you piss off the local FBI agents.

 

It's definitely an attack and Twitter's story, while possibly true, is pretty close to "the dog ate my homework". While at the same time Twitter is so shoddy in how it does everything, it's more than possible that a low-level employee could do that much damage. Damage which has very real legal implications, as Trump is a candidate for President in 2020. (Not joking, he filed the day of the Inauguration.) There's a whole host of FEC communication regulations that Twitter has to abide by, which is the excuse of 'employee's last day' is simply a story they're selling. It might not be far from the truth, but what part of Twitter suggests taking anything they say at face value?

i do not doubt twitters story...

Edward Snowden was also just a "hired contractor" that was relatively "low level". But he had access to everything, despite probably not actually having clearance for most of it.

 

Oh, and yes, New York Times has scooped it; it was a contractor according to inside sources (anonymous - yeah, i know).